alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF SHILOH INDUSTRIES, INC.


                  The following is a list of the subsidiaries of Shiloh
Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"). The common stock
of all the corporations listed below is wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by
the Corporation. If indented, the corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of
the corporation under which it is listed unless otherwise noted.

NAME OF CORPORATION                                  STATE OF INCORPORATION
Shiloh Corporation                                   Ohio
The Sectional Die Company                            Ohio
Sectional Stamping, Inc.                             Ohio
Valley City Steel Company(1)                         Ohio
Medina Blanking, Inc.(2)                             Ohio
Liverpool Coil Processing, Incorporated              Ohio
Greenfield Die & Manufacturing Corporation           Ohio
C&H Design Company                                   Michigan
Jefferson Blanking, Inc.                             Georgia
Shiloh Automotive, Inc.                              Ohio
Shiloh de Mexico                                     Mexico

                  The Corporation also owns an 80% equity interest in Shiloh of
Michigan, L.L.C., a Michigan limited liability company. The Corporation owns a
19.75% equity interest in Bing Banking L.L.C., a Michigan limited liability
company.
--------

(1)      Valley City Steel Company is 49% owned by the Corporation and 51% owned
         by Shiloh Corporation.

(2)      Medina Blanking, Inc. is 22% owned by the Corporation, 22% owned by
         Shiloh Corporation and 56% owned by Valley City Steel Company.
U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

Of Transportation 

.:,·.~~-- .•. :_:"Th~~BqnorableRandyNeugeba~er. '·· 

· U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Neugebauer: 

JUL 6 2012 

.. , "'-~: . -~ . 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Thank you for your letter supporting the proposal submitted by the City of Abilene for a grant 

· underthe U.S. Department of Transportation's Small Community Air-Service Qevelopment 

Program. 

The Stnall Community Air Service Development Program was established to help smaller 

communities address air service deficiencies, particularly issues related to high airfares or 

insufficient service. Under the statute, the Department may make a maximum of 40 grant 

aw~;~Ids each year, although no more than 4 awards may be to communities in the same State. 

In order to provide communities with latitude in developing solutions to their air service 

deficiencies, the statute provides flexibility in the types of projects that can be funded. 

On May 15, the Department issued an order requesting that communities interested in receiving a 

grant this year file their applications by June 11. As these grant requests are pending before the 

Department, I cannot comment on the merits of any particular proposal. I assure you that the 

Department will give full and fair consideration to all proposals that have-been properly filed. 

As is our normal practice, I am placing a copy of your letter and this response in Docket 

DOT-OST-2012-0069 as a contact outside the record of this matter. I appreciate your interest in 

this program. 

Sincerely yours, 

Aloha Ley 

Associate Director 

Small Community Program 
(J 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER 

19m DISTRICT, TEXAS 

'~ .. «· I, :."~ ·,. 

RooM 1424 

lo::c.w:oRTH House OFFICE BUILOIIIG 

WA,SH•::GTO:I, DC 20515·4319 

Pt1o"e: (202) 225·4005 

FAx: (202) 225·9615 

www. randy .houso, gov 

randy@mail.house.gov 

C!ongres~ of tbe mtntteb ~tates 

;!Jfoutie of lt\epre£Sentnti\Je£S 

Ms. Aloha Ley 

Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE W86-310 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Ms. Ley: 

June 7, 2012 

. ~.. .. 

., 

I am pleased to recommend the City of Abilene for funding through the Departmei1t of 

Transpmtation Office of Aviation Analysis. 

With funding from .the Small Community Air Service Development Grant, the Abilene 

Regional Airpmt will be able to increase customer choices by adding non-stop service 

from Abilene to an additional airline. hub airport, increase route oppot1unities and 

capacity, reduce average fares paid by passengers using Abilene, and reduce leakage to 

other airpmts in the region. 

I support the Abilene Regional Airport request for funding and ask that all due 

consideration be given to this wise investment opporttmity. 

·_, Sincerely, 

Randy ~ Neugebauer 

RN/sl 

611 UwvEASITY Aver:uE 

SUITE 220 LUBBOCK, TX 79401 

(806) 763·1611 

' -- t!rio ScuRAY SrREET 

SUiTE B 

B:o SPA ::o, TX 79720 

(432) 264·0722 

500CHESfiiUT 

Sune 319 

As•w<E, lX 79602 

(325) 675·9779 

..
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2948 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2948

  To require the Secretary of Labor to issue guidance and regulations 
  regarding opioid overdose reversal medication and employee training.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 27 (legislative day, September 22), 2023

  Mr. Merkley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Labor to issue guidance and regulations 
  regarding opioid overdose reversal medication and employee training.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Workplace Overdose Reversal Kits to 
Save Lives Act'' or the ``WORK to Save Lives Act''.

SEC. 2. NON-MANDATORY GUIDANCE FOR EMPLOYERS CONCERNING OPIOID OVERDOSE 
              REVERSAL MEDICATION.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor, acting through the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, shall issue nonmandatory 
guidance to employers on--
            (1) acquiring and maintaining opioid overdose reversal 
        medication; and
            (2) training employees on an annual basis on the usage of 
        such medication.
    (b) Employer Defined.--In this section, the term ``employer'' has 
the meaning given such term in section 3 of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 652), except that such term does not 
include the United States Postal Service.

SEC. 3. MANDATORY REGULATIONS FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES CONCERNING OPIOID 
              OVERDOSE REVERSAL MEDICATION.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor, acting through the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, shall issue regulations 
to require each Federal agency to--
            (1) acquire and maintain opioid overdose reversal 
        medication; and
            (2) train employees on an annual basis on the usage of such 
        medication.
    (b) Federal Agency Defined.--In this section, the term ``Federal 
agency'' means any agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, 
including the Veterans Health Administration, notwithstanding section 
7425(b) of title 38, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Twinview, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John
S. Girvan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ John S. Girvan
__________________________________
John S. Girvan
Chief Financial Officer
August 8, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SHAWN BEASON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Civil Action No. 08-344 Erie

)

HSA K. SMITH, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER

Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on December

8, 2010 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for

report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [33], filed on July 30,

2010, recommends that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion

for Summary Judgment [28] be granted. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from

the date of service in which to file objections. Service was made on Plaintiff by certified

mail at his current address of record, and on the Defendants. No objections were filed. 

After de novo review of the complaint and documents in the case, together with the

Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 23 day of August, 2010; rd

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the

Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [28] be, and hereby is, GRANTED. 

JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of Defendant Piotrowski and against Plaintiff,

and Plaintiff’s claims as against all remaining Defendants are hereby DISMISSED due

to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter [33], dated

July 30, 2010, is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

 s/ SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cc: all parties of record 

United States Magistrate Judge Baxter

Case 1:08-cv-00344-SJM-SPB Document 34 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 1
Section 906 Certification - CEO



Exhibit 10.1 
 
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
 
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Matrix Service Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on form 10-Q for the period
ended August 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Bradley S. Vetal, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge: 
 

	  	 1.	  	 The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

	  	 2.	  	 The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


 
This certification is deemed to accompany this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, but is not deemed “filed” for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise. 
 


 
Bradley S. Vetal 
Chief Executive Officer 
October 10, 2002 
 

-19-
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52530-52531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26589]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project Nos. 1417 and 1835]


Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District Nebraska 
Public Power District; Notice of Informal Settlement Conference, 
October 2, 1997

    An informal settlement conference will be convened on Wednesday, 
November 5, 1997 at 8 a.m. at the Denver Federal Center, Third Floor 
Conference Room, located at 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, Colorado. The 
purpose of this off-the-record meeting is to explore the possible 
settlement of any contested issue. Any person appearing at the 
conference in a representative capacity must be authorized to negotiate 
and, to the extent authorized by law, settle matters addressed at the 
conference.

[[Page 52531]]

    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), is invited to send a 
representative to the conference. Any party wishing to make a 
presentation or needing additional information should contact Merrill 
F. Hathaway at (202) 208-0825, or John A. Schnagl at (202) 219-2661.
Lois D. Cashell
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26589 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Patsy A. McCARLEY, Appellant, v. Earl L. McCARLEY, Appellee.

No. 70-42.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 16, 1970.

I. W. Whitesell, Jr. of Wood, Scheb, Whitesell, Drymon & Warren, Sarasota, for appellant.

John J. Lyons, of Lyons & Beaudry, Sarasota, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

The trial judge’s findings are supported in every respect except that he failed to rule on appellant’s claim to insurance policies on the lives of the children. Counsel agree that each of these policies should belong to appellant as trustee for the child covered. We reverse and remand for entry of an appropriate order on this point; all else is affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1494

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Joseph Dodd, also known as * Shakespeare, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 3, 2008 Filed: December 8, 2008

___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Joseph Dodd appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm.
Dodd was convicted in May 2006, followi ng a jury trial, of conspiring to distribute cocaine base. This cour t affirmed the conviction. See United States v. Dodd , 473 F.3d 873, 875-76 (8th Cir. 2007). With his new-trial motion, Dodd-2- submitted a letter and affidavit from his brother, Anthony Dodd (Anthony), in which Anthony stated that he and Dodd look so much alike that people think they are twins, although they are not. Anthony further statedthat he was the one present during a controlled drug buy, rather than Dodd, and that witnesses were mistaken when they testified about events at the location of the controlled buy involving Dodd, as Anthony was the one involved and Dodd was not present.

The district court did not abuse its di scretion in denying Dodd’s motion. See United States v. Duke , 255 F.3d 656, 659 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review; requirements to justify new tr ial under Rule 33). First, th e district court gave valid reasons for finding the assertions in Anthony’s affidavit to be “highly suspect”: he was serving a life sentence with nothing to lose, and his asserti ons could help his brother. See United States v. Grey Bear , 116 F.3d 349, 350 (8th Cir. 1997) (it is district court’s job to decide whether newl y discovered evidence is credible). Second, the affidavit is essentially impeachment evidence, see United States v. Dogskin , 265 F.3d 682, 687 (8th Cir. 2001) (impeachment te stimony rarely justif ies new trial based on newly discovered evidence), and we agree with the district court that there was evidence of Dodd’s guilt even without the challenged testimony that would make the possibility of acquittal unlikely, see United States v. Womack , 191 F.3d 879, 886 (8th Cir. 1999). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not err in declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Baker , 479 F.3d 574, 579 (8th Cir. 2007) (necessity of hearing lessened wh ere trial judge had opportunity to observe demeanor and weigh credibility of witnesses at trial); Dogskin , 265 F.3d at 687 (absent exceptional circumstances, new trial motion based on new evidence may be decided on affidavits without hearing).
Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 11

- 00 060

- CV

IN RE BUSINESS STAFFING

, INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On January 25, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, and on January 26,

2011 filed a motion for temporary relief

. The court has considered relator’s petition and is of the

opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of

mandamus and the motion for temporary relief are DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 06

- 01

- 0869

- CVA , styled Christina Viesca, Individually and as

Administrator of the Estate of Hector Viesca, Deceased, et al. v. Belo Wiley d/b/a Wen

- Be Lease Co. Ltd. et al.

, pending in the 81st Judicial District Court

, Atascosa County, Texas, the Honorable Donna S. Rayes presiding.

However, the order complained of was signed by the Honorable Fred Shannon, visiting judge.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52988-52989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26915]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-4-009]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 1, 1997, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be effective 
November 1, 1997:

Third Revised Sheet No. 239
First Revised Sheet No. 239A
Third Revised Sheet No. 339

    Panhandle asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's Letter Order issued on June 18, 1997 in Docket No. 
RP97-4-007, which accepted the pro forma tariff sheets filed by 
Panhandle on May 1, 1997. That filing implemented the standards 
promulgated by the Gas Industry Standards Board, which were adopted by 
the Commission in Order No. 587-C in Docket No. RM96-1-004, Standards 
for Business Practices of

[[Page 52989]]

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines. The tariff sheets submitted reflect 
the pro forma tariff language accepted by the Commission and also 
incorporate by reference Standard 1.3.23 in compliance with the June 
18, 1997, order and Standard 4.3.6, which was proposed for inclusion in 
Panhandle's tariff subsequent to the submission of the pro forma tariff 
sheets and accepted by the Commission's letter order dated July 21, 
1997 in Docket No. RP97-4-008 effective August 1, 1997.
    Panhandle states that copies of this filing are being served on all 
affected customers, applicable state regulatory agencies and parties to 
this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26915 Filed 10-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 193 (Monday, October 6, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26435]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[A-1-FRL-5901-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Connecticut; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Nitrogen 
Oxides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision 
establishes and requires reasonably available control technology for 
major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides. In the Final Rules Section 
of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as 
a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views 
this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in 
the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response 
to that direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated in 
relation to this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the 
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received 
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed 
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this proposal. 
Any parties interested in commenting on this proposal should do so at 
this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, 
Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., Boston, MA 02203. 
Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by 
appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, 
MA and the Bureau of Air Management, Department of Environmental 
Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-
1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven A. Rapp at (617) 565-2773, or 
E-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0e2d1c0c09ee3c4d5c6d5f0f5e0f1fdf1f9fc9ef5e0f19ef7ffe69e">[email protected]</a>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct 
final rule located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: September 22, 1997.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 97-26435 Filed 10-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>