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


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


SUBSIDIARIES OF CITATION CORPORATION             STATE OF ORGANIZATION


Citation Automotive Sales Corp.                       Michigan

Mansfield Foundry Corporation                         Ohio

Iroquois Foundry Corporation                          Wisconsin

Oberdorfer Industries Corp.                           New York

Berlin Foundry Corporation                            Wisconsin

Castwell Products, Inc.                               Illinois

HTC Acquisition Corporation                           Indiana
    d/b/a HI-TECH Corporation

BAC Acquisition Corporation                           Indiana
    d/b/a Bohn Aluminum Corporation

Southern Aluminum Castings Company                    Alabama

PSFM Acquisition Corporation                          Pennsylvania
    d/b/a Pennsylvania Steel(1)

Citation Castings, Inc.                               Alabama

Texas Steel Corporation                               Texas

TSC Texas Corporation                                 Delaware

Texas Foundries, Ltd.                                 Texas

Mabry Foundry Company, Ltd.                           Texas

Interstate Forging Industries, Inc.(1)                Wisconsin

ISW Texas Corporation (subsidiary of Interstate       Delaware
    Forging Industries, Inc.)

Interstate Southwest, Ltd.                            Texas


(1) PSFM Acquisition Corporation was sold, and Interstate Forging Industries,
    Inc. was acquired, after the close of fiscal 1996.


                                          63
MEMORANDUM

TO: Portland Cement NESHAP Docket FROM: Keith Barnett, USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG DATE: June 2, 2008 SUBJECT: Meeting on Portland Cement NESHAP On June 2, 2008 a teleconference was held between representatives of the USEPA and several cement companies. The purpose of the call was to discuss issues related to the Portland Cement NESHAP USEPA Representatives on calls: Keith Barnett, USEPA Mike Laney, RTI (EPA Contractor) Steve Fruh Steve Silverman Cement Industry Mike Pe lan, Lafarge Hector Ybanez, Holcim Dan Nugent, Buzzi Unicem Tim Matz, Lehigh This was a general discussion of NESHAP issues including potential subcategorization schemes.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3902 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3902

To amend the Clean Air Act to require the designation of certain areas 
 as rural transport areas for purposes of nonattainment requirements, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 1994

  Mr. Hoekstra (for himself and Mr. Ehlers) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Clean Air Act to require the designation of certain areas 
 as rural transport areas for purposes of nonattainment requirements, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RURAL TRANSPORT AREAS.

    Section 182(h) of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding the 
following new paragraph at the end thereof:
    ``(3) The Administrator shall treat an ozone nonattainment area as 
a rural transport area if the Administrator finds that sources of VOC 
(and, where the Administrator determines relevant, NOX) emissions 
within the area do not result in more than 35 percent of the ozone 
concentrations measured in the area or in other areas.''.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

MPS GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

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 on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 of MPS Group, Inc. (the Form 10-K), I,
Timothy D. Payne, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                         |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|/s/ Timothy D. Payne                                                    
|Timothy D. Payne President and Chief Executive Officer February 26, 2008
|
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4102 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4102

                   For the relief of Jacques H. Mims.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 1994

 Mr. McCollum introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Jacques H. Mims.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF CERTAIN NATURALIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR JACQUES H. 
              MIMS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the inability of Jacques H. Mims 
to meet the requirement of section 316 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act relating to physical presence within the United States, 
he shall be considered eligible for naturalization upon the filing of 
the appropriate application for naturalization if he is otherwise 
qualified for naturalization under such Act.
    (b) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) 
shall apply only if the application for naturalization is filed with 
appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.

                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 
**- 1694** 

ANDRES LEROY GLENN ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

BI

- LO, CORPORATION; CHAD J. JOWERS ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Cameron McGowan Currie , District Judge. ( 3:12

- cv
- 00727

- CMC )

Submitted : July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Andres Leroy Glenn, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Barton Diegel, Peter Edward Farr, Ashley Berry Stratton, MURPHY & GRANTLAND, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Andre s Leroy Glenn appeals the district court ’ s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and
dismissing Glenn’s civil action without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction

. * On appeal, we confine our review
to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R.

34(b). Because Glenn ’ s informal brief does not challenge the
basis for the district court’s disposition, Glenn has forfeited
appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly , we affirm

the district court ’ s judgment . We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* While dismissals without prejudice generally are interlocutory and not appealable, Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993), a dismissal without prejudice may be final if no amendment to the complaint c an cure the defect in the plaintiff’s case. Id. at 1066

- 67; see Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc. , 415 F .3d 342, 345 (4th Cir. 2005). On the ava ilable record, w e conclude that the defect identified by the district court cannot be cured by an amendment to the complaint and that the order therefore is appealable.
#### John Henry BUFFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-893.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 5, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our reports dated June 13, 2005accompanying the consolidated financial statements and Schedule II and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the annual report of Pemstar Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended March31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Pemstar Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-44044, File No. 333-97517 and File No. 333-112974) and Forms S-3 and amendment (File No.333-75284 and File No. 333-97511). 

 

 

                        /s/ GrantThornton LLP 

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

June 13, 2005
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



The undersigned, Carlos M. Buchanan II,
the Chief Financial Officer of RIO BRAVO OIL. INC. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement
this 20th day of August 2012.



|/s/ Carlos E. Buchanan II   |  | 
|--------------------------- |  | 
|Carlos E. Buchanan II       | 
|Principal Financial Officer | 



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Rio Bravo Oil, Inc. and will be retained by Rio Bravo Oil, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE October 4, 2000 Se ssion ROBERT CARL COVERT v. KIMBERLY MARIE BRUGGER COVERT

Appeal from the General Sessions Court for Blount County No. S-5149 FILED DECEMBER 27, 2000 No. E2000-00864-COA-R3-CV

C HARLES D. S USANO , J R ., J., concur ring.

I concur in the majo

rity’s dec ision to affirm the

trial court’ s judgment. I agree with the majority that Father’s severance pay falls within the ambit of the language of S ection 15 of the parties’ MDA. Under the ci rcumstances of t

his case, I do not believe that Father’s severance pay should be considered a

s income for child support purposes. In this regard, I ag ain agree with the maj ori ty; however, I disagree with the suggestion in the majority opinion that even if the severance pay were consi dered to be income, there would be a sufficient basis in law for ignoring it when calculating child support. Cf. Jones v. Jones , 930 S.W.2d 541, 543-546 (Tenn. 1 996). Whi le I believe the trial court reached the right result in setting child support, I disagree with that court’s reasoning on the deviation issue. Except as noted in this separate opinion, I concur in the majority opinion.

___________________________________ CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE
### QI'M # AlR-ANM-030-F7 Date: 01113/2009 Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with 58 

# Record ofContacts DMS Docket No. FAA-200.5.-- 

# 122lS Withwhom outside theFAA has this proposal beendiscllssed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)? 

### Revision Page 6of 7
Organi7.Jltiun Person Contacted Date 

### Lockheed Martin (OEM) Geofr Blllem:tn 

### August 2008

UNCONTROLLED COpy WHEN DOWNLOADED Check the Master List to Verify Thai This is the Correct Revision Before Use
# C_2015293EN.01000201.xml

| 5.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/2

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))

1

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 293/02)

Decisions granting an authorisation

Decisions granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2015) 6063 | 4 September 2015 | Diarsenic trioxide
  EC No. 215-481-4
  CAS No. 1327-53-3 | Nordenhamer Zinkhütte GmbH, Johannastr. 1, 26954 Nordenham, Germany | REACH/15/3/0 | Industrial use of diarsenic trioxide to produce a copper concentrate in the purification of the leaching solution in a zinc electro winning process | 21 May 2027 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their economic feasibility for the applicant. |

Reference of the decision (2)

2

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2015) 6063

4 September 2015

Diarsenic trioxide

EC No. 215-481-4

CAS No. 1327-53-3

Nordenhamer Zinkhütte GmbH, Johannastr. 1, 26954 Nordenham, Germany

REACH/15/3/0

Industrial use of diarsenic trioxide to produce a copper concentrate in the purification of the leaching solution in a zinc electro winning process

21 May 2027

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their economic feasibility for the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm

2

---
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS



### U NITED STATES ) No. ACM 39869 ) )

v. ) ) ORDER ) Brandon C. CSADY ) Staff Sergeant (E

- 5) ) U.S. Air Force, ) Special Panel

Applicant )

Judgment was entered in Applicant’s general court

- martial on 23 December 2019

. Applicant then sought review under Article 69(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice ( UCMJ ) , 10 U.S.C. § 869 (c)

, Manual for Courts

- Martial,
United States (2019 ed.)

. O n 12 August 2020, The Judge Advocate General denied relief, finding “no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the Applicant

. ”

We have reviewed the action taken by T he Judge Advocate General in this

case and the Application for Grant of Review timely submitted to this court under Article 69(d)(1)(B), UCMJ , 10 U.S.C. § 869(d)(1)(B) , dated 9 October

2020

. * T he c ourt determines the application has not demonstrated a substantial basis for concluding that the action under review constituted prejudicial

error

. Article 69(d) (2)(A ), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 869(d) (2)(A ).

Accordingly, it is by the c ourt on this 30 th day of September

, 20 21

,
ORDERED:

The Application for Grant of Review is DENIED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court

* The court docketed the application for review on 9 October 2020, and, on 8 December

2020

, granted Applicant’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief

. On 30 March 2021, the court accepted the supplemental brief.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Denali Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov","author_name":"denaliadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/author\/denaliadmin\/","title":"Updated Broadband Plan Document","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"vcW60dPeoA\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/updated-broadband-plan-document\/\">Updated Broadband Plan Document<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/updated-broadband-plan-document\/embed\/#?secret=vcW60dPeoA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Updated Broadband Plan Document” — Denali Commission\" data-secret=\"vcW60dPeoA\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/low-res-from-web.png","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":601}
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3977

To reform the grave marker allowance for veterans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 1994

Mr. PETERSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To reform the grave marker allowance for veterans.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. GRAVE MARKER ALLOWANCE.

4 (a) REIMBURSEMENT FOR NON-GOVERNMENT

5 MARKERS.—Section 2306 of title 38, United States Code,

6 is amended to by adding at the end thereof the following

7 new subsection:

8 ‘‘(e) In lieu of furnishing a headstone or marker

9 under subsection (a)(2) or (b) of this section, the Sec10 retary, in the Secretary’s discretion, having due regard for

11 the circumstances in each case, may reimburse the person

12 entitled to request such headstone or marker for the actual
2

•HR 3977 IH

1 costs incurred by or on behalf of such person in (1) acquir2 ing a non-Government headstone or marker for placement

3 in any cemetery other than a national cemetery in connec4 tion with the burial or memorialization of the deceased

5 individual, and (2) lettering final dates on such headstones

6 or markers acquired while the individual is alive. Reim7 bursement under the preceding sentence may be made

8 only upon the request of the person entitled to request

9 the headstone or marker and may not be made in an

10 amount in excess of the average actual cost (not including

11 freight charges), as determined by the Secretary, of

12 headstones and markers furnished under subsections (a)

13 and (b) of this section.’’.

14 (b) GRAVE LINERS.—Section 2306(d)(1) of such title

15 is amended by striking out ‘‘shall provide a grave liner

16 for each’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘may provide a

17 grave liner for any’’.

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

19 this section shall apply to deaths occurring on or after

20 November 1, 1994.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ATIBA MAYFIELD,

 Defendant Below, 

 Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

 Plaintiff Below, 

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 546, 2016

Court Below: Superior Court 

of the State of Delaware

ID. No. 1504011040A (N

Submitted: November 15, 2017

Decided: December 4, 2017

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices. 

O R D E R

This 4th day of December 2017, the Court having considered this matter after 

oral argument and on the briefs filed by the parties has determined that the final 

judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons 

assigned by the Superior Court in its rulings at the trial Prayer Conference conducted 

on June 22, 2016.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice
#### Ulysses HARRIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1-498.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Oct. 26, 1967.

Ulysses Harris, Jr., in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. House v. State, 199 So.2d 134 (Fla.App. 1st 1967), and Lee v. State, 173 So.2d 520 (Fla.App. 1st 1965).

WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.