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

EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF INNOVEDA, INC.
<Table>
<Caption>
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                    STATE OF JURISDICTION OF CORPORATION
------------------                    ------------------------------------
<S>                                                <C>
First-to-Market, Inc.                              Delaware
Innoveda Finland Oy                                Finland
Innoveda Foreign Sales Corp.                       Barbados
Innoveda GmbII                                     Germany
Innoveda Israel Ltd.                               Israel
Innoveda KK                                        Japan
Innoveda Korea Holdings, Inc.                      Delaware
Innoveda Limited                                   United Kingdom
Innoveda SARI                                      France
Innoveda SRL                                       Italy
Transcendent Design Technology Inc.                Delaware
Innoveda Minnesota Holdings, Inc.                  Delaware
Summit Design GmbH                                 Germany
</Table>


                                       58
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

177) IV-C-144 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:00AM Sheet 177of 232 
y

t0>. 

P i , 

J2-£-/<// 

* 

^ •__-_. ^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

I 5JE ' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

DEC 2 T 1988 

„>'>> r>-ce C^

0

 OFFICE OF 

^ ^ . <?^° AIR ANO RADIATION 

^ v * g$ 

^ 

a 

Mr. Gregory J. Dana \J# " ^',0 

Vice President and Technical Director

 x

 ty v1-^ 

Automobile Importers of America, Incorporated 

1725 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1002 

Arlington, VA 22202 

Dear Mr. Dana: 

This letter is in response to your September 27, 1988 

letter regarding the timing of the public hearing and the close 

of the comment period for our Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (SNPRM) for refueling and evaporative controls-., You 

stated your belief that scheduling the public hearing two weeks 

after the publication of the notice would not allow adequate 

time for your members to prepare for the hearing. In addition, 

you requested that at least four weeks be allowed for the 

public comment period after the hearing. 

We appreciate your comments on this area, and your 

identification of the special need of your member companies. 

While we remain open to further input, we currently believe 

that a prompt schedule for the hearing and comment period may 

be appropriate because EPA has already disseminated the key 

information upon which the SNPRM is based. The information we 

have made available includes the following items: 

EPA held a workshop in June on the key components of 

the modified test procedures and released the draft 

regulations to manufacturers in September. 

EPA released the documentation and computer codes 

for the new evaporative emissions model in October, 

as well as the ongoing running loss test results 

being carried out at Automotive Testing Laboratories. 

EPA placed its revised safety analysis along with 

NHTSA's comments in the public docket in October. 

As a consequence of these actions, we believe that 

manufacturers already have the substance of the SNPRM available 

for their review and are in a position to begin preparing 

comments. 
P.3 

As always, EPA is committed to providing sufficient time 

for review of its proposals. We believe a prompt schedule for 

the onboard SNPRM will do that; however if you 

discussion is necessary, please contact us again. 

feel further 

Sincerely yours 

R^Ch^Crd Dl Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

Docket A-85-21
EXHIBIT 21

SCHEDULE OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                        |  |              |   |  |                                         
|--------------------------------------- |  | ------------ | - |  | ----------------------------------------
|                                        |  | PercentOwned |   |  | JurisdictionofIncorporation/Organization
|1. Security Interim Holding Corporation |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                 
|2. Security Bank of Bibb County (a)     |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                 
|3. Security Bank of Houston County      |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                 
|4. Security Bank of Jones County        |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                 
|5. Security Bank of North Metro         |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                 
|6. Security Bank of North Fulton        |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                 
|7. Security Bank of Gwinnett County     |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                 
|8. Statutory Trust I                    |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                 
|9. Statutory Trust II                   |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                 
|10. Rivoli Bancorp Capital Trust I      |  | 100          | % |  | Georgia                                 



|(a) | Security Real Estate Services, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Security Bank of Bibb County.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 32.1





Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, D.C. 20549





RE:     Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)





Ladies and Gentlemen:





In connection with the Quarterly Report of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to its knowledge:





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





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





The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.





/s/ Sarah Newell


Sarah Newell


Vice President


The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.,


as Trustee of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I








November 8, 2018
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Curtis T. Evatt, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Oconee Federal Financial Corp.;

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4) The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5) The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: May 16, 2011



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Curtis T. Evatt     
|Curtis T. Evatt         
|Executive Vice President
|Chief Financial Officer 



27
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kelly John SCHWARTZ, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90CA1060.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. V.

Aug. 15, 1991.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 19, 1991.

Certiorari Denied Feb. 10, 1992.

Donald E. Mielke, Dist. Atty., and Donna Skinner Reed, Chief Appellate Deputy Dist. Atty., Golden, for plaintiff-appellant.

David F. Vela, State Public Defender, Susan Baker and Kristin Giovanini, Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellee.

Opinion by

Judge NEY.

The People appeal the order of the trial court suspending the sentence mandatorily imposed upon defendant, Kelly John Schwartz, and sentencing him to probation. We affirm.

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to two counts of third degree assault on a peace officer, a misdemeanor offenser *See*§ 18-3-204, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Yol. 8B). Section 18-l-106(1.5)(a), C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.) requires a term of incarceration for such a conviction. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced defendant to two concurrent terms of incarceration for two years and one day, the minimum permitted. Citing § 18-1-105(10), C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.) as authority, the trial court then ordered those terms suspended, provided defendant met certain conditions.

The People appeal the suspension of the sentences, contending that § 18-1-105(10) does not grant the trial court authority to suspend a misdemeanor sentence. We find no error.

The judiciary has the exclusive power to impose sentences, but only within the limits determined by the General Assembly *1387which has the sole authority to define crimes and prescribe punishment. *People v. Montgomery,*669 P.2d 1387 (Colo.1983).

Section 18-1-105(10) grants authority to suspend sentences, but it is included in a section which defines and prescribes penalties for felonies. The People argue that the placement of this statute necessarily indicates that the authority it describes extends only to the suspension of felony sentences and that, therefore, the trial court erred in suspending defendant’s sentence.

Legislative intent is the polestar of statutory interpretation. *In re Estate of Hill,*713 P.2d 928 (Colo.App.1985). However, we do not find credible the People’s suggested interpretation of legislative intent to authorize suspension of sentences for the more serious crimes while not authorizing suspended sentences for those of a lesser nature. To interpret § 18-1-105(10) as granting authority to the court to suspend sentences only for felonies and not for misdemeanors would result in absurd consequences which we conclude the General Assembly did not intend. Consequently, we reject the narrow construction of § 18-1-105(10) which the People urge.

Sentence affirmed.

PLANK and JONES, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6740

DOMMION MCLEAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TANA JORDAN, Circuit Court Clerk,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-04-741-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 2, 2005

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dommion McLean, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dommion McLean appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny McLean’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. See McLean v. Jordan, No.

CA-04-741-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 2005). 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
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 3.3

                          CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                        CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                          CORAM HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

     Coram Healthcare Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation"), does hereby certify as follows:

     1. The Board of Directors of the Corporation, by unanimous written consent
dated July 10, 1997, adopted resolutions setting forth a proposed amendment of
the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, declaring said amendment
to be advisable, and such amendment has been presented to the stockholders of
the Corporation for consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the
proposed amendment is as follows:

          RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be
     amended by deleting Article FOURTH, Section A, in its entirety and
     inserting in its place the following new Article FOURTH, Section A which
     shall read in full as follows:

               "FOURTH. A. AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK. The total number of shares
          that the corporation shall have authority to issue shall be
          110,000,000 shares, of which 100,000,000 shares shall be common stock,
          $.001 par value, and 10,000,000 shares shall be preferred stock, $.001
          par value."

     2. The foregoing amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation was duly
adopted by the stockholders of the Corporation at the Annual Meeting of
Stockholders held on September 16, 1997.

     3. Said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed by Richard M. Smith, its Chief Financial Officer and Secretary on
November 21, 1997.

                                      CORAM HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

                                      By: /s/ Richard M. Smith
                                          --------------------
                                          Richard M. Smith
                                          Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 27, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-11036

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN SCHMIDT,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CR-40-1-A

- - - - - - - - - -

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Schmidt appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence

for one count of tax evasion. Schmidt argues that the district

court abused its discretion in 1) denying his motion to continue

his sentencing hearing, 2) denying his motion to withdraw his

guilty plea, and 3) departing upward at sentencing. 

Specifically, Schmidt argues that the denial of his motion to
No. 02-11036

-2-

continue deprived him of the opportunity to earn a reduced

sentence based on his assistance in a West Virginia healthcare

fraud case. Schmidt further contends that his motion to withdraw

his guilty plea should have been granted based on, among other

things, his alleged innocence of the insurance fraud allegations

contained in Schmidt’s Presentence Report. Schmidt extends the

same innocence argument as a basis for disputing the district

court’s upward departure. In addition, Schmidt challenges the

quality and quantity of the Government’s fraud evidence and

contends that the insurance fraud conduct was accounted for in

the sentencing guidelines calculations for the offense of

conviction. Schmidt further challenges certain enhancements

included in the district court’s upward departure calculations. 

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and hold that the district court did not abuse its

discretion with respect to any of Schmidt’s assignments of error. 

See United States v. Peden, 891 F.2d 514, 519 (5th Cir. 1989);

United States v. Grant, 117 F.3d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1997); United

States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984); United

States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir. 1994); United

States v. Millsaps, 157 F.3d 989, 997 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.15 MB)

Tags:DSCC, DLA Land & Maritime, dla, columbus, EVENT, People and Culture, MIA, POW

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Structural Formula Diagram CPAR LCCO C24 - 28 

## CH 3 

## (CH2 

## CHCl) 9 

## CH2 

## CH 2 

## CH 2 

## CH 2 

## CH 2 

## CH 2 

## CH 3 

## (representative)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2266-102]

                    a.                     *Project Name and Number:*                     Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project No. 2266.                

                    b.                     *Applicant:*                     Nevada Irrigation District.                

                    c.                     *Date and Time of Teleconference:*                     September 25, 2018, 10:00 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time (1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time).                

                    d.                     *FERC Contact:*                     Alan Mitchnick at (202) 502-6074,                     *alan.mitchnick@ferc.gov*.                

                    e.                     *Purpose of Meeting:*                     The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff will participate in a meeting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Nevada Irrigation District to discuss                           ( print page 45624)                        conservation measures needed to protect species listed under the Endangered Species Act that may be affected by continued operation of the existing Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project. The primary species to be discussed include the California red-legged frog and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.                

                    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to attend by phone. Please call Alan Mitchnick at (202) 502-6074, or email                     *alan.mitchnick@ferc.gov*                     by September 18, 2018, to RSVP and to receive specific instructions on how to participate.                

Dated: September 4, 2018.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-19551 Filed 9-7-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P