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


DEPOSIT GUARANTY CORP.
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The  following is a list of all  subsidiaries  of the Company as of December 31,
1997, and the  jurisdiction in which they were  organized.  Each subsidiary does
business under its own name.


NAME                                               JURISDICTION WHERE ORGANIZED

Deposit Guaranty National Bank                       United States of America
Deposit Guaranty Mortgage Company of
   Florida, Inc. (inactive)                          Florida
G & W Life Insurance Company                         Mississippi
Deposit Guaranty Louisiana Corp.                     Louisiana
CNC Acquisition Corp. (inactive)                     Louisiana
Deposit Guaranty Mortgage Company                    Mississippi
Maxiprop, Inc.                                       Mississippi
First Mortgage Corp.                                 Nebraska
Deposit Guaranty Investments, Inc.                   Mississippi
Deposit Guaranty Student Loans, Inc.                 Alabama
Deposit Guaranty Leasing Company                     Mississippi
Commercial National Investment Services, Inc.        Louisiana
McAfee Mortgage & Investment Company                 Texas
DG Nebraska Corp.                                    Nebraska
Deposit Guaranty Mortgage Services, Inc.             Mississippi
ParkSouth Corporation                                Mississippi
665 Florida Street Corp.                             Louisiana
Roberts & Eastland (A Louisiana Partnership)         Louisiana
Roberts, Eastland & Persac Insurance Agency, L.L.C.  Louisiana









                                                                85
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 Annual Report of QSGI INC (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc Sherman, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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 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.




Date: November 4, 2011

/s/Marc ShermanMarc Sherman

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


·
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to QSGI INC. and will be retained by QSGI INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.







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 Annual Report of QSGI INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Meynarez, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 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.




Date: November 4, 2011

/s/ DAVID MEYNAREZDavid Meynarez

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer


*           A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to QSGI INC. and will be retained by QSGI INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleases

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

## Employment & Occupations

The Newsroom site has been redesigned and relocated.  This is the archive area.

For the most current releases please visit the redesigned newsroom at:https://www.census.gov/newsroom.html

For previous press releases please contact the Public Information Office at 301-763-3030.

### 2012

                          - November 29:   Census Bureau Releases Equal Employment Opportunity Tabulation that Provides a Profile of America's Workforce 
                          - November 29:   Oficina del Censo divulga Tabulación de Igualdad de Oportunidades de Empleo, que proporciona un perfil de la fuerza laboral de los Estados Unidos
                          - November 20:   Media Advisory — Census Bureau Webinar to Discuss  Equal Employment Opportunity Tabulation that Provides a  Profile of America's Workforce
                          - October 11:   "The Employment Situation" Live on C-SPAN's "America by the Numbers"
                          - October  4:   Census Bureau Report Shows Steady Increase in Home-Based Workers Since 1999
                          - September 12:   Ingreso, pobreza y cobertura de seguro médico  en los Estados Unidos: 2011
                          - August 15:   Nonemployer Statistics: 2010 

### 2011

                          - December  5:   One-Third of Fathers with Working Wives Regularly Care for Their Children, Census Bureau Reports
                          - July 28:   Number of Nonemployer Firms Shrinks Again in 2009, Census Bureau Reports

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
#### City of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Frederick G. Bogart et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

December 1, 1953.

*Putney, Twombly, Hall <& Skidmore*for Seneca Coal *&*Iron Corporation, defendant.

*MacIntyre, Burke & Ryan*for Frederick Gr. Bogart, defendant.

*Denis M. Hurley, Corporation Counsel (Jacob Robinsolm*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Corcoran, J.

Motion for an examination before trial is granted except as to items five, eight, nine and twelve. The City of New York, as plaintiff, shall produce for examination *1106the named persons who were formerly employed by the Board of Transportation and are presently employed by the New York City Transit Authority. The transfer of transit facilities from the city to the authority will not defeat the defendants’ right to an examination. The named persons are “ former ” employees only in a highly technical sense. As for the retired employee, he may be examined as a witness because of the special circumstances in the case. The motion for a discovery and inspection is denied. The transcript of the testimony was for use in an investigation and may not be examined (New York City Charter, §§ 893, 894; *see Matter of Cherkis*v. *Impellitteri,*282 App. Div. 467). The examination to the extent herein permitted shall proceed at Special Term, Part II on December 18,1953, at 10:30 a.m., at which time and place pertinent records shall be produced for use pursuant to section 296 of the Civil Practice Act.
#### Leroy HENDERSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 0-31.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 1, 1970.

Leroy Henderson, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This court having fully considered the petition for habeas corpus filed herein, and *665it appearing petitioner fails to demonstrate within the meaning and requirements of Schaeffer v. Wainwright, 218 So.2d 442 (Fla.1969), the potential existence of those facts necessary to charge the State with the duty of advising petitioner and providing him with the assistance of counsel for the purpose of directly appealing his judgment of conviction, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                      [LETTERHEAD OF BONN&SCHMITT&STEICHEN]

                                                                August 16, 2000

CARRIER I INTERNATIONAL S.A.
3, route d'Arlon
L-8009 STRASSEN

                          Carrier1 International, S.A.
                       Registration Statement on Form S-1
                                 FILE NO. 333 -

Dear Sirs,

         We have acted as counsel to Carrier1 International S.A., a Luxembourg
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the Registration Statement on
Form S-1 referenced above (the "Registration Statement") filed by the Company
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act"), relating to the registration of
up to 1,685,813 shares of the Company's common shares, par value $2.00 per
share, being offered by the selling shareholders referred to in the Registration
Statement (the "Warrant Shares"), such Warrant Shares to be sold in the form of
registered shares or, upon request in the United States and Canada, in the form
of American Depositary Shares representing the right to receive 0.2 Warrant
Shares.

         In so acting, we have examined and relied upon the originals, or copies
certified or otherwise identified to our satisfaction, of such records,
documents, certificates and other instruments as in our judgment are necessary
or appropriate to enable us to render the opinion expressed below.

         Strictly limited to Luxembourg law, we are of the opinion that the
Warrant Shares to be received upon exercise of the Company's Euro Warrants and
Dollar Warrants upon issuance, delivery and full payment therefor in accordance
with the terms of the Euro Warrants or Dollar Warrants, as the case may be, will
be, duly authorized, validly issued and outstanding, fully paid and
non-assessable.

         We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and to the reference to our firm under the caption "Legal
Matters" in the Prospectus forming a part thereof. This opinion is governed by
Luxembourg law and is subject to exclusive jurisdiction of the ordinary courts
in Luxembourg.

                                            Very truly yours,

                                            BONN&SCHMITT&STEICHEN
#### Harry CHACK, d/b/a H. Chack & Co., Appellant, v. MIAMI CRYSTAL ICE & COLD STORAGE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-707.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 24, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Richard P. Dutkiewicz, as Chief FinancialOfficer and Principal Accounting Officer of Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)        the Quarterly Report ofthe Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2, 2007, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)        the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: November 9, 2007 | By: /s/ RICHARD P. DUTKIEWICZ |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                    | Richard P. Dutkiewicz         |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer       |
|                    |                          |

 

----
March 24 , 2015

M s

. Edna Cusack

33 Four Brooks Circle

Stamford, CT 06903

Dear Ms. Cusack :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your Feb ruary 17 , 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

-

0400 ) , but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your reque st.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 95 21

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
No. 00-7346.

#### Thornton *v.*Roe, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 12-39
 THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Twelve Months Ended December 31(Millions of Dollars)
    
    2010
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006Earnings:Pretax earnings
    
    $
    707
    
    
    $
    604
    
    
    $
    517
    
    
    $
    466
    
    
    $
    482Fixed charges
    
    
    328
    
    
    
    348
    
    
    
    324
    
    
    
    319
    
    
    
    299Net earnings
    
    $
    1,035
    
    
    $
    952
    
    
    $
    841
    
    
    $
    785
    
    
    $
    781Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    310
    
    
    $
    325
    
    
    $
    293
    
    
    $
    294
    
    
    $
    278Adjustments
    
    
    18
    
    
    
    23
    
    
    
    31
    
    
    
    25
    
    
    
    21Fixed charges
    
    $
    328
    
    
    $
    348
    
    
    $
    324
    
    
    $
    319
    
    
    $
    299Ratio of earnings to
fixed charges
    
    
    3.16
    
    
    
    2.74
    
    
    
    2.60
    
    
    
    2.46
    
    
    
    2.61
EXHIBIT 11
                      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                1999          1998
                                                                ----          ----

<S>                                                           <C>           <C>
Basic
-----
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding                           1,542,183     1,336,361

Diluted
-------
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding                           1,542,183     1,336,361
Dilutive Effect of Potential Common Shares                            -             -
                                                              -----------------------
Weighted Average Common and Equivalent Shares Outstanding     1,542,183     1,336,361
                                                              =======================
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No,333-12749) pertaining to the Cubic Corporation Employees’ Profit-Sharing Plan,the Cubic Applications, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan and the CubicCorporation 1998 Stock Option Plan of our reports dated November 29, 2006, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements of Cubic Corporation,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingof Cubic Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for theyear ended September 30, 2006.
|                       | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                  |                           |
| San Diego, California |                           |
| December 4, 2006      |                           |

 

----
# C_2014224EN.01002701.xml

| 15.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/27

---

Information from the Commission pursuant to Council Decision 2014/327/EU

2014/C 224/03

Pursuant to Article 2 of Council Decision 2014/327/EU of 6 May 2014 establishing the position to be adopted by the Union at the 53rd session of the OTIF Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods as regards certain amendments to Appendix C to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) applicable from 1 January 2015 (1) the Commission informs that the decisions taken at the body are available at:

1

http://www.otif.org/en/dangerous-goods/notification-texts/2015.html

---

(1)  OJ L 166, 5.6.2014, p. 27.

1

---
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38020

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

KENNETH EUGENE WRIGH T ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 714

Filed: November 21, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sev enth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified life sentence, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years, for robbery, affirmed ; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

. Stephen D. Thompson, Ketchum, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Kenneth Eugene Wright was convicted of robbery, Idaho Code §§ 18

- 6501; 18

- 112A.

The district court sentenced Wright to a unified life sentence with ten years determinate. Wright
filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Wright appeals. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretio n. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established.

See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State
v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 4 49

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence,2 we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot
say that the district court abused its discretion. Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Wright ’s Rule 35 motion. A
motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to

the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006);

S tate v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional
information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v.
Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). In conducting our review of the grant
or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the ori ginal sentence. State v. Forde , 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740
P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez , 106 Idaho at 449

- 51, 680 P.2d at 871

- 73. Upon review of
the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Wright ’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Wright ’s Rule 35 motion, are aff irmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

 May 17, 2017

s0510

Order 

Clerk

May 17, 2017

154374

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154374

COA: 325856

Berrien CC: 2014-001528-FH

EDWARD PINKNEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 26, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order 

addressing: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence 

under MRE 404(b) that related to the defendant’s political and community activities other 

than the mayoral recall effort for the purpose of showing the defendant’s motive to 

commit the instant crimes, and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that 

MCL 168.937 creates the substantive offense of election forgery and is not merely a 

penalty provision for the specific forgery offenses set forth in other provisions of the 

Michigan election law. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their 

application papers.