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


                  CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION
                SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                           December 31, 1997

 The Company and its significant subsidiaries were:

                                                         State or
                                             Percent of  Province or
                                             Stock Owned Country of
Parent and Significant Subsidiaries          by Company  Incorporation

Consolidated Freightways Corporation                     Delaware

Significant Subsidiaries of Consolidated Freightways Corporation

Consolidated Freightways
   Corporation of Delaware                      100      Delaware
   Canadian Freightways, Limited                100      Alberta,
Canada
   Milne & Craighead Customs Brokers
     (Canada) Ltd.                              100      Canada
   Canadian Freightways Eastern Limited         100      Ontario,
Canada
   United Terminals LTD.                        100      Canada
   Blackfoot Logistics                          100      British
Columbia
   Consolidadora De Fletes Mexico               100      Mexico
Leland James Service Corporation                100      Delaware
Redwood Systems, Inc.                           100      Delaware
Redwood Systems Logistics de Mexico             100      Mexico
Redwood Systems Services de Mexico              100      Mexico
**EXHIBIT 32.2**(1)

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18U.S.C. § 1350**

 

I, Ken Owyang, the chieffinancial officer of SupportSoft, Inc. (the “Company”), certify for thepurposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Codethat, to the best of my knowledge,

 
| (i)    |   | the  Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,  2007 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| (ii)   |   | the information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                   |

 
| Date:  November 02, 2007 |       |                              |
|--------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
| ** **               | ** ** | ** **                        |
|                     |       | /s/ KEN OWYANG                    |
| ** **               | ** ** | **Ken Owyang**                    |
| ** **               | ** ** | **Chief Financial Officer and**   |
| ** **               | ** ** | **Senior Vice President**         |
| ** **               | ** ** | **of Finance and Administration** |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided toSupportSoft, Inc. and will be retained by SupportSoft, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----

| (1) |   | The material  contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed “filed” with the SEC and is not  to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the  Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made  before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation  language contained in such filing, except to the extent that the registrant  specifically incorporates it by reference. |
|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

----
# C_2016342EN.01000301.xml

| 17.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 342/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 342/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 September 2016

(2016/C 342/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1226 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 114,35 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4471 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85203 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5570 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0941 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2625 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,024 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,14 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3167 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4501 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3384 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4949 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4817 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7099 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5367 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5318 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 263,64 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,8680 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4915 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5115 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 770,61 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6441 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,741 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,8966 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,190 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6993 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,7665 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,2370 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1226

JPY

Japanese yen

114,35

DKK

Danish krone

7,4471

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85203

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5570

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0941

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2625

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,024

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,14

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3167

RON

Romanian leu

4,4501

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3384

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4949

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4817

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7099

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5367

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5318

KRW

South Korean won

1 263,64

ZAR

South African rand

15,8680

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4915

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5115

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 770,61

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6441

PHP

Philippine peso

53,741

RUB

Russian rouble

72,8966

THB

Thai baht

39,190

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6993

MXN

Mexican peso

21,7665

INR

Indian rupee

75,2370

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3057 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance criminal penalties for 

health related stalking, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 25, 2021 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Ms. HIRONO, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. SHAHEEN, 

Ms. SMITH, and Mr. BLUMENTHAL) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance criminal 

penalties for health related stalking, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preventing Vigilante 

5 Stalking Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OBTAINING OR INTERFERING WITH THE PERSONAL 

7 HEALTHCARE DECISIONS OF A WOMAN. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 110A of title 18, United 

9 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2261B 

10 the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3057 IS

1 ‘‘§ 2261C. Enhanced penalty for health related stalk2 ing 

3 ‘‘If a person commits an offense under section 2261A 

4 with the intent to obtain healthcare information of an indi5 vidual or to prevent the healthcare decisions of an indi6 vidual, the person may be imprisoned for up to 3 years, 

7 in addition to any term of imprisonment imposed for that 

8 offense under section 2261A.’’. 

9 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

10 for chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is 

11 amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

12 2261B the following: 

‘‘2261C. Enhanced penalty for health related stalking.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Bens, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 711]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperaran, J.), rendered July 12, 2001, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and coercion in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of coercion in the first degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), established that the defendant expected the delivery of a package containing a kilogram of cocaine to the house in which he was a tenant. Instead of alerting him to the arrival of the package, as he had requested, the defendant’s landlady took the package to the police. Since the defendant’s conduct “had gone to the extent of placing it in [his] power to commit the offense unless interrupted,” he came “very near” to the accomplishment of the intended crime of possessing the cocaine, notwithstanding the interruption caused by the landlady’s diversion of the package *(People v Mahboubian,*74 NY2d 174, 190-191 [1989] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People v Sobieskoda,*235 NY 411, 419 [1923]; *People v Acosta,*198 AD2d 285 [1993]; *see also People*
      *392
      *v Rosica,*199 AD2d 773 [1993]). Thus, the evidence at trial was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt of that charge was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

As the People correctly concede, the conviction of coercion in the first degree was not supported by legally sufficient evidence, since the defendant’s statements to the landlady’s son that his family was in danger did not succeed in compelling or inducing the son to return the cocaine to the defendant *(see*Penal Law §§ 135.60, 135.65 [1]; *People v Cassarino,*297 AD2d 543 [2002]; *People v Wager,*199 AD2d 642 [1993]).

The parties’ remaining contentions do not require further modification of the judgment. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 26, 2016

d0718

Order 

Clerk

July 26, 2016

151806 & (13)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151806

COA: 326995

Wayne CC: 92-001856-FC

CARL HUBBARD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 2, 2015 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to 

stay is treated as a motion to hold case in abeyance, and it is DENIED.
**COURT OF APPEALS**

**TENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS**

****

April 23, 2015

No. 10-14-00112-CR

TEVIN SHERARD ELLIOTT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-1543-C2

**JUDGMENT**

	This Court has reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record in this proceeding as relevant to the issues raised and finds no reversible error is presented.  Accordingly the trial court’s judgment as to Count II, signed on January 23, 2014, is affirmed.

	A copy of this judgment will be certified by the Clerk of this Court and delivered to the trial court clerk for enforcement.	

							PER CURIAM

****SHARRI ROESSLER, CLERK

						By: 

							Deputy Clerk

# image1.png

# image2.jpeg

# image3.png
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; UDALL Center Review.                    

*Date:*                         April 22-23, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Lorien Hotel & Spa, 1600 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Birgit Neuhuber, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, INDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-3562,                         *neuhuber@ninds.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: March 30 2015.

Carolyn Baum,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-07627 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 10.1


                        ONTRACK DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                  RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                                JANUARY 27, 1999


RESOLVED, that under the ONTRACK Data International, Inc. 1996 Stock Incentive
Plan, an additional authorization of 400,000 shares of the authorized and
unissued common stock of the Company is hereby adopted and reserved for said
Plan.

RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the first sentence of Section 3 of the ONTRACK Data
International, Inc. 1996 Stock Incentive Plan is hereby amended to read as
follows:

         The total number of shares of Stock reserved and available for
         distribution under the Plan shall be 1,400,000.

RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the last two sentences of Section 5.(k) shall be
deleted, so as to eliminate the limitations on the maximum numbers of shares as
to which options may be granted to any director and to all non-employee
directors as a group.

RESOLVED, FURTHER, a new Section 5.(l) shall be added following Section 5.(k),
with Section 5.(l) to read as follows:

         The maximum aggregate number of shares as to which Options may be
         granted to any Participant in any calendar year shall be 500,000.

RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the foregoing resolutions and actions are hereby
recommended for approval by the Shareholders of the Company, which approval
shall be requested at the next available opportunity for Shareholder action, but
no later than within one (1) year of the effective date of these resolutions.
#### Commonwealth Title Insurance and Trust Co., Trustee, etc., v. Midland Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

*Corporations*— Mortgages—Foreclosure—Order *of court*— Failure *to comply with requirements*— Distribution—Bondholders—Forfeiture *of rights.*

Where, upon foreclosure of a corporation mortgage and sale of the corporate property, the court makes a decree calling for the presentation to the trustee named in the deed of trust of all claims against the corporation, and decrees that "all claims not presented shall be forever barred,” bondholders who fail to comply with the order of court will not be permitted to participate in the distribution of proceeds. Exceptions filed by such bondholders, without showing any substantial reason for their failure to comply with the order of court, will be dismissed.

Exceptions to distribution. C. P. Dauphin Co., Equity Docket, No. 665.

*Frederick C. Newbourg,*for exceptants; *Charles H. Bergner,*contra.

Jan. 31, 1922.

Fox, J.,

In this matter a bill to foreclose a mortgage was filed on Oct. 6, 1920, and on Dec. 14, 1920, a decree was made, in which it was, amongst other things, decreed: “That the property described in the bill should be sold by the trustee at public sale, unless within five days after the service *367of a copy of the decree the defaults in the payment of interest, taxes due the Commonwealth, to the sinking fund, etc., should be made good and settled; and

“5. That after confirmation of the sale and payment of the entire purchase money to the trustee, in the manner provided for in this decree, the trustee shall, by advertisement once a week for two weeks in a newspaper published in the City of Harrisburg, and a newspaper published in the City of New York, and a newspaper published in the City of Philadelphia, give notice that on a day and hour certain the said trustee will, at its office, Northwest corner of 12th and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, receive claims arising on said bonds or coupons belonging thereto, and hear all persons interested therein, or alleging to have or hold claims against the mortgagor company; and all claims not presented shall be forever barred from participation in the proceeds arising from the sale, etc.”

The sale was made, and the trustee on Jan. 14, 1921, presented and filed its report of distribution. To this report exceptions were filed on behalf of the holders of bonds secured by the deed of trust, which bonds were not presented to participate in the distribution of the funds derived from the proceeds of the foreclosure sale.

The holders of these bonds did not comply with the 5th paragraph of the decree above quoted, in that they did not present the same to the trustee for distribution at the time fixed for hearing claims. No substantial reason is given for their failure to comply with the decree of the court, nor do they show any good reason why they should at this late date be permitted to participate.

Wherefore the exceptions are overruled; the report of the trustee is confirmed absolutely, and distribution is ordered to be made in accordance therewith.

From William Jenkins Wilcox, Harrisburg, Pa.
#### Chestnutt v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

*Bernard M. Gross,*for plaintiff.

*Stuart A. Schwartz,*for defendant.

March 20, 1978

GREENBERG, *J.,*

Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions in this case to compel production of an accident report. Plaintiff also seeks counsel fees for fifing the motion since defendant, SEPTA, had refused to produce the report despite the fact that he had requested their production on at least two occasions prior to fifing the motion.

Counsel for defendant contends that since there has been a divergence of opinion among judges of the common pleas court as to whether the reports in question should be produced he should not be *498penalized for presenting his point of view in opposition to the motion.

What defendant says about a divergence of opinion may well have been so prior to October 17,1977. Subsequent to that date, however, the undersigned has been handling all discovery motions, having been assigned that function by the President Judge. Notice of this procedure was published in The Legal Intelligencer. Since that date we have uniformly ruled that these reports should be made available, and notice of our rulings were given to defendant.

One of the principal reasons for assignment of these motions to one judge (in addition to expediting their disposition) was to avoid a divergence of opinion as argued by defendant, and to establish policies so that the necessity of filing motions may be avoided, where possible. This has now been accomplished and defendant should be aware of it.

Accordingly, while we will not grant plaintiffs request for counsel fees in this case, we will not be as understanding in future cases and should this situation arise again proper counsel fees will be awarded.

ORDER

And now, March 20, 1978, plaintiffs motion for production pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4009 is granted and it is hereby ordered that defendant, SEPTA, make available to plaintiffs counsel, any and all driver accident reports prepared and/or filed by SEPTA employes relating to the accident involved in this litigation for the purposes of inspection and copying within 30 days of the date of this order, or appropriate sanctions will be imposed upon application to the court.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Maxwell, Appellant

(No. 2).

October 7, 1907:

*Appeals*— Interlocutory *order*— Judgment *on official bond*— Scire *facias.*

An order allowing a scire facias to issue on a judgment entered by a warrant of attorney in a tax collector’s bond, is an interlocutory order from which no appeal lies.

Argued May 14, 1907.

Appeal, No. 20, April T., 1907, by. defendant, from order of C. P. Butler Co., Sept. T., 1905, No. 99,. allowing scire facias to issue in case of Commonwealth to use ■ of Butler County, the Borough of Butler, and the School Board of Butler Borough v. James M. Maxwell et al.

Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

Scire facias sur judgment entered on a tax collector’s bond.

*Error assigned*was order allowing a scire facias to issue on judgment entered by warrant of attorney on the bond of Jame.s M. Maxwell, tax collector for the borough of Butler.

*3. 3. Gfoucher,*with him *A. T. Scott,*for appellant.

*J. W. Hutchison,*for appellee.'

Opinion by

Head, J.,

This appeal and Com. v. Maxwell, ante, p. 631, are based upon a single proceeding in the court below. An examina-, tion of the facts as set forth in the opinion there filed we. think will make it manifest that the order or decree from which 'this appeal is taken was in no sense final but only, interlocutory. After it was made the proceeding went on *637regularly to filial judgment' and then a second appeal was taken. In that appeal the appellants would have the right to.-have heard and adjudicated the same question raised in this one. This appeal was, therefore, prematurely taken and must be quashed.

Appeal quashed.