alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

EMCORE CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

NICHIA CORPORATION,

Appellee

MICHELLE K. LEE, Under Secretary of Commerce 

for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2014-1508

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2012-

00005.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

MICHAEL A. TOMASULO, Winston & Strawn LLP, Los 

Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

GEOFFREY P. EATON, Washington, DC.
 

MATTHEW A. SMITH, Turner Boyd LLP, Redwood City, 

CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by ANDREW S.

BALUCH, STEPHEN B. MAEBIUS, Foley & Lardner LLP, 

Washington, DC.

STACY BETH MARGOLIES, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, 

argued for intervenor. Also represented by NATHAN K.

KELLEY, SCOTT WEIDENFELLER, ROBERT J. MCMANUS. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, BRYSON and 

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 April 16, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32





Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,


As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended May 28, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/  Adolphus B. BakerAdolphus B. BakerPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/  Timothy A. DawsonTimothy A. DawsonChief Financial OfficerDate:August 3, 2011
#### Cecil O. ECKARD and Marilyn F. Eckard, his wife, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Gayle G. SMITH and Joy T. Smith, his wife, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 14153.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 23, 1976.

*502Gerald L. Turner and Richard W. Perkins, Turner & Perkins, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.

David Lloyd and Walter P. Faber, Jr., Watkins & Faber, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and respondents.

TUCKETT, Justice:

The defendants appeal from a summary judgment entered by the court in favor of the plaintiffs and the denial of the defendants’ motion for a writ of restitution and for a summary judgment. This matter was before the court on a prior appeal wherein the plaintiffs sought specific performance of a rental agreement with an option to purchase.1 The judgment entered by the district court after the first trial granted specific performance and directed the defendants to convey the property in question to the plaintiffs. This court reversed and remanded. After remand the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The grounds for the plaintiffs’ motion being that the controversy had been settled and the case had become moot. The defendants move for restitution of the property.

Before the first appeal the defendants complied with the decree of the court below by conveying the property in the specified time and in accordance with the terms of the decree. Defendants, being unable to supply a supersedeas bond, nevertheless pursued their appeal. The question of mootness was presented to this court as indicated by the dissent, but that matter was not decided. The effect of the decision of this court was to vacate' and set aside the decree of specific performance heretofore entered and the judgment of the court respecting damages. It was the duty of the trial court after remand to place the parties, insofar as possible, in the position they had before the erroneous decree and judgment which was rendered.2 In this connection the court should determine damages, if any, suffered by the parties by reason of the entry of the erroneous decree.

The decision of the court below is reversed and the court is directed to proceed in accordance with the terms of this opinion. Appellants are entitled to costs.

HENRIOD, C. J., and ELLETT, CROCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.

1

. Utah, 527 P.2d 660.

2

. Rule 76(c), U.R.O.P.
X . . 

## > CsStLtSo/stis jlM 22 ./<

### */^ 

## ^i- 

# / //<?.^i^ <*/£« * / y

- J

•

• 

### vfJv /y - *S/* 

### •/S . 

### < SJ- S^To <? _

### /•/

- 

## »^s. /fa** /* 

# T^W A+s r • 

### S/*- /</ RECEIVE iiOURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS T0~H5 *~r 'k *t *. *j( /r" lfa Cc To. 

### /r 

### /ataxc* 

# ot^n^a **£-/'- /d€*'rrf87Tl

J* 60 /rU Jf/V 

# SxtA^S.^/TSF- 7770 £
f:> •(>-•
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-968]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Development and Maintenance of a Multigenotypic Caloric 
Restricted Rodent Colony.
    Date: February 9, 2012.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Elaine Lewis, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, Gateway 
Building, Suite 2C212, MSC-9205, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 402-7707, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9afff6fbf3f4fff6ffedf3e9daf4f3fbb4f4f3f2b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="147178757d7a717871637d67547a7d753a7a7d7c3a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Translational Research in Aging.
    Date: March 13, 2012.
    Time: 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 
Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Jeannette L. Johnson, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, National Institutes on Aging, National Institutes of 
Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(301) 402-7705, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d272225233e222327740d23242c63232425632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aac0c5c2c4d9c5c4c093eac4c3cb84c4c3c284cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 12, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-968 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
PD-0291-15

PD-0291-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/15/2015 10:01:58 PM

Accepted 4/16/2015 12:37:29 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Leroy Calhoun, Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

Second Motion to Extend Time to File

Petition for Discretionary Review

Leroy Calhoun moves, under Rule 68.2, to extend the time to

file a petition for discretionary review (PDR).

On February 12, 2015, the Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the

judgmentof the trial court in a memorandum opinion,under

cause number 10-14-00058-CR.

One previous extension to file a PDR has been requested. The

current deadline is April 15, 2015.

Mr. Calhoun requests an additional30 daysto file the petition,

making the new due date May 15, 2015. No further extensions

will be requested.

Counsel has been occupied with appeals inJose Hernandez v.

State, 01-14-00898-CR; Judist Broussard v. State, 01-15-00074-

CR; and Pete Rodriguez v. State, 01-15-00135-CR.

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

April 16,2015

ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
I served a copy of this motion on the State of Texas simultane

ously with electronic filing.

Respectfully,

/s/ Franklin Bynum

Bynum Law Office Franklin Bynum

2814 Hamilton Street Texas Bar Number 24069451

Houston, Texas 77004 fgb@lawfgb.com

(713) 343-8844
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 1210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00120]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2524-018]


Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Telephone Meeting To Discuss 
the Salina Pumped Storage Project Water Quality Study Results

    a. Date and Time of Meeting: Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 2 p.m. 
Central Standard Time, (3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time).
    b. Place: Teleconference hosted by Grand River Dam Authority. (An 
RSVP is required. See paragraph f below.)
    c. FERC Contact: Stephen Bowler at (202) 505-6861 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f08384958098959ede929f879c9582b096958293de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8dfef9e8fde5e8e3a3efe2fae1e8ffcdebe8ffeea3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>; or Jeanne Edwards at (202) 502-6181 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3d9d6d2ddddd69dd6d7c4d2c1d7c0f3d5d6c1d09dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="345e51555a5a511a5150435546504774525146571a535b42">[email protected]</span></a>.
    d. Purpose of Meeting: As a follow-up to its study report meeting 
of October 11, 2012, the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) is holding a 
technical meeting to discuss the results of the Water Quality Study as 
they stand at the conclusion of fieldwork.
    e. Proposed Agenda:
(1) GRDA: Introduction
(2) Oklahoma Water Resources Control Board (OWRB): Water quality study 
results at the conclusion of fieldwork
(3) GRDA, OWRB, and other participants: Discussion
    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other 
interested parties are invited to participate by phone. Please email 
Jacklyn Jaggars by close of business on Monday, January 14, 2013, at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#402a2a21272721323300273224216e232f2d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cca6a6adababadbebf8cabbea8ade2afa3a1">[email protected]</span></a> to RSVP and to receive specific instructions on how 
to participate.

    Dated: January 2, 2013.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00120 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE V

AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE

AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE

CHAPTER 4

JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

Article 84

The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may establish measures to promote and support the action of Member States in the field of crime prevention, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.

---
Order filed April 16, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00170-CV

____________

HINDU ASHRAM, INC., Appellant

V.

SANJAY SARAN MATHUR, SEEMA MATHUR AND THE HEIRS OF 

RAMESH S. MATHUR, Appellees

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-DCV-201944

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed December 16, 2013. To date, the 

filing fee of $195.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant has established 

indigence has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. Therefore, the court issues the 

following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $195.00 to the 

clerk of this court on or before May 1, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant 
fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be 

dismissed.

PER CURIAM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SAMUEL PAINTER

, 1

Petitioner Below,

Appellant,

v.

LOUISE PAINTER

,

Respondent Below,

Appellee. § No. 26, 2021

§

§ Court Below

— Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ File No. CN14

- 02909

§ Petition No. 20

- 13918

§

§

§

§

Submitted: March 2 , 2021

Decided: March 30 , 20 21

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VA LIHURA and VA UGHN

, Justices

.

O R D E R

(1) On January 22, 2021, t he appellant (“ Father ”) filed a notice of

interlocutory appeal from (i) an interim order of the Family Court, dated January 6,

2021, in a proceeding regarding modification of visitation with the parties’ child and

(ii) a Family Court order, dated January 21, 2021, which denied Father’s motion to

reconsider the January 6 interim order

. Father filed an application for certification

of interlocutory appeal, which the Family Court denied on March 1, 2021. Father

did not file a supplemental notice of appeal within ten days o f the Family Court’s

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d)

.2

action, as required by Supreme Court Rule 42(d)(iii) 2 and as this Court directed him

to do. 3

(2) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound

discretion of this Court. 4 In the exercise of its discretion, this Court has concluded

that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the strict standards for

certification under Supreme Court Rule 42(b) and should be refused

.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the in terlocutory appeal is

REFUSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

2 Smith v. Delaware State Police , 2014 WL 46069 (Del. Jan. 2, 2014).

3 Painter v. Painter , 2021 WL 796588, at *2 (Del. Mar. 1, 2021).

4 D EL

. S UPR

. C T

. R. 42(d)(v ).
Of SA/0 £0c*7' (!oa«£S //# !*/• •

/%/Vrf /Wes MPs jue//*s ft SWC fjj tosses

Ms

dots* WaW/?/ft^f/

coS/ MM/-oAc M/e

(Ms ft*

&'?*£/*?'* /"' ft 4&*f''/£<% ^Z/f str. s. c././>3./yfO

Career. £t£C<.7& **/ JL1*. 2o/s

Cfrtif/c/9/d of se/C/Ce.

A

A

Dl£3S5/3fOF APPEALS

^iHh_Court o? Apoeais District

CATHY S. LUSK,

-6> C?s*m ^ '

t/-/d -/s

V?

77f£ Jz* to<s/ ^ A/S&tiS MootM "/ MO//&S . _^w TO f/'/e. £Sjs Ce/s& A/WTJJ AS? Dftf fz&Jf „ S/JCi:y* '.

a)

i~/0 -/J

_1
# C_2004094EN.01003302.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/33

---

Removal from the register of Case C-225/01 (1)

1

(2004/C 94/75)

By order of 26 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-225/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale civile di Genova): Off-Road Action sas Model Toys di Luca Luperini v Prefetto di Genova.

---

(1)  OJ C 227 of 11.08.2001.

1

---
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE VI

TRANSPORT

TRANSPORT

Article 94

(ex Article 74 TEC)

(ex Article 74 TEC)

Any measures taken within the framework of the Treaties in respect of transport rates and conditions shall take account of the economic circumstances of carriers.

---
#### Billy Jack STOWE, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma et al., Respondents.

No. 0-80-190.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 4, 1980.

ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF POST CONVICTION RELIEF

Appellant seeks review of an order of the District Court of Pontotoc County denying an application for Post-Conviction Relief in Case No. 4499. Appellant attacks the validity of his plea of guilty in that case entered on the 24th day of March, 1965. The District Court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing, but based its order on the records in the court file.

It is apparent that Appellant bases his application in large part on the alleged failure of the trial court to comply with procedures enunciated in court decisions handed down, in some instances, many years after his conviction, including *Boykin v. Alabama,*395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) and *Smith v. Oklahoma City,*Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 1327 (1973). This reliance is misplaced as such procedures have not been retroactively applied.

We are satisfied that the District Court order is amply supported by the court file submitted on appeal. Appellant was represented by counsel. The charge was reduced, and’ a certain sentence imposed, on recommendation of the prosecutor, and the District Court’s conclusion that a plea bargain was involved is not disputed by Appellant on appeal. Appellant’s awareness of his rights to a jury trial, to confront and cross examine witnesses, to plead not guilty and to appeal is reflected by his exercise of those rights in the course of proceedings leading up to the plea proceeding, and in the first prosecution of the charge which had been reversed and remanded by this *1363Court on direct appeal. The judgment and sentence instrument recites that Appellant was advised of his constitutional rights and the nature of the charge and consequences of his plea. Further, Appellant appeared in person and by counsel when, as recited in the instrument, he “entered his pleas of guilty.”

Moreover, Appellant has not alleged, nor does it appear, that there was a defense which should be presented to the jury. See *Reed v. State,*Okl.Cr., 589 P.2d 1086 (1979).

Therefore, being fully advised in the premises, the order appealed from should be, and is hereby, AFFIRMED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS, and the Seal of this Court, this 4th day of June, 1980.

TOM R. CORNISH, P. J.

TOM BRETT, J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.
##### 



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 Airbee Wireless, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Sundaresan Raja, 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 the operations of the Company. /s/ Sundaresan RajaSundaresan RajaChief Executive Officer May 13, 2005 33
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE III

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

Article 44

(ex Article 38 TEC)

(ex Article 38 TEC)

Where in a Member State a product is subject to a national market organisation or to internal rules having equivalent effect which affect the competitive position of similar production in another Member State, a countervailing charge shall be applied by Member States to imports of this product coming from the Member State where such organisation or rules exist, unless that State applies a countervailing charge on export.

The Commission shall fix the amount of these charges at the level required to redress the balance; it may also authorise other measures, the conditions and details of which it shall determine.

---
S I L V E R M A N L A W G R O U P

 CRIMINAL DEFENSE

917 Franklin, 4th Floor, Houston, TX 77002

713-526-1515

501 North IH-35, Austin, TX 78702

512-485-3003

TheSilvermanLawGroup.com

LawyerNorm@msn.com

April 8, 2015

First Court of Appeals

301 Fannin, Ste 245

Houston, Texas 77002

Re: No. 01-13-00931-Cr; Melissa Dromgoole v. State of Texas 

To Whom It May Concern:

Please be advised that Troy Mckinney will present oral argument on behalf of the 

appellant on April 8, 2015.

Sincerely,

/s/ Norman J. Silverman

Norman J. Silverman

ACCEPTED

01-13-00931-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/8/2015 10:15:28 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/8/2015 10:15:28 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
| SUBSIDIARIES                OF REGISTRANT           |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |   |   |
|                                                | STATE                OF |   |
|                                      | INCORPORATION | RELATIONSHIP |
|                            |   |   |
|                                                |   |   |
|                                                |   |   |
| BNA                Holdings Inc.          | Delaware | 100%                owned by Registrant |
|                                                |   |   |
| BNA                International Inc.     | Delaware | 100%                  owned by Registrant |
|                                                |   |   |
| BNA                Washington Inc.                  | Delaware | 100%                owned by Registrant |
|                                                |   |   |
| Institute                of Management              |   |   |
| and                Administration, Inc.        | New                York | 100%                owned by Registrant |
|                                                |   |   |
| Kennedy                Information, Inc.       | Delaware | 100%                owned by Registrant |
|                                                |   |   |
| The                McArdle Printing Co., Inc.  | Delaware | 100%                owned by Registrant |
|                                                |   |   |
| STF                Services Corporation        | New                York | 100%                owned by Registrant |
|                                                |   |   |
| Tax                Management Inc.        | Delaware | 100%                owned by Registrant |

----