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

                                  Subsidiaries

Subsidiary                                      Organization
----------                                      ------------

Miracle Mountain International, Inc.            Colorado
Chambre International, Inc.                     Texas
LifeScience Technologies Holdings, Inc.         Oklahoma
LifeScience Technologies of Canada, Inc.        Ontario, Canada
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 28271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12954]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: June 18, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
June 12, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 67 to 
Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2018-167, CP2018-239.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-12954 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Vincent J. PRATO, Appellant, v. Rose M. PRATO, Appellee.

No. 71-362.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 1, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Jack M. CRAFT, Appellant, v. Wendy CRAFT, Appellee.

No. 71-902.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 15, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 REGION 4

 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER

 61 FORSYTH STREET

 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960

February 27, 2014

Sheila Holman, Director

Division of Air Quality

North Carolina Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources

1641 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1641

Dear Ms. Holman:

Enclosed is the final end-of-year report for your agency’s FY 2013 Air Pollution Control grant 

authorized by §105 of the Clean Air Act. This report outlines your agency’s various grant commitments 

and their status. Since there were no issues, your report is now finalized. This letter documents the 

conclusion of the joint evaluation process required by 40 Code of Federal Regulations 35.115 and 

identified as a commitment in your FY 2013 Air Planning Agreement under Cross Cutting Issues.

We appreciate the progress you made in FY 2013 and look forward to continuing our joint efforts to 

protect and improve air quality. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (404) 562-

9141 or Shantel Shelmon at (404) 562-9817. 

Sincerely,

Gregg M. Worley

Chief

Air Toxics and Monitoring Branch

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division

Enclosure
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**ADOPTED
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





**Certification
      of CFO**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Frequency Electronics, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alan L.
      Miller, 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 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 results of operations of the
                Company.





/s/
                Alan Miller
            
            September
                15, 2008Alan
                L. MillerChief
                Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request **.**




This
      certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
      by
      such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such
      certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to
      the
      extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
      reference.
#### Mrs. Lucy BOUNDS, Appellant, v. Mrs. Pearl Sharp HARDY, Appellee.

No. 46644.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 17, 1972.

Barnett, Montgomery, McClintock & Cunningham, Jackson, for appellant.

Alford & Mars, Philadelphia, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrants form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 1997   
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               9-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            8
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  8
<PP&E>                                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    8
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         5,171
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                  4,076,623
<OTHER-SE>                              (2,184,373)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      8
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              4,040  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,040)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,040)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
                           

</TABLE>
#### SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Appellant, v. Robert DAVIS, a minor, by and through his father and next friend, Theron B. Davis, and Theron B. Davis, individually, Appellees.

No. 69-558.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 28, 1970.

*696Dixon, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell, and Malcolm W. Weldon, Miami, for appellant.

Weiner & Rubin, Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was the defendant in the trial court. This appeal is from a final judgment for the appellee which was entered upon a jury verdict. The action was upon an allegation of breach of warranty as to fitness of a .22 calibre rifle. The proof was that the rifle fired with the safety on some five months after purchase and that appellee was injured.

All of appellant’s arguments are based upon a contention that the trial judge should have directed a verdict for the appellant. Our review of the record convinces us that the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury. See Seabrook v. Taylor, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 315. The argument that the jury was permitted to pile an inference upon an inference is not applicable because there was direct testimony as to the existence of the defect. In addition, presuming the testimony of appellant’s expert witnesses was to the effect that the accident could not have happened in the way it was described, this testimony would not preclude the jury from finding as it did. See Millar v. Tropical Gables Corp., Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 589; Remington Arms Company, Inc. v. Wilkins, 387 F.2d 48 (5th Cir. 1967). Without deciding whether contributory negligence is a defense to a breach of warranty action, we find that the appellee was not shown to be guilty of contributory negligence so that recovery was barred as a matter of law. See, e. g., Saunders v. Kaplan, Fla. App.1958, 101 So.2d 181.

Affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1612

DANIEL BRADSHAW , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv
- 00969

- LO

- JFA )

Submitted : October 30, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Bruce K. Billman, Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Regional Chief Counsel, Stephen Giacchino, Supervisory Attorney, Jordana Cooper, Assistant Regional Coun sel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, R. Trent McCotter, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.2 PER CURIAM:
Daniel Bradshaw appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge , granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment , and upholding the Commissioner’s decision denying Bradshaw’s application fo r disability
insurance benefits . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bradshaw v. Berryhill , No. 1:16

- cv
- 00969

- LO

- JFA (E.D. Va. Mar. 9, 2017) . We dispense with or al argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### EMPLOYERS’ SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Gunter SCHWARZBART et al., Respondents.

No. 43366.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 12, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.
263 La. 373

#### George G. VILLERE and the Travelers Indemnity Company v. John MOOK et al.

No. 52945.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 16, 1972.

In re: John Mook, doing business as Mastercraft Tile Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 266 So.2d 468.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the judgment is correct.
United States of America 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Division of 

Advcn ising Practices 

Andrea C. Levine, Esq. 

Senior Vice President, Director 

National Advertising Division 

112 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor 

New York, NY 10016 

February 1, 2016 

Re: Advertising Claims for American Dream Nutrition, LLC's PhytoZon dietary 

supplement product 

Dear Ms. Levine: 

I am writing to follow up on your referral to the FTC of the above- mentioned matter. 

Your referral indicated that the advertiser, American Dream Nutrition, LLC made broad claims 

that PhytoZon was proven to help alleviate a range of serious ailments and health issues. Your 

referral also stated that the advertiser refused to participate in NAD's self-regulatory process. 

We contacted the principal for American Dream Nutrition, who has informed us that the 

company now intends to cooperate with NAD's inquiry. Our understanding is that a company 

representative will soon contact you to reengage in the NAD self-regulatory process. 

Accordingly, it appears that no additional FTC action is warranted at this time. The 

Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the public interest may require. The 

FTC fully supports the NAD's self-regulatory process, and we appreciate your referral and the 

opportunity to continue to assist in supporting the NAD. 

Very truly yours, 

~Lk~ 

Mary K. Erlgle ' 

Associate Director
#### Myron B. SUSMAN and Michael Rosenblatt, Appellants, v. Charles M. SCHUYLER et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1231.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 7, 1973.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 00-882.

#### McLeod et al. *v.*California.

App. Div., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Los Angeles. Certiorari denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133469 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133469 

 COA: 274816 

St. Clair CC: 05-000254-FH 

CARL DOUGLAS JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 6, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0618 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
#### John Tucker HASLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1098.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 12, 1973.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County.

Appeal dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert E. Grier, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 714]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered June 18, 1999, upon a verdict convicting defendant of two counts of the crime of sodomy in the second degree.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of sodomy in the second degree stemming from allegations that he twice engaged in deviate sexual intercourse with his paramour’s grandson (hereinafter the victim) when the boy was 13 years old. He was sentenced to two consecutive 1 to 7-year indeterminate prison terms and now appeals. At trial, the victim unequivocally testified that defendant had anal intercourse with him while the two were alone in defendant’s bedroom on two occasions during the summer of 1997.* Evidence was further adduced at trial that defendant gave oral and written statements to police admitting that he had anal sex with the victim on two occasions during the summer of 1997, albeit allegedly at the initiation of the victim and in the bathroom of his home.

Notwithstanding his statements to police, defendant took the stand at trial and denied the charges. He admitted that he signed the written statement but claimed initially that he was “unaware” of its contents. Later on in his testimony, defendant contrarily claimed that he was threatened by a particular police investigator “to make up a story and say that [he did] it twice,” thus confirming his knowledge of the contents of the statement. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People (see, *People v Thompson,*72 NY2d 410, 415), we are satisfied that there was legally sufficient proof at trial to support both convictions. Likewise, when viewed in a neutral light with due deference to the jury’s credibility resolutions, we find that the verdict is by no means against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). Equally unavailing is defendant’s remaining contention, namely, that the sentence imposed against him is harsh and excessive.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 Defendant cannot now be heard to complain that the prosecutor asked the victim mostly leading questions as defense counsel consented to this format of questioning to avoid any reference to multiple other acts of apparent sexual abuse perpetrated against the victim by defendant but not charged in the indictment *(see generally, People v Somerville,*249 AD2d 687, 690-691, *lv denied*92 NY2d 931; *People v Redcross,*246 AD2d 838, 839, *lv denied*92 NY2d 859; *People v McGuinness,*245 AD2d 701, 702).
APPENDIX 5C. MICROWAVE OVEN DISPLAY CONFIGURATIONS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

5C.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................5C-1 

5C.2 DISPLAY CONFIGURATIONS.............................................................................5C-1 

LIST OF FIGURE 

Figure 5C.2.1 Numeric Display................................................................................................5C-1 

Figure 5C.2.2 Alphanumeric Display .......................................................................................5C-1 

Figure 5C.2.3 Dot-Matrix Array Display .................................................................................5C-2 

5C-i 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
APPENDIX 5C. MICROWAVE OVEN DISPLAY CONFIGURATIONS 

5C.1 INTRODUCTION 

DOE reviewed various configurations of microwave oven displays in order to gain a 

better understanding of how the number of active elements, and hence display power 

consumption, can vary as a function of the digits or characters being displayed. Such an analysis 

helped DOE to determine the optimal method to measure a representative average standby 

power, given the possible variation in standby power during testing. 

5C.2 DISPLAY CONFIGURATIONS 

The simplest displays are the numeric variety, which can only show the time as a series 

of digits. A simplified representation can be found below in Figure 5C.2.1, which shows four 

individual digits. Each digit may have up to seven active elements (for the purpose of this 

discussion, an element is considered “active” whenever the consumer can view it in contrast to 

the background.) Thus, each digit has a changing number of active elements as the clock time 

advances or a cooking timer counts down. 

Digit Individual Element 

Figure 5C.2.1 Numeric Display 

More sophisticated displays can represent alphanumeric characters via additional 

elements. A simplified version of such a display appears below in Figure 5C.2.2. Such displays 

usually have more than four digits, allowing an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to scroll 

messages to a microwave oven user. 

Figure 5C.2.2 Alphanumeric Display 

5C-1
 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
The most flexible displays use dot matrix arrays. Such higher-resolution displays allow a 

microwave oven OEM to represent most Western fonts and some Asian fonts with acceptable 

clarity, allowing the most effective communication with a user. Changeable microwave oven 

controller daughter-cards allow an OEM to readily customize the microwave oven language to 

suit local markets. The array shown below in Figure 5C.2.3 is a simplified example. 

Figure 5C.2.3 Dot-Matrix Array Display 

5C-2
 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 8, 2018

No. 04-18-00646-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.R. JR., J.R.R. AND A.I.T.,

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-02660

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights which 

must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. TEX. R.

JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on November 5, 2018. Appellant filed a 

motion for extension of time requesting a twenty-day extension to file the brief. The motion, 

however, does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5) in that it does not 

contain a certificate of conference. In the interest of justice and given the time constraints 

governing the disposition of this appeal, the motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief must be 

filed no later than November 26, 2018. Appellant is advised that further requests for extensions 

of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of November, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### Ward Warren WILLCOX and Fannie Patricia Willcox, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 72-1000, 72-1001.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.13


                           HORIZON HEALTH CORPORATION

                            BONUS PLAN -- FISCAL 2002


James W. McAtee:        Shall earn a bonus for fiscal 2002 from zero (0%) to one
                        hundred (100%) of fiscal 2002 base salary pro-rata based
                        upon the company's audited net income results.


Ronald C. Drabik:       Shall earn a bonus for fiscal 2002 from zero (0%) to
                        forty (40%) of fiscal 2002 base salary pro-rata based
                        upon the company's audited net income results.


The following bonuses will be earned starting at 80% of target achievement with
pro-rata amounts due up to 100% of the target. The two contract management
operators may have up to 50% of their bonus upon the achievement of specific
contracts retained as set by the President and CEO of the Company.


Linda Laitner:          Up to fifty percent (50%) of average base salary for
                        fiscal year 2002 based upon the achievement of operating
                        cash flow targets consistent with fiscal 2002 budgets.


David Tingue:           Up to fifty percent (50%) of average base salary for
                        fiscal year 2002 based upon the achievement of operating
                        cash flow targets consistent with fiscal 2002 budgets.


Frank Baumann:          Up to sixty percent (60%) of average base salary for
                        fiscal year 2002 based upon achieving a combination of
                        operating cash flow targets and contract retention.


Dave White:             Up to sixty percent (60%) of average base salary for
                        fiscal year 2002 based upon achieving a combination of
                        operating cash flow targets and contract retention.