alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
List of Subsidiaries


Corporation                        State of
                                   Incorporation    Status
-----------                        -------------    ------

New Era Foods Inc.                 Nevada           wholly owned-active
                                                    but no direct business-
                                                    parent company of Premium
                                                    Cigars Wrappers Inc.
                                                    SYBR.Com Inc.


Island Wholesale Grocers Inc.      New York         wholly owned
                                                    inactive


Premium Cigar Wrappers Inc.        New York         active
                                                    majority owned by
                                                    New Era Foods Inc.

Synergy Brands Distribution Inc.   New York         wholly owned
                                                    inactive


PHS Group Inc.                     Pennsylvania     active
                                                    majority owned by
                                                    Beauty Buys.com Inc.
                                                    d.b.a. Pro Set Distributors


SYBR.Com Inc.                      New York         active
                                                    wholly owned by
                                                    New Era Foods Inc.

Net Cigar.Com Inc.                 New York         active
                                                    wholly owned by
                                                    SYBR.Com Inc.

BeautyBuys.com Inc.                New Jersey       active
                                                    owned by
                                                    SYBR.com Inc.
                                                    50% voting interest


                                     EX-21
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Titanium  Metals  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2002 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  (the  "Quarterly
Report"),  I, J.  Landis  Martin,  Chairman  of the Board,  President  and Chief
Executive  Officer 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 Quarterly  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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial   condition  and  result  of
          operations of the Company




November 7, 2002


/s/ J. Landis Martin
J. Landis Martin
Chairman of the Board, President
   and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bryant Whitaker, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered June 14, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was arrested on October 1, 1987, after a police officer observed him leaping out of a window located on *657the second floor of an abandoned building. The officer was present at this location in order to execute a search warrant which had been obtained upon the basis of an undercover narcotics transaction which had taken place at the subject building a few days earlier. A second narcotics transaction had been completed only moments before the commencement of the execution of the warrant, and moments before the defendant unsuccessfully sought to escape from the building via the second story window.

On appeal, the defendant argues, *inter alia,*that his arrest was not based upon probable cause, and that the fruits of that arrest should have been suppressed. We disagree. The only reasonable explanation for the defendant’s presence at the subject building, when coupled with the highly unusual method by which he sought to flee from it, was that he had been a participant in the illegal narcotics transaction which had occurred inside the building only moments earlier. To suggest that an innocent person would have been present in this isolated location for some legitimate reason, and would have chosen a second story window as a means for exiting from it, defies logic. Under the circumstances of this case, there was probable cause to arrest *(see generally, People v Ortiz,*103 AD2d 303, *affd*64 NY2d 997).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Harwood, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

183) ll-E-143 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:09 AM Sheet 183 of 264 
P.2 

Apr-06 - • 9 8 04:39 P 

• 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: 

Telephone Nun 

Fax Number: 

A 945 ? 

Contact Report 

Robert Jemison, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

April 3,1998 

Mr. Steve Kavanaugh 

Bowie Manufacturing, Inc. 

aben (712)464-3191 | 

(712) 464-8601 

mM ^ 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

--

P.O l 

1 

Contact Summary: 

Mr. Steve Kavanaugh was contacted on behalf of the U.S. EPA to update information 

provided in the 1993 EPA Reinforced Plastic Composites Screening Survey submitted by Bowie 

Manufacturing, Inc. for their facility located in Lake City, Iowa. In response to my questions Mr. 

Kavanaugh indicated the following: 

The facility produces fiberglass veterinary units which sit on the back of pickup trucks. The 

units are designed to hold the equipment, tools, and medicines used by veterinarians. 

The faciUty uses spray lay-up to apply a polyester resin in the fabrication of these veterinary 

units. The polyester resin applied by spray lay-up contains approximately 31% HAP by weight 

(31% styrene by weight). No additional HAP is added to the resin during the fabrication process 

with the exception of small amounts of HAP that may (OT may not) be present in initiators, 

promoters, and/or catalysts added to the resin. The polyester resin applied by spray lay-up does not 

contain a vapor suppressant. 

The facility uses spray lay-up to apply a pigmented (white) polyester gel coat which contains 

approximately 32.7% HAP by weight (27.7% styrene, <5.0% methyl methacrylate). No additional 

HAP is added to the gel coat during the fabrication process with the exception of small amounts of 

HAP that may (or may not) be present in initiators, promoters, and/or catalysts added to the gel coat. 

The spray guns used to apply both the gel coat and the resin are "air-assisted" spray guns. 

All of the resin mixing conducted at this facility is done inside covered SS gallon drums by 

inserting the mixing shaft through a hole in the top of the 55 gallon drum. The facility does not 

actively (force) vent emissions from the 55 gallon drum by applying a vacuum to the drum. 

The facility no longer uses methylene chloride as a cleaning agent. 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE : JP(jts*~- fcOu/-fr*4<*$^p
#### SLAUGHTER v. STATE.

No. 20675.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 13, 1939.

Earl Earp, of Monahans, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault; penalty assessed at a fine of $100 and confinement in the county jail for 60 days.

The prosecution is under Art. 1147, P.C. 1925, which declares that an assault or battery becomes aggravated: “When committed upon an officer in the lawful discharge o-f the duties of his office, if it was known or declared to the offender that the person assaulted was an officer discharging an official dutyl”

The transcript contains the complaint and information filed, in the case, neither of which complies with this article of the statute in alleging that it was known or declared to the offender that the person assaulted was an officer in the discharge of his official duty. Inasmuch as it is necessary to prove this fact, the failure to allege it in the information is fatal. There-foi e, the information found in the transcript would not support the conviction. State v. Coffey, 41 Tex. 46; Johnson v. State, 26 Tex. 117; Bristow v. State, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 379, 37 S.W. 326; Lacoume v. State, 65 Tex.Cr.R. 146, 143 S.W. 626; Stevenson v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 592, 9 S.W.2d 1108.

Furthermore, a transcript of considerable procedure, including several motions, as well as what purports to be a statement of the things said and done in the trial of the case, is in the record, bearing the original signatures of the prosecuting attorney and the attorney for the defense. This is approved by the judge as the statement of facts in the case. By this “statement of facts”, it is disclosed that the prosecuting attorney read to the jury only the complaint in the case and did not read the information. It was stated and agreed that the appellant was being tried on this complaint.

We are asked to reverse the case on the ground 'that the appellant was not tried upon the information appearing in the transcript. Inasmuch as the information which does appear in the transcript and the complaint filed in the case do not comply with the statute, it is not necessary to pass upon that question.

The case is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
AMENDMENT FIVE TO INSURANCE PROCESSING AGREEMENT


This document is Amendment Five to the Insurance  Processing  Agreement made and
entered into  effective  June 1, 1993, and amended by Amendment One to Insurance
Processing  Agreement dated June 4, 1998;  Amendment Two to Insurance Processing
Agreement  dated  September 25, 1998;  Amendment  Three to Insurance  Processing
Agreement  dated October 19, 1998;  and Amendment  Four to Insurance  Processing
Agreement  dated December 15, 1998 (the  "Agreement"),  by and between  American
National Insurance Company ("American National") a Texas corporation, and Legacy
Marketing Group ("LMG"), a California corporation.

In  consideration  of mutual covenants  contained  herein,  the parties agree as
follows:

1.   Section 6.1 of the  Agreement  is hereby  deleted in its  entirety  and the
     following new Section 6.1 shall be substituted therefor:

     "6.1 Subject to termination as hereinafter  provided,  this Agreement shall
     remain in force and effect until the close of business on May 15, 1999, the
     term of this Agreement.  This Agreement may be renewed by mutual  agreement
     for additional successive terms of one (1) year unless terminated by either
     party by prior  written  notice to the other at least  one  hundred  eighty
     (180) days prior to the end of the initial term or the renewal term."

2.   Except as  specifically  amended  hereby,  all items and  provisions of the
     Insurance Processing Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


LEGACY MARKETING GROUP                   AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE
                                         COMPANY


By: /s/ David A. Skup                    By: /s/ David Behrens
    ------------------------------           ------------------------------

Title: CFO & Treasurer                   Title: Exec VP of Independent Marketing
       ---------------------------              ---------------------------

Witness: /s/ Katie Shannon               Witness: /s/ Gretchen Childress
         -------------------------                -------------------------

Date: 3/25/99                            Date: 3/29/99
      ----------------------------             ----------------------------
*OPINION ISSUED JANUARY 29, 2008*

#### JEFFREY NEAL VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-06-125)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

*100Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Claimant brought this action for vehicle damage which occurred when his 1993 Subaru Legacy struck a piece of tire in the road while he was traveling on 1-64 near Dunbar, Kanawha County. 1-64 is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to deny the claim for the reasons more fully stated below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred between 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on April 18,2006. In the area where this incident occurred, 1-64 has three lanes of traffic traveling westbound. The road was dark and wet, and claimant’s speed was approximately forty miles per hour. Claimant was proceeding cautiously on 1-64 when a tractor trailer veered into his lane of traffic. As claimant maneuvered his vehicle into the left lane, his vehicle struck a piece of a truck’s tire which was lying on the road. Since there was a concrete wall located to his left and the tractor-trailer to his right, he was unable to switch lanes to avoid this hazard on the road. Thus, claimant’s vehicle sustained damage to its front bumper, front lamps, and fender in the amount of $822.91. Claimant did not have insurance coverage for his loss.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition on 1-64 at the site of claimant’s accident for the date in question. Respondent did not present any witnesses at the hearing of this matter.

The well-established principle of law in W est Virginia is that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of travelers upon its roads. *Adkins*vs. *Sims,*130 W.Va. 645; 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). In order to hold respondent liable for road defects of this type, a claimant must prove that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable time to take corrective action. *Chapman*vs. *Dept. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986).

In the instant case, the Court is of the opinion that respondent is not liable for the damage to claimant’s vehicle which occurred on 1-64. Even though the Court finds that the piece of tire on the road created a hazard to the traveling public, respondent did not have notice of this condition prior to claimant’s incident. Although the Court is sympathetic to the claimant’s plight, there is insufficient evidence of negligence upon which to base an award.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does deny this claim.

Claim disallowed.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1706 

To prevent human health threats posed by the consumption of equines raised 

in the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2017 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. COLLINS, 

Mrs. SHAHEEN, Ms. WARREN, and Mr. COONS) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prevent human health threats posed by the consumption 

of equines raised in the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘John Stringer Rainey 

5 Memorial Safeguard American Food Exports Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘SAFE Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

8 Congress finds that— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1706 IS

1 (1) unlike cows, pigs, and other domesticated 

2 species, horses and other members of the equidae 

3 family are not raised for the purpose of human con4 sumption; 

5 (2) equines raised in the United States are fre6 quently treated with substances that are not ap7 proved for use in horses intended for human con8 sumption and equine parts are therefore unsafe 

9 within the meaning of section 409 of the Federal 

10 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; 

11 (3) equines raised in the United States are fre12 quently treated with drugs, including phenylbuta13 zone, acepromazine, boldenone undecylenate, ome14 prazole, ketoprofen, xylazine, hyaluronic acid, nitro15 furazone, polysulfated glycosaminoglycan, clenbuter16 ol, tolazoline, and ponazuril, which are not approved 

17 for use in horses intended for human consumption 

18 and equine parts are therefore unsafe within the 

19 meaning of section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, 

20 and Cosmetic Act; and 

21 (4) consuming parts of an equine raised in the 

22 United States likely poses a serious threat to human 

23 health and the public should be protected from these 

24 unsafe products. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1706 IS

1 SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS. 

2 Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

3 Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amended by adding at the end the 

4 following: 

5 ‘‘(eee) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

6 section— 

7 ‘‘(1) equine parts shall be deemed unsafe under 

8 section 409 of this Act; 

9 ‘‘(2) equine parts shall be deemed unsafe under 

10 section 512 of this Act; and 

11 ‘‘(3) the knowing sale or transport of equines or 

12 equine parts in interstate or foreign commerce for 

13 purposes of human consumption is hereby prohib14 ited.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

Guzar Mirbachakot Transportation ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W91B4N-10-D-5001 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 58541, 58542 

58544,58545 

Timothy Sullivan, Esq. 

Thompson Coburn LLP 

Washington, DC 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Joseph K. Venghaus, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 13 May 2014 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 58541, 58542, 58544, 58545, 

Appeals of Guzar Mirbachakot Transporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's 

Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
StormKlear EPA Case Study

Project: I‐540, Western Wake Freeway, Apex, NC

Owner: NCDOT/NC Turnpike Authority

Contractor: Raleigh Durham Road Builders, Cary, NC

Product: StormKlear DPS‐MB Kits

Dose Rate: 5 mg/L

Description: This is a new roadway that will extend approximately 12.6 miles from NC 55 at SR1172 

Smithfield Road) to NC 55 near SR1630 (Alston Avenue) in Wake County. Total construction cost is

estimated to be $784M. Given the native soils and amount of exposed area, the challenge was to se

how much StormKlear MB Kits could drop the turbidity of the runoff; samples were taken during a 1

over 6 hours rain event. The Kits were installed in dry form directly on top of 4’ single net excelsior

matting just upstream of a skimmer basin; 12” x 10’ excelsior logs were used as check structures. Th

DBP‐2100 was installed before the 1st check, and the GelFloc before the 2nd; the 3rd section was for

settling and additional filtration.

Results – Influent: 3787 NTU, After 3rd Check: 297 NTU, Basin: 1.4 NTU

Residual Biopolymer Test: Negative
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1474 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1474

     To increase the irrigable acreage for the San Angelo Federal 
          reclamation project, Texas, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 1993

Mr. Smith of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To increase the irrigable acreage for the San Angelo Federal 
          reclamation project, Texas, 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. INCREASE IN IRRIGABLE ACREAGE.

    (a) In General.--The first section of the Act entitled ``An Act to 
provide for the construction by the Secretary of the Interior of the 
San Angelo Federal reclamation project, Texas, and for other 
purposes'', approved August 16, 1957 (71 Stat. 372), is amended by 
striking ``ten thousand acres'' and inserting ``fifteen thousand 
acres''.
    (b) Amendment to Contract.--The Secretary of the Interior is 
authorized to amend contract numbered 14-06-500-369 to reflect the 
amendment made by subsection (a), except that such amendment shall not 
be construed to require a change in the proportionate amount of all 
remaining payments due and payable to the United States by Tom Green 
County Water Control Improvement District No. 1.

                                 <all>
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AAA NEVADA INSURANCE CO.,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

VIHN CHAU and LANG CHAU,

 Defendants,

and

BENJAMIN D. BUENAVENTURA,

JR., et al.,

 Intervenors - Appellants.

No. 10-16793

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00827-RJJ-LRL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 15, 2011

San Francisco, California

FILED

DEC 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, Senior United States District **

Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

2

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BEA, Circuit Judge, and GETTLEMAN,

District Judge.** 

Because the Buenaventuras are not parties to the insurance contract between

AAA and Chau, and do not have a judgment against Chau, they have no standing

to sue AAA for a declaration of coverage. Knittle v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 908

P.2d 724, 726 (Nev. 1996). A tort claimant’s rights against the tortfeasor’s insurer

do not mature until the tort claimant recovers a judgment. Roberts v. Farmers Ins.

Co. 533 P.2d 158, 159 (Nev. 1975). Nevada law, which applies to this diversity

action, does not recognize a right of action on the part of a third-party claimant

against an insurance company for bad-faith refusal to settle. Tweet v. Webster,

610 F.Supp. 104, 105 (D. Nev. 1985); see Hunt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

655 F.Supp. 284, 286-88 (D. Nev. 1987).

Parties need not have standing to intervene in this circuit, see State of

California Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Thompson, 321 F.3d 835, 846 n.9 (9th Cir.

2003), but must have standing to appeal, see Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 68

(1986). Because the Buenaventuras do not have standing to sue AAA, they do not

have standing to appeal. The only exception is the Buenaventuras’ standing to
3

appeal the district court’s limitation on their intervention, which we affirm for the

same reasons as given by the district court. On all other matters, this appeal is

dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.