alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21.1

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF HENLEY HEALTHCARE, INC.

The following is a list of all of the domestic subsidiaries of the Company as of
December 31, 1999:


                                                                      PERCENTAGE
          DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES       STATE OF INCORPORATION           OWNERSHIP
          ---------------------       ----------------------          ----------
Garvey Company..........................    Minnesota                     100%
Health Career Learning Systems, Inc. ...    Michigan                      100%
Henley Acquisition Corp.................    Texas                         100%
Med-Quip, Inc...........................    Georgia                       100%
NCI, Inc................................    Michigan                      100%

The following is a list of all of the foreign subsidiaries of the Company as of
December 31, 1999:


                                                                      PERCENTAGE
          FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES       JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION    OWNERSHIP
          --------------------       -----------------------------    ----------
Enraf-Nonius, B.V.......................    The Netherlands               100%
Enraf-Nonius, N.V.......................    Belgium                       100%
Enraf-Nonius Medizinelektronik GMBH.....    Germany                       100%
Enraf-Nonius Medical Equipment Co. Ltd..    Thailand                       40%
Stats Doyer Hydrotherapie S. A..........    France                         25%
Enraf-Nonius S.A.France.................    France                       99.7%

                                       53
REF ID:A52167B 

Memorsndum For Mr. W11!1em F. l'riedman, 

WAr Plans and Training Division, 

Office o~ the Chief Signal Officer, 

Muni tione Bldg., :'7eshington, n.c. 

Subject: New ?~tent Appltc~tion, 

Ir.r• ~ovemP.n t in Cryp to ;J.•f•P 11s 

October 13, 19:36. 

l. The documents for the ~.bov') entitled aptilication have been 

complAtP-d Rnd a~e submitt~d herA~ith tor ~pprovnl and ~xecut1on prior to 

the filing of the applic~tion in the ?etent Offics. In act:ition to the 

fol"!illll patAnt application to ;;nich is eppend<!d e. p!loto.ststic copy of the 

dra\vings, you will also :'ind the 'li3U&l liciu.ae in favor of the !Jovornment • 

..:.. In <>:x:ocut1ng tho ~ppl1cntion, pleHse be ;3~•re to 3::.r;_-n your 

full first, middle initial and last names at the three places indicstF.d; 

then i~~e the oa~h before a notary public who ~ust also aign nnd impreaa 

his noterial seal. In ex~cutins the license you should sign in like l!l6nner 

et CJne :point ~:r:d MVP. tv:o per3ona .sign as witnesses. 

3. Tho '.:ccu:ients ehould 7.hen b~ ::-sturned to this o:ftice wilereupon 

the application will be ~laced in order and duly filed in the Pa~ent Office. 

You will reoall thn t this case is to be :placed in ~ secret category and in 

due course steps will be taken to inl'Oka Section 4894 Revised statutes. 

Dy order ot the Chief Signal Officer. 

Chftrla s /,. rlOWe, 

Patente SAction, Signal Corpe. 

Peclassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-22-2013 pursuant to E.O. 1352§
Exhibit24.4

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWNALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes andappoints each of Robert K. Kretzman and Michael T. Sheehan or either ofthem, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact andagent, with full power of substitution, for him and his name, place andstead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the REVLONCONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION (the"Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form10-K") under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation oron behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of theCorporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument,contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form10-K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibitsthereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including thispower of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and anyapplicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body,granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone,full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thingrequisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fullyto all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, herebyratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents,each acting alone, or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do orcause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has signed these presents this 23rd day of February, 2004.

|        |  |        |  |                 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|--------|--|--------|--|-----------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
|   |  | /s/    |  | ALAN S.BERNIKOW |
|   |  |   |  | ALAN S.BERNIKOW |
|        |

----
1 The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3869

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Perdis Cotton, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 12, 2006 Filed: January 19, 2006

___________ Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Perdis Cotton appeals the 150-month sentence the district court 1 imposed after granting the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Cotton’s sentence for his post-sentencing s ubstantial assistance. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the reduction should have been even greater. Counsel’s argument is unavailing. SeeUnited States v. Coppedge , 135 F.3d 598, 599 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (extent of Rule 35(b) reduction is unreviewable); cf. United States v.-2- Williams , 324 F.3d 1049, 1049-50 (8th Cir. 2003) (p er curiam) (refusal to depart further under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 is not review able unless defendant makes “substantial showing” that court’s decision was based on unconstitutional motive). Having reviewed the resentencing record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. A ccordingly, we grant defense counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of CEO 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 Kemper Investors Life Insurance Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Diane C. Davis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 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: November 15, 2004 |  | /s/ Diane C. Davis     
|                         |  | Diane C. Davis         
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer
| (1)   | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ J. Joseph Burgess                                                               |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | J. Joseph BurgessPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |
AFS-13-072-E December 20, 2012

Exemption No. 9682A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-11942

Ms. Caitlin M. Randles Supervisor, Flight Test Engineering The Boeing Company

P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124-2207

Dear Ms. Randles:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9682. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions and

limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated Novem ber 9, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of The Boeing Company (Boeing) for an extension of Exemption No. 9682. That exemption from § 47.69(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows Boeing to use its Dealer’s Aircraft Registration Certificates outside the United States for flight testing

and sales demonstrations.

Previous to Exemption No. 9682, Boeing had been granted Partial Exemptions Nos. 3440, 3440A, 3440B, 3445, 3445A, 3452, 3452A, and 3453 to allow flight testing outside of the United States. Boeing was later granted temporary Exemption Nos. 3513 and 6627 which authorized operation outside the United States for the purpose of flight testing and sales

demonstrations with Dealers’ Ai rcraft Registration Certificates.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.2

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Boeing.

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9682 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. The aircraft m ust be owned by Boeing;

2. The aircraft must have a temporary regist ration number or an assigned number affixed as provided by 14 CFR part 45;

3. When the aircraft does not have a standard airworthiness certificate, permission of the host country (countries) must be obtained before flights to or through that country; and

4. Boeing shall maintain records of each interna tional flight for a period of 1 year after the aircraft returns to the United States, such records to consist of:

a. Registration number and aircraft serial number;

b. Dates of departure and return to the United States; and

c. General overseas itinerary.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 9682 to April 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.3

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9682 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9682.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 17, 2016 106301 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN M. NACK,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 12, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch, Rose and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

Robert A. Gouldin, Oneonta, for appellant.

John M. Muehl, District Attorney, Cooperstown (Michael F.

Getman of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County

(Burns, J.), rendered March 22, 2013, which revoked defendant's

probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled

substance in the fifth degree and was sentenced to five years of

probation. Subsequently, defendant admitted to violating a

condition of his probation, with the understanding that his

probation would be revoked and he would be sentenced to 21⁄2 years

in prison to be followed by one year of postrelease supervision,

with the sentence to run consecutively to a sentence imposed on

another conviction. County Court imposed the agreed-upon

sentence and defendant now appeals.
-2- 106301 

We reject defendant's sole contention on appeal that the

sentence is harsh and excessive. Given defendant's criminal

history, and that he specifically agreed to the sentence as part

of his admission to violating his probation, we discern no

extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion warranting

a modification of the sentence (see People v Kerwin, 117 AD3d

1097, 1098 [2014]; People v Flanders, 110 AD3d 1112, 1113

[2013]).

McCarthy, Lynch, Rose and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
2 Apr11 l9Sl 

l. BefereDle is !Ude t.o Ule ao-c&uad ·~ Report. on Pol.Jgrapb,,• 

dated 7 lo•aaber 19S2 am apeoJ.f'ically to the nco-.ta\ion CCll'ltained 

1n par. Ji.1 the~, readtDc u tollovas · . . . 

•Thia Ctmll.tttae reocmn!lda that the' Direetor accept. the 

ob3ect4.Ye,, aild.J!C at. a t.araet date of l Jul.7 l9Sl. It reco....ta 

that. Vi\11 aspect, to paragrapla 4& tM warJr: 1- begun. nav. It. 

recmmebll e Ula t. the work of paragraph be be be&un now util11illa 

a select ~ttee .. dre.vn ·rJ!Ota each ott~ ot .tm A&tm7 to adl'i• 

and coimW. t. ...,~ta tbs S.C.-1 tq ConVol I:>tri.aloa. • ·. 

· 2. The recOllllendatioD a\ forth ill par. -~ refer~ to ill par. 1&.1 

1a as tollova a · . " 

tlc. Careful pl.mmSng must be U1¥1ert.aken to:-

. (1) Batablisll a eode 'llhich '1ill el.early define,. aong 

ether 'things~ that the t.nt will be u88d onl7 on · a TOluntar,y baaia and will be a scneni• test 

tar further iDYast.i.c&Uon rather than a -~•1•· ot 

action. 

(2) Establim acoepubl.e at.and~ of evalutton. . . . 

(3) DeYel.op queetlona and testa. 

(4) Establish priorities Eor the use of the 

Pol7g:raph test. 1

' · · . 

). In c0nsid.el':lng 'the BCSS Report. t.he :OirectOr stated.i ·.-

•..... I conclir 111-th other recOIUl.8Ddati.ona 1n so t.zo u n can 

put ~_into effect. Let ae hoe prog:reas reports •• · ••• • . . 

4. ·!be BCSS nccgneglaUon u tD •uUUsing a select cOnaitt.ea 

dram troa each office o.t fiAe .&gamy to ·acl,ise aid consult With th• 

Seauri. t7 Coll'Uol Di•isloa" vaa aong U. •other ·recommendations" 

approYed b)" the Diraetor.. . · . . 

· $. Sot_. u I q aw.an no such comi'ttee hU bee establ.l ...... . ·. . ·. 

6 •. I uramtll' recommd tbat the coJDi~tee be estahl1ahed m.t.te9' 

delal"·. 

·. 

eclassifi ed and a oved for release b NSA on 10-2 -2013 ursuant to E .0. 1352
CERTIFICATION





The
      undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Air T, Inc. (the
      "Company") that, to the best of his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the
      Company on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2007 fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such
      period and the results of operations of the Company for such
      period.





























Date:  August
      8,
      2007                                                      /s/
      Walter
      Clark


Walter
      Clark,
      Chief Executive Officer











Date:  August
      8,
      2007                                                     /s/
      John
      Parry


John
      Parry, Chief Financial
      Officer









































23
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             5,772
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0 
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     878
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     6,650     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                130
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                              44
<OTHER-SE>                                         6,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       6,650
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      79
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      27
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       52
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   52
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                          52
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints each of Wade H. Nichols III, Robert K. Kretzman,
Laurence Winoker and Glenn P. Dickes or any of them, each acting alone, his true
and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him
and his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the
REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION (the "Corporation") Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 (the "Form 10-K") under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the
Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the
Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract,
document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments
thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and any applicable securities exchange or securities
self-regulatory body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each
acting alone, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and
thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his
substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this 14th
day of March, 2000.

                                            /s/ RONALD O. PERELMAN
                                            ----------------------
                                                RONALD O. PERELMAN
#### Bandell, Respondent, vs. Jelleff and another, imp., Appellants.

*February 27*

March *14, 1899.*

*Findings of fact: Appeal: Notice of fraud.*

In an action to set aside deeds on the ground of fraud, a finding of the trial court that purchasers from plaintiff’s grantee took title with notice of facts and circumstances sufficient to put them upon inquiry, which would have led them to discover the fraud of their grantor in obtaining title from the plaintiff, is *held*to be an inference of fact from various items of evidence, and not a conclusion of law. It will therefore not be disturbed unless the evidence preponderates against it. "

Appeal from a jtidgment of the circuit court for G-reen Lake county: Geo. W. Bttbhell, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

This is an action to set aside and annul a deed from the plaintiff to the defendants William M. Bandell and wife, and also a deed from said Bandell and wife to the defendants *Jelleff*and *WaJcefield,*on the ground that said Bandell procured his deed by a fraud upon plaintiff and that his grantees took title with knowledge of such fraud.

The trial court, among others, made the following find*481ing of fact: “(21) That at the time of the execution and delivery to said *Jelleff*and Wakefield, by said William M. Bandell and wife, on said 3d day of April, 1897 (said deed being the deed described as Exhibit B of the complaint), they, the said *Jelleff*and *Wakefield,*had notice of facts and circumstances sufficient to put them upon inquiry, which inquiry would have led them to discover the fraud of said William M. Bandell in procuring said deed from plaintiff on the 16th day of January, 1896 (being said Exhibit A of the complaint), and to discover the fraudulent intent of the said William M. Bandell in executing to them, said *Jelleff*and Wakefield, said deed of said lands, viz. said deed described as Exhibit B of the complaint.”

•The defendants *Jelleff*and *Wakefield*appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Eor the appellants there was a brief by Thompson, *Harr-shaw d>*Thompson, and oral argument by *J. G. Thompson.*

Eor the respondent there was a brief by *P. F.*Hamilton, attorney, and *Perry Hiskern,*of counsel, and oral argument by *Hr. Hamilton.*

Dodge, J.

An examination of-the evidence discloses no preponderance against the findings of fact, by which, among other things, it is found that the defendants took title with notice of facts and circumstances sufficient to put them upon inquiry, which would have led them to discover the fraud of their grantor in obtaining title from the plaintiff. This is not, as contended by appellants, a conclusion of law, but an inference of fact from various items of evidence. Its effect is to deny the appellants the protection equity might accord to an innocent purchaser for value, and they are not entitled to reimbursement of the small amount of money paid by them to their grantor, no part of which came to the hands of the plaintiff. *Rindskopf v. Myers,*87 Wis. 80.

*By the*Court.— Judgment affirmed.