alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21

                               XANSER CORPORATION
                                 SUBSIDIARY LIST


XANSER CORPORATION
Corporate Insurers Ltd
Xtria LLC
Double Eagle Cabling and Communications LLC
National Asset Information Services, Inc.
CPIA, Inc.
Viata Corporation
Kaneb Financial Corporation
Furmanite Equipment Leasing Company LLC
Furmanite Worldwide, Inc.
Furmanite America Inc.
Furmanite Offshore Services, Inc.
Furmanite Malaysia LLC
Specialty Industrial Services Sdn. Bhd.
Furmanite (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
Furmanite Australia Pty Ltd
Furmanite NZ Limited
Furmanite Holding AS
Furmanite AS (Norway)
CMS:  Corrision Monitoring Services AS
Furmanite SA
Furmanite NV
Metalock NV (Belgium)
Furmeta Holding BV
Metaholding BV
Metalock BV
Furmanite BV
Furmanite East Asia Limited (Hong Kong)
Furmanite Singapore PTE Limited
Furmanite Limited
Furmanite 1986 Limited
Furmanite International Limited
Furmanite Germany, Inc.
Management Services Furmanite Holding GmbH
Furmanite Technische Dienstleisfungen GmbH
Furmanite Industrie Service GmbH
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 37 (Monday, February 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3181]

[[Page 8363]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of International Regimes and Agreements; Proposed 
Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed subsequent arrangement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The 
Department is providing notice of a proposed ``subsequent arrangement'' 
under the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear 
Energy between the United States and the European Atomic Energy 
Community (Euratom) and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful 
Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and Canada.
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 51,775.1 kg 
of Natural UF6 (67.6% U), containing 35,000 kg of Uranium. This 
material will be retransferred from Cameco Corporation, Canada, to 
Urenco Ltd., Netherlands for enrichment and return to the United States 
for use as fuel in nuclear power reactors by STP Nuclear Operating 
Company, Texas. Urenco Ltd. is authorized to receive nuclear material 
pursuant to the U.S.-Euratom Agreement for Cooperation.
    In accordance with section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not 
be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: February 20, 2007.

    For the Department of Energy.
Anatoli Welihozkiy,
Acting Director, Office of International Regimes and Agreements.
[FR Doc. E7-3181 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
bicx_ex101.htm

  EXHIBIT 10.1
 
    	 
	1

	

	 


 
 
 

 
 
	 
	2


	

	 


  
 
 
 

 
	 
	3

	

	 


 
    	 
	4

	

	 


 
   	 
	5

	

	 


  
 
 
	 6
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

July Term 2014

BOBBY AKIEN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 13

- 4469

[ August 13, 2014 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Sandra K. McSorley

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502006CF012797A

.

Bobby Aiken, Malone, Pro Se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Fisher,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P E R C URIAM

Affirmed. See Schwenn v. State , 898 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

T AYLOR

, G ERBER and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Sherwood Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher J. Willi, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, asadopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated: June 13, 2003

 

 
|   | /s/  Christopher J. Willi             |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Christopher J. Willi                  |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |   |

 

----
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Greg Pelling, certify that:

1.         
 I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CounterPath
Corporation

2.          
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.          
The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a)          
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)          
evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)           disclosed
in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent
fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial
reporting; and

5.           The
small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business
issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)           all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b)           any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: March 14, 2008.



/s/ Greg
Pelling
Greg Pelling Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal
Executive Officer)

---
Evidence Table J1. Articles/arms for class ANTI-BACTERIAL (ORAL)/RETINOID (TOPICAL)

CompTrial Treatment Dose, route, frequency Comments, ancillary treatment

TARGET COMPARATOR Outcome

Table(s)

HEADING

Treatment Dose, route, frequency Comments, ancillary treatment

Cotrimoxazole every other 

week. 

J.01.01 126 Cotrimoxazole 2 tablets topical qd. Discrete

Tretinoin 0.05 % topical qd. 

Cotrimoxazole 2 tablets oral bid. 

Placebo No dose information. 

Bid for week 1; qd for 7 

weeks remaining. 

J.01.02 57 Oxytetracycline 250 mg oral qd. Discrete

Vitamin A 0.05 % topical qd. 

Oxytetracycline 250 mg oral qd. 

Vehicle No dose information. 

J.01.03 323 Tetracycline 250 mg oral bid. Continuous

Emollient No dose information. 

Tretinoin 0.05 % topical qhs. 

Polyethylene No dose information. 

scrub

Sulphur/salicyli No dose information. 

c acid

Tetracycline 250 mg oral bid. 

"(M)" indicates that data are found on the Multi-Arm tables. Evidence Table J HEADING: Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated November 1, 2016, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-213458) of Smart Trust 277,
comprising Smart Trust, Zacks GARP Composite 35 Trust, Series 11.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


November 1, 2016
No. 57710.

#### Calhawaii Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 147675-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the two classes of merchandise are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Calif-Asia Co., Ltd.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 133, C. A. D. 475). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited decision, the items marked “A” were held dutiable at 20 percent ad valorem under, paragraph 412, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 51802), and the items marked “B” were held dutiable at 12% percent under said paragraph, as modified by said T. D. 51802.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE RIDER, No. CIV S-04-1809-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

S. KERNAN,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 22, 2006, the court directed petitioner

to file an amended petitioner within 30 days. Petitioner was warned that failure to file an

amended petition may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to

comply with court rules and orders. To date, petitioner has not complied.

The court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of

dismissal. See Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v.

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's

interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3)

the risk of prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

Case 2:04-cv-01809-GEB -CMK Document 22 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an

appropriate sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. 

See Malone, 833 F.2d at 132-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is

appropriate where there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

1423 (9th Cir. 1986). Dismissal has also been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to

comply with an order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

Having considered these factors, and in light of petitioner’s failure to file an

amended petition as directed, the court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and

orders. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 22, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01809-GEB -CMK Document 22 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DENISE FRANCIS,

NO. CIV. S 04-1640 MCE JFM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

DEFENSE COMMISARY AGENCY aka

(DeCA0 AND DOES 1-30, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Attorney David Ndudim, who is counsel for Plaintiff Denise

Francis in this litigation, has unilaterally filed a document

entitled “Withdrawal of Attorney of Record” that purports to

effectuate a substitution of attorney which leaves his client

representing herself, in propria persona, in this litigation. 

The Court has reviewed this document and finds it wholly

inadequate to effectuate Mr. Ndudim’s withdrawal as counsel of

record.

The withdrawal sought by Mr. Ndudim is governed by the

requirements of Local Rule 83-182(d), which provides that an

Case 2:04-cv-01640-MCE -JFM Document 8 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

attorney may not withdraw, leaving the client in propria persona,

absent noticed motion and an affidavit from counsel showing the

efforts made to provide notification of the attorney’s intent to

withdraw. The instant request utterly fails to satisfy the

prerequisites for withdrawal as mandated by Rule 83-182(d). 

First, Mr. Ndudim has not filed a noticed motion as required by

said rule. Second, he has not served the document in question on

his client in any event. Third, he has not indicated the basis

for his request under the Rules of Professional Conduct of the

State Bar of California. Finally, counsel has failed to provide

the required affidavit detailing his efforts to notify his client

of his request to withdraw.

For all these reasons, Attorney Ndudim’s request to withdraw

is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: MAY 9, 2005

____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01640-MCE -JFM Document 8 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 2
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00477-CR

ROY GUZMAN JR. AKA ROY JUNIOR GUZMAN

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 

454th Judicial District Court of Medina County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 17-08-12519-CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 22, 2023
## SERVED JULY 1,2010 

# u.s. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
INTHE MATTER OF EMPIRE AIRWAYS, Respondent FAA DOCKET NO. CP1 OEA0002 (Civil Penalty Proceeding) DMS NO. FAA-20I0-0191
ADMINISTRATIVE LAWJUDGE'S ORDER ON NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT Counsel for the FAA has sent me a second notice that it is withdrawing its complaint. In an order served on June 23, 2010, I granted his first motion to withdraw the complaint and, pursuant to 

### §13.215 ofthe Rules ofPractice, I dismissed this proceeding. Once is enough. I cannot now act on the latest notice because there is no longer a pending proceeding in this docket

- at least not one that is assigned to me. So I am herewith dismissing the notice ofwithdrawal ofthe complaint without action. ITIS SO ORDERED.

Administrative LawJudge ", i.FAA Docket No. CPI0EA0002 (Civil Penalty Action)
SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COpy Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 

### ONE COpy Charles J. Casolaro, Respondent's Counsel Casolaro Sussman, LLP 1050 Franklin Avenue, Suite 402 Garden City, NY 11530 TEL: 516-248-1399 FAX:**516~248-2257** Zachary M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel Federal AviationAdministration 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3258 FAX: 718-995-5699 The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin,AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 Washington, DC 20590 TEL: Attorney 202-366-0437 Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536

I Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Glenn T. Mason,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1123 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

M. Sandham, et al., 

Defendants.

-oOoJuly 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for production of

documents. Interrogatories, requests for production, requests

for admission, responses and proofs of service thereof “shall not

be filed with the clerk until there is a proceeding in which the

document or proof of service is at issue. When required in a

proceeding, only that part of the request and response that is in 

issue shall be filed.” Local Rules 33-250(c), 34-250(c) & 36-

250( c). Plaintiff must serve his discovery on defendants. 

July 14, 2005, plaintiff requested appointment of counsel. 

Case 2:04-cv-01123-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

His request is denied for reasons explained in the court’s March

17, 2005, order denying counsel.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s July 7, 2005, request for production of

documents is stricken and the clerk of the court shall make a

notation thereon to that effect.

2. Plaintiff’s July 14, 2005, request for counsel is

denied.

Dated: July 19, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01123-FCD-EFB Document 34 Filed 07/20/05 Page 2 of 2
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.2   PATIENT PORTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


     Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



I, Thomas Hagan, Acting Chief Financial Officer of Patient Portal Technologies,
Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a
review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A 1 for the period ended June 30,
2008 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a)[15(d)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Registrant.


Dated:  November 10, 2008            /s/ THOMAS HAGAN
                                     -----------------------
                                     Thomas Hagan
                                     Chief Financial Officer







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 3, 2018

d1220

Order 

Clerk

January 3, 2018

154716

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154716

COA: 333566

Wayne CC: 11-005203-FC

KEVIN LAMAR HILL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of September 12, 2017, the defendant’s former appellate counsel was 

directed to file a supplemental brief. On order of the Court, the brief having been 

received, the application for leave to appeal the September 9, 2016 order of the Court of 

Appeals is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave 

to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court to reappoint attorney 

Arthur J. Rubiner, if feasible, to represent the defendant as on direct appellate review. If 

this appointment is not feasible, the trial court shall appoint other counsel to represent the 

defendant. See Halbert v Michigan, 545 US 605; 125 S Ct 2582; 162 L Ed 2d 552 

(2005). The record reflects that defendant’s former appellate counsel did not contact the 

defendant in a timely manner, did not adequately review the record and determine that 

nothing might arguably support an appeal, and did not move for substitution of counsel 

until the deadline for filing a direct appeal was imminent. Thus, through no fault of the 

defendant, he lost the right to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals on direct 

review. On remand, appellate counsel, once appointed, may file an application for leave 

to appeal in the Court of Appeals for consideration under the standard for direct appeals, 

and/or any appropriate postconviction motions in the circuit court, within six months of 

the date of the circuit court’s order appointing or reappointing counsel. Counsel may 

include among the issues raised, but is not required to include, the issues that were raised 

on behalf of the defendant in the motion for relief from judgment that was filed in 2016.

Costs are imposed against the attorney, Suzanna Kostovski, only, in the amount of 

$500, to be paid to the Clerk of this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.