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

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

|Name of Subsidiary               |  | State of Incorporation |  | Doing Business As
|-------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | -----------------
|ICG Communications, Inc.         |  | Delaware               |  |                 
|ICG Holdings, Inc.               |  | Colorado               |  |                 
|ICG Telecom Group, Inc.          |  | Colorado               |  |                 
|NikoNet, L.L.C.                  |  | Georgia                |  |                 
|ICG Telecom Group of Virginia    |  | Virginia               |  |                 
|ICG ChoiceCom Management, L.L.C. |  | Delaware               |  |                 
|ICG ChoiceCom, L.P.              |  | Delaware               |  |                 
|ICG Equipment, Inc.              |  | Colorado               |  |                 
|ICG Mountain View, Inc.          |  | Colorado               |  |                 

---

QuickLinks
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 426

To authorize the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to establish a memorial to

Martin Luther King, Jr., in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 15 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and

Administration

A BILL

To authorize the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to establish

a memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr., in the District

of Columbia, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., MEMORIAL.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—

5 (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—Subject to subsection

6 (b), the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity is authorized to

7 establish a memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr., in

8 the District of Columbia and its environs in accord9 ance with the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide stand-
2

•S 426 IS

1 ards for placement of commemorative works on cer2 tain Federal lands in the District of Columbia and

3 its environs, and for other purposes’’, approved

4 November 14, 1986 (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), to

5 honor Martin Luther King, Jr.

6 (2) DEFINITION.—For purposes of paragraph

7 (1), the term ‘‘the District of Columbia and its envi8 rons’’ has the same meaning given to the term by

9 section 2(e) of the Act (40 U.S.C. 1002(e)).

10 (b) NO EXPENSE TO THE UNITED STATES.—The

11 United States shall not pay any of the expenses of estab12 lishing the memorial under subsection (a).

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 7434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02165]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 89 FR 5949, January 
29, 2024.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Wednesday, January 
31, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 
January 31, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., to be held in the Auditorium LL-002 at 
the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 
and simultaneously webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov, 
has been postponed to Tuesday, February 6, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: January 30, 2024.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-02165 Filed 1-31-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,523
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                       549
<INVENTORY>                                     45,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,446
<PP&E>                                          81,010
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,979
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,774
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,459
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   200,979
<SALES>                                         77,163
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,163
<CGS>                                           91,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,623
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (41,214)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       205
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (41,419)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,214)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (43,633)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (97.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (97.81)
        

</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J O E P I A Z Z A , J r ., P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. F E D E R A L B U R E A U O F P R IS O N S ; et a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 55621 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 2 0 2 - D O C- CW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D a vi d O . C art e r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T R O T T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J oe P i a z z a , J r . , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s a ct i on brou gh tun der B i v e ns v . Si xU nknow n N

am e d A ge nt

s of Fe de ral B ur e au 

# FI LED NO V 27 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 55621 2 of N arcot i cs , 403 U . S . 388 ( 1971) and the F e de r a l T ort s C l a i m A c ta l l e gi ng co n st i tu t i o n al v i o l at i o n s. W e d i sm i ss. W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rP i a z z a ’ s c ha l l e nge s t o the unde r l y i ng j udgm e ntbe c aus e P i a z z af a i l e d t o f i l e at i m e l ynot i c e of

appe a l a s t o the u n d e r ly in g ju d g m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 4(a) (not i ce of appeal m ustbe fi l ed w i thi n si xty day s a ft erj ud gm enti f one of the part i es i s the U ni t ed S t at es ); see a l so Mu n den v. Ul tra -A la ska A sso cs. , 8 4 9 F .2 d3 8 3 , 3 8 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) ( th e ap p e lla te c o u rt w ill n o t “s tr a in to c h ar a c te r iz e artif ic ia lly ” ap o s tju d g m e n t f ilin g “m e r e lyto keep the appeal al i ve”) . DI S MI S S E D.
Motion Granted, Appeal Dismissed , and Memorandum Opinion filed August

29 , 202 4

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 4

- 00 317

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF WILLIAM SULLY GRIFFIN, III

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 and Probate Court

Brazoria County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. GN43476

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This interlocutory appeal is from two orders signed April 11, 2024, directing that a particular vendor provide caregiving and healthcare services to a ward

. On August 19
, 202 4
, the parties file d a joint motion to dismiss th is appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). The motion is granted.

We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Curis, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Michael P. Gray, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:



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



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



|                      |  |                                                                                                                   
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2006 |  | /s/    MICHAEL P.
GRAY                                                                                            
|                      |  | Michael P. Gray Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer)
Order issued November 15, 2012 

In The 

Court of Appra 

Igift# Markt of Muss at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00913-CR 

ANTHONY BEANS, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F11-72079-Y 

ORDER 

The Court DENIES court reporter Sharon Hazlewood's second request for an extension 

of time to file the reporter's record. 

We ORDER the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been 

deprived of the reporter's record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any other 

reason. 
o The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the 

appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute 

this appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect. 

o If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without 

payment of costs for the reporter's record. If appellant is entitled to proceed 

without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. 

Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such 

measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may 

include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds appellant is not 

indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. 

o The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court 

reporter who recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter's 

explanation for the delay in filing the reporter's record; and (3) the earliest date by 

which the reporter's record can be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record containing the written 

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY 

DAYS from the date of this order. 

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be 

reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received, 

whichever is earlier. 

22/y/eA4J 

LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
##### 



Exhibit 10.13(i)
 Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.2005 Equity Incentive Plan
 Option Agreement(Incentive Stock Option or Nonstatutory Stock Option)
 Grant Notice Company Plan
  1. Vesting.
 2. Number of Shares and Exercise Price.
 3. Exercise Restriction for Non-Exempt Employees. i.e. Non-Exempt Employee
 4. Method of Payment. permitted by your Grant Notice,
 (a) The Wall Street
Journal
 (b) The Wall Street
Journal
 1




---



##### 



5. Whole Shares.
 6. Securities Law Compliance.
 7. Term.
 (a) provided, however,
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 (e)
 2




---



##### 



8. Exercise.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 9. Transferability.
 10. Option not a Service Contract.
 3




---



##### 



11. Withholding Obligations.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 12. Notices.
 13. Governing Plan Document.
 4
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 367

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and make permanent the deduction for health insurance costs of self-employed individuals.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 7 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

Mr. DORGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase

and make permanent the deduction for health insurance

costs of self-employed individuals.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION AND INCREASE OF

4 DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS

5 OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

6 (a) DEDUCTION MADE PERMANENT.—Section 162(l)

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special

8 rules for health insurance costs of self-employed individ9 uals) is amended by striking paragraph (6).
2

•S 367 IS

1 (b) INCREASE IN DEDUCTION.—Section 162(l) of

2 such Code, as amended by subsection (a), is amended—

3 (1) by striking ‘‘25 percent’’ in paragraph (1)

4 and inserting ‘‘the applicable percentage’’, and

5 (2) by adding at the end the following new

6 paragraph:

7 ‘‘(6) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For purposes

8 of paragraph (1), the applicable percentage shall be

9 determined as follows:

For taxable years beginning

in:

The applicable percentage is:

1994 and 1995 .............................. 25

1996 and 1997 .............................. 50

1998 and thereafter ....................... 100.’’

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

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

12 December 31, 1993.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 6119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01836]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2024-D-0361]


Development of Monoclonal Antibody Products Targeting SARS-CoV-2 
for Emergency Use Authorization; Guidance for Industry; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice 
that appeared in the Federal Register on December 21, 2023. The 
document announced the availability of a final guidance for industry 
entitled ``Development of Monoclonal Antibody Products Targeting SARS-
CoV-2 for Emergency Use Authorization.'' The document was published 
with an incorrect docket number. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Clary, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4638, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-8615.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 21, 2023 
(88 FR 88401), in FR Doc. 2023-28092, the following correction is made:
    1. On page 88401, in the first column in the header of the 
document, and in the ADDRESSES section, in the second and third lines 
of the first paragraph, the Docket No. is corrected to read ``Docket 
No. FDA-2024-D-0361.''

    Dated: January 25, 2024.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-01836 Filed 1-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
#### Clarence Elmo KING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 34223.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 7, 1962.

Guy H. McNeely, Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The appellant stands convicted of operating a motor vehicle while his operator’s license was suspended; the punishment, four months in jail and a fine of $400.

The evidence is sufficient to show that the appellant was operating an automobile upon a public highway on May 19, 1961. In making its proof that appellant’s operators license was suspended on such date, the state relies alone on a certificate of the Custodian of the Driver and Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety, which was introduced in evidence.

*868The certificate reciting suspension of License No. 2249173 in 1947, 1948, and 1953 does not appear to be a record of the Texas Department of Public Safety or a certified copy thereof, nor do such suspensions appear to be relevant or material to the charge of operating a motor vehicle on May 19, 1961, hence should not have been admitted in evidence.

Only three types of licenses are authorized under Art. 6687b, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. St. These are “operators”, “commercial operators”, and “chauffeurs”, and they are specially defined in the act.

The certificate shows that the appellant was issued an original Texas Operator’s License No. 2249173 on November 20, 1942. The certificate further shows that on September 16, 1947, appellant’s Texas Commercial Operator License No. 2249173 was suspended. The same type and numbered license of appellant was subsequently suspended on June 18, 1948, and again on April 25, 1953. It also shows that “The permanent driver’s license #2249173 has been removed from the record of Clarence Elmo King because of Non-renewal activity”. The date of the removal of the license is not shown. It is not shown what type of license No. 2249173 was when it was removed from appellant’s driving record or whether it was cancelled on the issuance of appellant’s commercial operator’s license, which was later suspended. There is no evidence showing that the appellant had a valid operator’s license on May 19, 1961, or if he did that it was suspended.

For the reasons pointed out, the evidence is insufficient to show that appellant’s operators license was suspended as alleged, and it does not support the conviction.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
----

|   | (1) | the      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29, 2008      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      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                        |                               |                                       |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                        | PAPERWEIGHT      DEVELOPMENT CORP. |
|                        |                               |                                       |
| Dated:      August 11, 2008 |                               |        /s/ Thomas J. Ferree           |
|                        | Name:                              | Thomas      J. Ferree                      |
|                        | Title:                             | Chief      Financial Officer and Treasurer |

----
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19 - 0738

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. AMBER MARIE BURNETT,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursu ant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Robert G. Olson , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 1 2021

12/01/2021
Case Number: DA 19-0738
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ENRIQUE PINEDA-RODRIGUEZ,

AKA Cholo, AKA View,

Petitioner,

 v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-73498

Agency No. A095-730-450

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 7, 2019** 

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Luis Enrique Pineda-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing

his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for

FILED

AUG 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Whether a group constitutes a “particular social group” is a question of law

that we review de novo. Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010). 

We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).

The BIA did not err in its conclusion that Pineda-Rodriguez failed to

establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular

group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members

who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and

(3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-,

26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, Pineda-Rodriguez’s withholding of

removal claim fails.1 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that PinedaRodriguez did not establish that he was more likely than not to be tortured by or

1

 Our conclusion is not affected by the differing nexus standards applicable

to asylum and withholding of removal claims. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846

F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing Zetino v. Holder having drawn no

distinction between the standards where there was no nexus at all to a protected

ground).

2
with the consent or acquiescence of the government upon his return to Honduras. 

Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting petitioner’s

CAT claim because he failed to present an “objective basis of fear” and that “he

would most likely be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government

official”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 

3