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

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       JURISDICTION OF
                    ENTITY                              ORGANIZATION
<S>                                                    <C>
MANUFACTURERS' SERVICES WESTERN US OPERATIONS,           CALIFORNIA
INC.

MANUFACTURERS' SERVICES SALT LAKE CITY                    DELAWARE
OPERATIONS, INC.

MSL LOWELL OPERATIONS, INC.                               DELAWARE

MSL SPV SPAIN, INC.                                       DELAWARE

MANUFACTURERS' SERVICES CENTRAL US OPERATIONS,           MINNESOTA
INC.

MSL DE PUERTO RICO, INC.                                PUERTO RICO

MSL FRANCE OPERATIONS                                      FRANCE

MANUFACTURERS' SERVICES ATHLONE LIMITED                   IRELAND

MSL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (MALAYSIA) SDH BHD                MALAYSIA

MSL OVERSEAS FINANCE B.V.                               NETHERLANDS

MSL TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD.                         PRC

MANUFACTURERS' SERVICES SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.              SINGAPORE

GLOBAL MANUFACTURERS' SERVICES VALENCIA S.A.               SPAIN
</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50670

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jorge Ortiz-Juarez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:21-CR-928-1

______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jorge Ortiz-Juarez appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal 

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Ortiz-Juarez argues for the first 

time on appeal that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is 

unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwiseapplicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a) based on facts that 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 27, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50670 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2024
No. 23-50670

2

are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Although Ortiz-Juarez acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless 

seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review, and he has filed an 

unopposed motion for summary disposition.

This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 

U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. 

Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, Ortiz-Juarez is correct 

that his argument is foreclosed, and summary disposition is appropriate. See

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, Ortiz-Juarez’s motion is GRANTED, and the 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-50670 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2024
#### Parsel, Treasurer v. Merchants’ National Bank.

*Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court.*

lion. Liberty Bartlett, Circuit .Judge.

Gallagher & Newton, for appellant.

Garland & Nash, for appellee.

Gregg, J.

The decision of this court, in the case of Thomas Parsel *v.*Barnes & Bro., is conclusive in this case. No question is presented for adjudication herein but what has been determined in tliat suit.

The judgment of the Pulaski circuit court is'reversed, and this cause remanded, to be proceeded in according to law, and not inconsistent with this opinion.
263 La. 97

#### Charlene Mary SAIA v. Louis A. HEYD, Jr.

No. 52874.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 17, 1972.

In re: Charlene Mary Saia applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The petitioner has no *right*to bail pending review of a revocation of probation. Cf. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 899, subd. C.

BARHAM, J.,

concurs.

There is no *right*to bail here but upon a proper showing of abuse which is not made here, the Court can in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction stay execution with or without bail.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.1





January 15, 2021
Mr. Richard J. Lampen
Address on file with the Company
Re:   Appointment as Chief Operating Officer


Dear Dick:


On behalf of the Board of Directors of Vector Group Ltd. (together with its successors and assigns, the “Company”), I express deep appreciation for your many contributions to the Company and congratulate you on your appointment to the additional position of Chief Operating Officer.


In connection with your appointment, we are making the following modifications to your Employment Agreement, dated as of January 27, 2006 and amended as of February 22, 2012 (your “Employment Agreement”), by and between the Company and you.  


•Salary.  Effective January 1, 2021, Section 3(a) of your Employment Agreement is revised to adjust your “Base Salary” to $1,250,000 per annum.  


•Annual Incentive Compensation.  Effective beginning for the Company’s 2021 fiscal year, Section 3(b) of your Employment Agreement is revised to adjust your target bonus opportunity to 75% of Base Salary.


•Severance.  The second sentence of Section 6(a) of your Employment Agreement is revised to provide for a maximum cash bonus of 75% of Base Salary.


This letter constitutes an amendment to your Employment Agreement and forms a part of your Employment Agreement.  Except as amended by this letter, your Employment Agreement is confirmed and ratified in all respects.


We look forward to your continued leadership.
Sincerely,


Vector Group LTD.


By: /s/ Howard M. Lorber                   
Howard M. Lorber 
President and Chief Executive Officer


I agree with and accept the foregoing terms.
/s/ Richard J. Lampen                            
Richard J. Lampen
In the Matter of: 

Grande Aviation, LLC 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

RECEIVED 

NOV -6 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

Served: October 31, 2014 

Docket No. FAA2014-0545 

FAA Case No. 2013CE1900010 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

COME NOW the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, by his Counsel and 

Grande Aviation, LLC. by agreement of its counsel, to notifY the court the parties have settled all issues 

in controversy. The parties hereby withdraw the request for a hearing and the complaint filed in this 

matter. 

WHEREFORE, the parties pray the court will issue an order dismissing this case with prejudice 

and for any other relief the court deems appropriate under the circumstances. 

Respectfully submitted, 

A. Lester Haizlip 

Regional Counsel 

By: / 

"'"- ( / / '---==-- /_.i' \ ·~l· '( .. , i ....... \ a~'"'· •.l.u Vi-£ t 1· 1 

Gayle E. Townsend / 

Attorney, ACE-7 / 

F.§deral Aviation Administration 

901 Locust, Suite 506 

Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 

(816) 329-3766; Fax (816) 329-3771 

Attorneys for FAA Administrator 
In RE: Grande Aviation, LLC, Docket No. FAA-2014-0545: EIR 2013CE190010 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the original and copies of the foregoing Notice of Settlement were 

served this 31st day of October 31,2014 on the following: 

Copy by Facsimile and U.S. Mail, First Class Postage Prepaid: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room E12-230 

Washington, DC 20590 

(202) 366-5121 Telephone 

(202) 366-7536 Facsimile 

Copies by Facsimile and U.S. Mail, First Class Postage Pre-Paid: 

KentS. Jackson Esq. 

21628 Midland Drive 

Shawnee, KS 66218 

(913) 338-1700 Telephone 

(913) 338-1755 Facsimile 

Attorney for Respondent 

Original by U.S. Mail, First Class Postage Pre-Paid: 

Date: October 31,2014 

Hearing Docket 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2W1000, AGC-430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

/ 

/. ;· /y'<,," ,c;;··· ,·' 

. ~lt_::.;.:;:,{f?{ Z VLfJL{; 

Gayle E. Townsend, Esq. 

Attorney for the .Agency
# C_2020247EN.01002301.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/23

---

Action brought on 11 May 2020 — Crevier v EUIPO (Air deodorizing apparatus)

(Case T-276/20)

(2020/C 247/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jeffrey Scott Crevier (Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States) (represented by: M. Kime, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Design: Application for registration No 5 652 872

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 in Case R 2396/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision;

| — | set aside the decision of the Examiner appealed against in respect of rejection of the application for restitutio in integrum as a whole; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of the Examiner appealed against in respect of rejection of the application for restitutio in integrum as a whole;

| — | grant of restitutio in integrum, alternatively, refer the matter back to EUIPO with appropriate directions to EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant of restitutio in integrum, alternatively, refer the matter back to EUIPO with appropriate directions to EUIPO;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of title VIII, ie Articles 62-78, of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of title VIII, ie Articles 62-78, of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of chapters VII–XIX, Articles 38-84 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of chapters VII–XIX, Articles 38-84 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002;

| — | Infringement of the EU Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the EU Treaty;

| — | Infringement of a rule of law. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of a rule of law.

---
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. William H. MURTHA et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF DELRAY BEACH et al., Appellees.

No. 71-746.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 12, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James R. Knott, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
1



### Panel Members for the Meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP)

to Consider and R eview Scientific Issues A ssociated with Insect Resistance Management for SmartStaxTM Refuge
- in
- the
- Bag, a Plant
- Incorporated Protectant (PIP) Corn Seed Blend December 8
- 9, 2010

Docket number: EPA
- HQ
- OPP
- 2010
- 0772 OPP Docket Tel: 703
- 305
- 5805 FI FRA SAP Chair Steven G. Heeringa, Ph.D. Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design University

of Michigan Institute for Social Research Ann Arbor, Michigan Designated Federal Official Sharlene R. Matten, Ph.D. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science Coordination & Policy FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel EPA East Building, MC 7201M 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Tel: 202

- 564

- 0130 , Fax: 202

- 564

- 8382, matten.sharlene@epa.gov FI FRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members Janice E. Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, ATS William L . Giles Distinguished Professor Director, Center for Environmental Health Sciences College of Veterinary

Medicine Mississippi State University Mississippi State, Mississippi Kenneth M. Portier, Ph.D. Program Director, Statistics American Cancer Society National Home Office Atlanta, Georgia2

Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D. Professor of Aquatic Ecotoxicology & Environmental Toxicology Department of Environmental Sciences University

of California, Riverside Riverside, California FQ PA Science Review Board Members David A. Andow, Ph.D. Distinguished McKnight University Professor , Insect Ecology Department of Entomology University

of Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota Fred L. Gould, Ph.D

. William Neal Rey

nolds Professor of Agriculture Department of Entomology & Adjunct Professor Department of Genetics North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina Anthony R. Ives, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Zoology University

of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin Jeremy A. Kroemer, Ph.D. Research Entomologist USDA

- ARS, CI CGRU Genetics Laboratory

c/o Insectary Io wa State University Ames, Iowa Steven L. Peck , Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Integrative Biology Brigham Young University Provo, Utah Susan T. Ratcliffe, Ph.D. Director, USDA North Central Region Integrated Pest Management Center Department of Crop Sciences University

of Illinois at Urbana

- Champaign Urbana, Il linois3

Richard T. Roush, Ph.D. Professor & Dean Melbourne School of Land & Environment University

of Melbourn e Victoria, Australia Mark Sears, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Department of Entomology University

of Guelph Guelph, Ontario Jon J. Tollefson, Ph.D . Professor, Department of Entomology Io wa State University Ames, Iowa John K. Westbrook, Ph.D. Research Meteorologist Areawide Pest Management Research Unit USDA, ARS, SPARC College Station, Texas
<PAGE>

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

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 filing of the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Goodrich Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter
ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the
Company certifies, that, to such officer's 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 as of the dates and for the periods
                  expressed in the Report.



Date: November 12, 2003



                                       /s/ Marshall O. Larsen
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Name: Marshall O. Larsen
                                       Title: Chairman, President and Chief
                                              Executive Officer



                                       /s/ Ulrich Schmidt
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Name: Ulrich Schmidt
                                       Title: Executive Vice President and
                                              Chief 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 THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO GOODRICH CORPORATION AND WILL BE
RETAINED BY GOODRICH CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
1

2

3

4

5

Step 1 Obtain a detailed description 

of the child:

• Name, age, gender, and race

• Weight, height, hair and eye color

• Describe what the child is wearing, 

specifically the color and type of 

clothing including shoe color and style.

Step 2 Report information about the missing child to the

Federal Protective Service or security guards on duty. If no

security guard, contact on-site facility manager or delegated

official. They will activate the “Code Adam” alert to all building tenants. Also, place a courtesy call to local police (911)

to report missing child.

Step 3 Security officials will conduct a search of the building. Tenants might be asked to assist with the search.

Please cooperate with security.

Step 4 If the child is found with someone other than

Parent or Guardian, use reasonable efforts to delay the

departure of the person accompanying the child, but do not

put yourself or others at risk. If possible, notify security officials and describe the identity of the person accompanying

the child.

Step 5 When a child is found, bring child to security officials or on-site facility manager. They will reunite child with

Parent or Guardian. Security personnel will cancel “Code

Adam” alert. If child is not found, security officials or on-site

facility manager will contact local police again reporting any

additional information.

To help protect children in federal facilities, the U.S.General

Services Administration with the Federal Protective Service,

has adopted the “Code Adam” Program. These are the steps to

follow when an alert is announced that a child is missing.
EX-10(A) Amend to 1997 Long Term Incentive Plan




Exhibit 10(a)


AMENDMENT DATED MAY 11, 2001 TO THE

1997 TRW LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


      TRW Inc., by action of the Compensation Committee of its Board of
Directors, hereby adopts this Amendment dated May 11, 2001 to the 1997 TRW
Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).


I.


      Effective as of the close of business on May 11, 2001, Section 2(e) of the
Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:



		
	 	(e) Fair Market Value. For any particular date,
the average of the high and low sales prices of a
Share on such date on the New York Stock Exchange
Composite Transactions Listing as reported by the
New York Stock Exchange or such other source as may
be approved by resolution of the Committee (or if
there are no sales on such date, then the closing
sale price on such Listing on the nearest date
before such date).
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Eugene F. EARIN.

No. 53870.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: Eugene F. Earin applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. This is a successive application upon the same grounds.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Chang-On International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guomin Li, Chief Executive Officer and 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:

1
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  November 16, 2009








By:       /s/ Guomin Li


Guomin Li


Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
#### JOSEPH LLOYD *vs.*JOSHUA T. SEAL.

When arbitrators are good witnesses, and to what extent, in proceedings or investigations upon their awards.

This was an action on an award. Plea, non-assumpsit.

*251One of the referees was called as a witness to support the award, and objected to.

*Patterson,*for plaintiff.

*Bayard,*for defendant.

*Mr.*Bayard.

It is well settled in this State, that an arbitrator cannot be examined to prove his own authority, or to support his own award. It would be exceedingly dangerous.

For many purposes a referee may be examined, but not to sustain his own authority, or to support the award. No more can a juror be called to support or to impeach his verdict; nor a judge his decision.

*Mr.*Patterson.

In the case of *Pierson*vs. *Shaw,*at this term, the court allowed the arbitrators to prove what was before them.

It is the policy of the law to open the means of full investigation, so as to do justice. The arbitrators may be important witnesses, apart from their character as referees, and their evidence might thus be excluded. These referees were the material witnesses in the case, as well as the referees.

But arbitrators have frequently been examined in our practice. (4 *Harr. Rep.,*234; *Billing’s Law of Awards,*219.)

*The Court*

confined the argument to the questions, whether the arbitrator could be examined to prove his own authority, that is, the submission to him; or in support or opposition to his award.

In the case put of an arbitrator having knowledge of the facts as a witness, his becoming a referee would not prevent his being a witness. So in an action not on the award, a referee might prove admissions of the parties, as any other person, who heard the admissions might prove them. *(Slack*vs. *Buchannan, Peack’s N. P.)*So where the submission was made a rule of court, arbitrators have been allowed to prove what was before them; but this was on an objection to the confirmation of the award by the court. (4 *Harr. Rep.,*234.)

But as to awards not made under rule of court; and where an action is brought upon that award, the referees are, upon grounds of public policy, imcompetent witnesses to prove the submission to them, or to sustain, or destroy their award.

The plaintiff was nonsuited.
Exhibit 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 The undersigned, Thomas C. Shields, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of ANADIGICS, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated: March 9, 2011
 By:
/s/ Thomas C. ShieldsThomas C. ShieldsExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 
 This certification shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated by reference.
 
 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 ANADIGICS, Inc. and will be retained by ANADIGICS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.