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

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                          ---------------------------
                               DECEMBER 31, 2000
                               -----------------


                                                           State or Country
                      Name                                 of Incorporation
                      ----                                 ----------------

Domestic
--------
    A H Investments Ltd.                                      Delaware
    Ayerst-Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Incorporated                 Delaware
    Cyanamid International Corporation Limited                Delaware
    Genetics Institute, Inc.                                  Delaware
    Greenwich Holdings Inc.                                   Delaware
    MDP Holdings, Inc.                                        Delaware
    Route 24 Holdings, Inc.                                   Delaware
    American Cyanamid Company                                 Maine
    Wyeth-Ayerst International Inc.                           New York
    Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc.                        New York
    Wyeth-Ayerst Lederle, Inc.                                Puerto Rico
    Wyeth-Whitehall Pharmaceuticals, Inc.                     Puerto Rico
    Berdan Insurance Company                                  Vermont


Foreign
-------
    Laboratorios Wyeth-Whitehall Ltda.                        Brazil
    Wyeth-Ayerst Canada Inc.                                  Canada
    John Wyeth & Brother Limited                              England
    Wyeth-Lederle                                             France
    Wyeth-Pharma GmbH                                         Germany
    AHP Finance Ireland Limited                               Ireland
    Wyeth Lederle S.p.A.                                      Italy
    Wyeth Lederle Japan, Ltd.                                 Japan
    Wyeth S.A. de C.V.                                        Mexico
    AHP Manufacturing B.V.                                    Netherlands
    Wyeth Philippines, Inc.                                   Philippines
    Wyeth Lederle Portugal (Farma), Lda.                      Portugal
    Wyeth Nutritionals (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.                  Singapore
    Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.               Singapore
    Cyanamid Iberica, S.A.                                    Spain
    Wyeth Lederle Nordiska A.B.                               Sweden
    Dimminaco AG                                              Switzerland
    Cyanamid Taiwan Corporation                               Taiwan

There have been omitted from the above list the names of subsidiaries which,
considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a
significant subsidiary.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Amaya, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 672]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose Rubin, J.), rendered on April 29,1993, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree, and resentencing him, upon his plea of guilty to a violation of probation based upon a Queens County conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, to a term of 1 to 3 years to be served consecutively to the 31/2 to 7-year term he received in the Queens County matter, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law since he did not move to withdraw the plea before sentencing or to vacate the judgment of conviction *(People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, if we were to review the claim, we would find that the allocution was not insufficient for failure to establish the value of the jewelry that defendant admittedly stole *(see, supra,*at 666, n 2; *see also, People v Galvan,*197 AD2d 394); that the court’s inaccurate references at sentencing and resentencing for the third degree grand larceny that defendant had pleaded to as a fourth degree grand larceny could have no effect on defendant’s earlier acceptance of the plea offer; and that the court’s incorrect statement at the plea proceeding that defendant faced a maximum of four years in prison when he actually faced a maximum of seven years could have had no effect on defendant’s decision to accept an offer of five years probation. Defendant’s resentence to the consecutive term of 1 to 3 years for the violation of probation was a proper exercise of discretion. Concur— Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
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 Annual Report of Wireless Age Communications, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the
"Report") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
knowledge:

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 operation of the Company.


/s/ John G. Simmonds
--------------------
John G. Simmonds
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer of the Registrant)

Dated: March 31, 2005


/s/ Gary Hokkanen
-----------------
Gary Hokkanen
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer of the Registrant)

Dated: March 31, 2005
Petition for Exemption Elkhorn Aviation, Inc. dba Baker Aircraft (a) Company Identification Company Name: Elkhorn Aviation, Inc. dba Baker Aircraft Contact: Genevieve Woydziak

– Secretary Treasurer Address: 43769 Heilner Road, Baker City, OR 97814 Telephone: (541) 523

- 5663 Email: Genevieve@bakercityairport.com (b) Elkhorn Aviation, Inc., 135 certificate number K2ZA350L, and Part 91 ID No: K2ZJNM11, would like to apply for a grant of exemption from Ti tle 14, Part 120, to permit us, operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover, with an equivalent level of safety, our safety

- sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program. We are currently covered by an approved FAA/DOT dru g and alcohol testing program through a Consortium/Third Party Administrator: Wienhoff Drug Testing Program Manager: Colleen Wienhoff 5125 Glenwood Street, Boise, ID 83714 Telephone (208) 376

- 5600 (c) Relief: The relief we seek is acceptance of our exist ing program for both operations, in order to avoid redundant effort and expense. (d) Public Interest: Reducing our cost helps us maintain the lowest possible rates for our services, as well as minimizes the effort that the FAA must expend managing our drug and alcohol program. Both are in the public interest. (e) Safety: The level of public safety remains the same or better. Our current program covering our 135 operations meets the drug testing requirements for both FAA Part 91.147 and Part 135. (f) Federal Re gister Summary: Request to allow existing FAA approved Drug Testing Program to be used for both Part 135 and Part 91.147 operations for a small company with very limited air tour operations. (g) Summary: We are a small company that has been in business since 2004. Since this time we have had no drug/alcohol incidences. (h) Outside the US: At this time, we have no plans to operate outside of the United States. Thank you for your time. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I am available at (541) 523

- 5663. Sincerely,
Genevieve Woydziak Secretary

-Treasurer Elkhorn Aviation, Inc. dba Baker Aircraft
---

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 Dutch Gold Resources, Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel W. Hollis, Chief Executive Officer and chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





Date: June8, 2010
/s/Daniel W. HollisName:  Daniel W. Hollis

Title:  Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
* 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

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40183 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS MANUEL SAYAS-MONTOYA,

Defendant-Appellant.

* * * * *

Consolidated with

04-40213

* * * * *

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS MANUEL SAYAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-815-1

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
No. 04-40183 c/w No. 04-40213

-2-

Luis Manuel Sayas-Montoya appeals from his guilty-plea

conviction for illegal reentry after deportation as well as from

the revocation of supervised release relating to a prior

conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. 

He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of

the Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), and that his sentence is improper under Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). These arguments are, as he

concedes, foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224 (1998); United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-

66 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004)

(No. 04-5263); United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th

Cir. 2000). The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.
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 UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. F A U S T O R E N A T O Q U E V E D O , a. k. a. A p p l e, a. k . a. F au st o Q u ev ed o G u arcas, a . k. a . C a l vi n M art i ne z , a . k. a . R aul M art i ne z , a . k. a . F r aus t o Q ue ve do, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 12- 50387 D. C . No . 2 : 1 2 - c r - 0 0 0 6 7 - GA F 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 G aryA . F e e s s , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d June 18, 2013 ** B e f o r e : T A L L M A N , M . S M I T H , an dH U R W I T Z , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . F aus t o R e na t o Q ue ve do appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntand chal l enges hi s gui l ty- pl eaconv i ct i on and 4 6-m on th sent ence for bei ng an i l l egal 

# FI LED JU N 24 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 50387 2 a l i e n f o u n di n th e U n i t e dSt a t e s f o l l o w i n g d e p o rt a t i o n , i n v i o l at i o n o f 8 U . S. C. § 1326. P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), Q uevedo ’ s c ou nsel h a s f ile dab r ie f

s ta tin g th a t th e r e ar e n o g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f , a lo n g w ith am o tio n to w ith d r aw a s c o u n s e l o f

r e c o r d . W e h a v e p r o v id e dQ u e v e d o th e o p p o rtu n ityto f ile a pro se supp l em ent albri ef . N o p ro se supp l em ent albri ef or answ er i ng bri ef

has b e e n f ile d . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o ar g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D. AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 99.5

                        Report of Independent Accountants



To the Board of Directors of Ford Motor Credit Company, JPMorgan Chase,
Indenture Trustee, The Bank of New York, Owner Trustee:

Re: Sale and Servicing Agreement by and among Ford Auto Owner Trust 2002-A, as
Issuer, Ford Credit Auto Receivables Two LLC, as Seller, and Ford Motor Credit
Company, as Servicer, dated as of January 1, 2002

We have examined management's assertion about Ford Motor Credit Company and its
subsidiaries' ("Ford Credit") compliance with the minimum servicing standards
identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP"), to the extent such procedures
are applicable as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 included in the
accompanying management assertion (Exhibit I). Management is responsible for
Ford Credit's compliance with these minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about Ford
Credit's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about Ford Credit's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination of Ford Credit's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Ford Credit has complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Detroit, Michigan
March 18, 2003

<PAGE>

                                                                       Exhibit I



Ford Motor Credit Company                                    One American Road
                                                             P.O. Box 1732
                                                             Dearborn, MI  48121




                  Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance
                     with USAP Minimum Servicing Standards


March 18, 2003

Re:   Sale and Sevicing Agreement by and among Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust
2002-A, as Issuer, Ford Credit Auto Receivables Two LLC, as Seller, and
Ford Motor Credit Company, as Servicer, dated as of January 1, 2002


As of and for the year ended December 31, 2002, Ford Motor Credit Company and
its subsidiaries have complied in all material respects with the minimum
servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP"), to
the extent such procedures are applicable.





/s/ Terry Chenault
-----------------------------------------
President of Global Operations Technology




/s/ Ann Marie Petach
-----------------------------------------
Assistant Treasurer
#### Steinbach, Respondent, vs. Steinbach, Appellant.

*November 7*

December 3, *1929.*

*210
      *L. P. Fox*of Chilton, for the appellant.

*Frederick Aebischer*of Chilton, for the respondent.

Fowler, J.

No definite rule can be laid down to guide trial courts in dividing the husband’s estate between the parties on final division upon the granting of a divorce. The learned trial judge seems to have assumed that the wife is always entitled to some definite proportion, and that under the circumstances here involved she should receive at least one sixth. This is an erroneous conception. The division is not a problem in fractions. In every case all the circumstances must be considered, including the separate estate of the wife. The question always is, What should the wife receive, under the circumstances, in view of what she already has, and what will remain to the husband after division? We appreciate that there is sometimes a wide latitude between the extremes of allowance and that between these extremes the allowance is in the discretion of the trial judge. However, in view of the special facts that the parties had lived together so short a time, that the wife did not at all assist in the accumulation of the husband’s property, that she had some property of her own, and all the circumstances, we consider that $1,500 is a sufficient allowance in this case. As the general subject of proper awards has been recently considered in *Bruhn v. Bruhn,*197 Wis. 358, 222 N. W. 242, and in *Kalbakken v. Kalbakken,*199 Wis. 501, 227 N. W. 11, we see no reason for'further discussion here.

*211The rules of the court were disregarded by appellant’s-counsel in preparing both brief and case. No costs will be allowed for their printing, and costs against the respondent will be limited to clerk’s fees.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is modified by substituting $1,500 instead of $3,300 as the award to the plaintiff, and as so modified is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
32.1**
 
 **STATEMENT
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**
 
 
 Pursuant
to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Sally A.
Fonner, President of Win or Lose Acquisition Corporation (the "Company"), hereby
certifies that:
 
 The
Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/
Sally A Fonner
 Sally A.
Fonner, President
 Dated:
March 29, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 40 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 40

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security 
   Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement 
                        Amendments Act of 2007.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

              

 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Social Security 
Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement 
Amendments Act of 2007 (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 91702 (December 19, 
2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 2, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 40

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security 
   Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement 
                        Amendments Act of 2007.
```
NO. 07-12-0428-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

NOVEMBER 9, 2012

EDWARD L. MARTINEZ,  

	Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,  

	Appellee

_____________________________

FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2004-405,843; HONORABLE JOHN J. “TREY” MCCLENDON, III, PRESIDING

***Memorandum Opinion***

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	Edward L. Martinez appeals from a trial court order denying his “Motion for Discovery and Public Information Documents” for purposes of post-conviction litigation.  He asks that we grant his motion, appoint him counsel and bench warrant him back to Lubbock County.  We dismiss the appeal.

	On October 3, 2012, we sent appellant a letter asking him to demonstrate why this court has jurisdiction over the matter and gave him until November 5, 2012, to do so.  Appellant responded by asking that the matter be abated back for the appointment of counsel, “or in the alternative [appellant] ask[s] that such matter (appeal) be dismissed without prejudice or stayed until [appellant] can file the necessary pleadings.”   

	An appellate court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal only if it is from a final judgment,  *Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.,*39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001), and we have  

2

jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction.  *Stary v. DeBord,*967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998).  The trial court’s order denying appellant copies of documents in the record for purposes of post-conviction litigation does not invoke our jurisdiction.  *Self v. State,*122 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. App.–Eastland 2003, no pet.); *Diaz v. State,*No. 07-10-00328-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1985, at *3 (Tex. App.–Amarillo January 21, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op.).  Furthermore, we have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases.  *See*TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2012); *Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist.,*910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).  **

	Without a final, appealable order, we are without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  

								Brian Quinn 

								Chief Justice

Do not publish.

1