alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                    EXHIBIT 5

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


1.       National  Construction Group Inc. ("National Group") incorporated under
         the  laws  of  the  Province  of  Quebec,  Canada,  is  a  wholly-owned
         subsidiary of the Company.

2.       National  Maintenance Inc.  incorporated under the laws of the Province
         of Quebec, Canada, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

3.       Auprocon Limited incorporated under the laws of the Province of Quebec,
         Canada, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of National Maintenance Inc.

4.       Entretien  Industriel N-S Inc.  incorporated  under the federal laws of
         Canada, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of National Maintenance Inc.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                  PURSUANT TO
                  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Faraj Aalaei, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Centillium Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|Date: August 9, 2007 | Faraj Aalaei Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------

---
P. 1



# OAR Box 1812 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 291 ) IV-C- 4
Docket Number: 

# ^fcfr-lf

*

Printed 11/3/2008 10:13:06

AM Sheet 291 of 307P. 2

UNITE D STATES ENVIRONMENTA

L PROTECTIO

N AGENC Yrl ^

_ •

"A R 

### 1 9 t:: s

Honorabl e Lawrenc e Coughli n Hous e of Reprentative s Washington , D . C . 2051 5
Dea r Mr . Coughlin : Thi s letter i s i n respons e t

o you r letter of Februar y 20 , 199 0 to Willia m Reilly , regardin

g th e finalizatio

n o f on-highwa

y diese l fue l regulations . I n th e letter, , yo

u urge d EP A t o finalize

d thi s rulemakin

g withou t an

y exemption s fo r smal l refiners , inorde r t o allo w th e engine manufacture s t o certif y

thei r engine s o

nlow-sulfu

r fuel . First , I wan t t o emphasiz e tha t w e ' full y

expec t t

o finaliz e thi s packag e i n tim e fo r 199 1 certification . W e agre e tha t thi s rulemakin g wil l hav

e ver y significan t benefits ; an d thu s w

e conside r it s promulgatio na to p priority . However , yo u wer e correc t t o not e that w

e hav e bee nrequested , t

o conside r providin

g a n interi

m exemptio

nfo r smal l refiners . A s I a m sure yo

u ar e aware , w

e are require

d to fully

conside r th

e merit s of al l suc hrequest s raise

d durin

g th e comment period . Thi s i s especiall y true when dealin

g wit hissue s a s seriou s a s th e potentia l fo

r regiona l fue l shortage s as a resul t of ou r action . Thus , w

e mus t mak e ou

r decisio

n onl y after th

e merit s of bothside s of th e issu e are considered . A s such , w e wil l conside r you

r comment s ver

y seriousl y

i nmakin g ou r decisio

nas to whethe r a smal l refiner exemptio ni s justified . Than k yo u fo r sharin

g you r thought s wit hus .

Sincerel y

yours , 0?;3!NA L SIGNE D B

Y Rx.-HAR D u
. WiLSO N

. Richar d D . Wilso

n Director , Offic e of Mobil e Source s
EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted) (the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), Joseph D. Keegan, Ph.D., theChief Executive Officer of Molecular Devices Corporation (the “Company”), and Timothy A. Harkness,the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition of the Company at the end of the fiscal year covered by the Annual Report andresults of operations of the Company for the fiscal year covered by the Annual Report.This Certification accompanies the Annual Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.Dated: March 15, 2006     /s/ Joseph D. Keegan, Ph.D.   /s/ Timothy A. HarknessJoseph D. Keegan, Ph.D.   Timothy A. HarknessChief Executive Officer   Chief Financial Officer and Senior VicePresident Finance and Operations
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of
April 12, 2012 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2012-2 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the
closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (f/k/a AmeriCredit Corp.), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in
connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that
I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     |  |                                         |  |                      
|------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. |  |                                        
|                                     |  |                                        
|By:                                  |  | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  | Dated: March 30, 2015
|                                     |  | Connie Coffey                           |  |                      
|                                     |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |                      
|                                     |  | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

RICK E. NEWMAN, : Case No. C-1-01 0067

:

Plaintiff, : Judge Herman J. Weber

:

v. : PLAINTIFF RICK E. NEWMAN’S

: RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT

: MESA, INC.’S PROPOSED

THE PROCTER & GAMBLE : FINDINGS OF FACT AND

COMPANY, ET AL., : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

:

Defendants. :

___________________________________________________

Plaintiff Rick E. Newman (“Mr. Newman”) responds as follows to the proposed

findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted Defendant Mesa, Inc.:

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

1. 

.

2. 

.

3. 

.

4. 

.

Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 91 Filed 09/08/2003 Page 1 of 3
2

5. 

.

6. 

.

7. .

8. 

. 

PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. 

.

2. 

.

3. 

.

4. 

.

5. P&G’s willful destruction of the sulfur dioxide system after having received notice

from legal representatives for Newman constitutes spoliation. Accordingly, Mesa is entitled

to a presumption in its favor that there was some defect in the sulfur dioxide system which

Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 91 Filed 09/08/2003 Page 2 of 3
AV0017.WPD/1 3

caused the leak or release of sulfur dioxide gas.

Respectfully submitted,

ARNZEN & WENTZ, P.S.C.

BY:s/ Mary K. Molloy 

MARY K. MOLLOY (0003067)

MARK G. ARNZEN

BEVERLY R. STORM

600 Greenup Street

P.O. Box 472

Covington, Kentucky 41012-0472

(859) 431-6100

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed via U.S. mail, postage

prepaid, this 8th day of September 2003 to the following:

John C. Scott, Esq.

Joe Mordino, Esq.

Faulkner & Tepe, LLP

2200 Fourth & Vine Street

5 West Fourth Street

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Scott R. Thomas, Esq.

Jeanette N. Dannenfelser, Esq.

Furnier & Thomas, LLP

One Financial Way

Suite 312

Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

s/ Mary K. Molloy 

Case 1:01-cv-00067-HJW Document 91 Filed 09/08/2003 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of NEW FIBER CLOTH TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify that: (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended March 30, 2007 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: May 30, 2007By: Yao DeRong
YAO DERONG
Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 30, 2007By:  /s/Parker Seto
PARKER SETO
Chief Financial Officer
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4395 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22 (legislative day, MARCH 19), 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military 

Park to include the Gettysburg Train Station, 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, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4395 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK 

2 BOUNDARY REVISION. 

3 Section 1 of the Act titled ‘‘An Act to revise the 

4 boundary of the Gettysburg National Military Park in the 

5 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and for other purposes’’, 

6 approved August 17, 1990 (16 U.S.C. 430g–4), is amend7 ed by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(d) ADDITIONAL LAND.—In addition to the land 

9 identified in subsections (a) and (b), the park shall also 

10 include the following, as depicted on the map titled ‘Get11 tysburg National Military Park Proposed Boundary Addi12 tion’, numbered 305/80,045 and dated January 2010: 

13 ‘‘(1) The land and interests in land commonly 

14 known as the ‘Gettysburg Train Station’ and its im15 mediate surroundings in the Borough of Gettysburg. 

16 ‘‘(2) The land and interests in land located 

17 along Plum Run in Cumberland Township.’’. 

18 SEC. 2. ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF LAND. 

19 Section 2 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 430g–5) is amended 

20 by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following: ‘‘The 

21 Secretary is also authorized to acquire publicly owned 

22 property within the area defined in section 1(d)(1) by pur23 chase, from willing sellers only, if efforts to acquire that 

24 property without cost have been exhausted. The Secretary 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4395 RFS 

1 may not acquire property within the area defined in sec2 tion 1(d) by eminent domain.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00745-CV

IN RE CHRISTUS SANTA ROSA HEALTH CARE CORPORATION D/B/A CHRISTUS 

SANTA ROSA HOSPITAL - WESTOVER HILLS

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 11, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On November 3, 2022, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed a 

motion to stay a discovery order pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus, 

which this court granted on November 4, 2022. After considering the petition, real party in 

interest’s response, relator’s reply, and this record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to 

the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). The stay imposed on November 4, 2022 is lifted.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2022-CI-01107, styled Sharon Kay Goodman v. Christus Santa Rosa Health 

Care Corporation d/b/a Christus Santa Rosa Hospital - Westover Hills and Franklin Dale Barber, pending in the 

166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Laura Salinas presiding.
### Swanson , Bria n (OST) b^T^^p^g^^^^^^ S From : Devany , Denni s (OST ) ^ i - J ^PT i H " Sent : Thursday , December29 , 201 1 4:0 0 P M

. ^,h.'^^l:^\r-'r^y'^''<^'f

. • To : Swanson , Bria n (OST ) .-Z ^ .;xrv v Subject : FW : Answe rt o Pacifi c Wing s Petitio n fo rReconsideratio n

From : Annemari e Awea u rmailto:aaweau<g)hawaii.edu 1 Sent : Thursday , Decembe r29 , 201 1 3:5 9 Pl ^ To : Devany , Denni s (OST ) Subject : Answe rt o Pacifi c Wing s Petitio n fo rReconsideratio n Aloh ae Dennis , M y nam e i s Annemari e Aweau an dI amastuden t intern a t th e Kalaupap aNationa l Historica l Park

. I worke da t th e par k throughou t

th e cours e o f

th e summe r

an d periodicall y throughou t

th e year . I reside dther e full tim e durin g th e summe r months , occasionall y leavin g o n weekends , eithe r t o to p sid e Moloka i o r

t o th e neighbo r

island s for variou s reasons . A t

n o tim e di dI utiliz e th e service s provide db y Pacifi c Wing s but instea dchos e t o walk

th e pal i trai l du e t o th e fac t that Pacifi c Wing s ha s bee n repeatedl y unreliabl e mthei r

service s an dthei r

price s ar e s o hig h tha t

I was not abl e t o affor

dthe m if I ha dwante dto
. Th e service s that ar e availabl e now , provid e th e resident s wit h a reliabl e schedul e a

t affordabl e price s an dar e muc h mor e appropriat e for th e need s o f

th e resident s o f

th e settlement

. Than k yo u for you r time

. M e k amahalo , Annemari e Aweau
#### John Barger *v.*State of Arkansas

5240

413 S. W. 2d 54

Opinion delivered April 3, 1967

*Gerald'T. Ridgeway,*for appellant.

*Joe Purcell,*Attorney General, *Don Langton>*Asst. *Atty. General,*for appellee.

CoNley Byrd, Justice.

This habeas corpus petitioner, John Barger, alleges that his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel was violated in that he was arrested in Pulaski County, Arkansas, in July, 1963; that he entered a plea of not guilty in the Pulaski Circuit Court on Septembér 4, 1963, when his case was passed with his consent to the September, 1963, term (which began on the fourth Monday of September); that no action was taken in the September, 1963, term nor in the March, 1964, term; and that on February 1, 1965, (a day of the September, 1964, term), he entered a plea of guilty to three charges of forgery and received a ten-year sentence on each charge — all without the assistance of counsel. The state admits that petitioner was not represented by counsel and it does not contend that he was advised of his right to the assistance of counsel.

In *McIntyre*v. *State*242 Ark. 229, 412 S. W. 2d 826, we held that under these circumstances the petitioner had not waived his consitutional right to the assistance *305of counsel. Therefore, we hold that petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus should have been granted and his Pulaski Circuit Court‘convictions set aside.

Reversed and remanded.
##### 



Exhibit 21.01
 Subsidiary Name
    
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation or OrganizationCMD Technology 
Inc.
    
    CaliforniaDVDO, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaHDMI Licensing, 
LLC
    
    DelawareSimplay Labs, 
LLC
    
    DelawareSlice Acquisition 
Corp.
    
    DelawareTWN Acquisition 
Corp.
    
    DelawareSilicon Image, 
UK
    
    United KingdomSilicon Image, KK
    
    JapanZillion 
Technologies, 
LLC
    
    CaliforniaSilicon Image 
Electronics 
Technology Co. 
Ltd
    
    ChinaSilicon Image 
Korea
    
    KoreaSilicon Image Inc. 
Taiwan
    
    TaiwanSilicon Image
Turkey
    
    TurkeySilicon Image, 
Cayman Islands 
Limited
    
    Cayman Islands
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 20 ,

2011

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 11

- 00 845

- C R

____________
IN RE THOMAS FLORENCE , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 56th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10CR1217



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On September 29, 2011 , relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court.

See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. R elator

claims his conviction is void due to defects in the charging instrument.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.07 governs the procedure for obtaining

post

- conviction relief from a final felony conviction. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.
11.07 (West Supp. 2010). Article 11.07 provides no role for the courts of appeals in this

process. See id. Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters
related to post

- conviction relief from a final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court2

of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 1991); Board of Pardons & P aroles ex rel. Keene v.
Court of Appeals for Eighth Dist ., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding
that article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction).

A ccordingly, we are without jurisdiction to declare rela tor’s conviction void and order his

release

.
Relator's petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### Ex parte Michael K. WHETSTONE, Appellant. In re Robert Wayne HAGINS, GAL for Robert Michael Hagins and Courtney Elaine Hagins, Plaintiffs v. Benjamin WHETSTONE and Celeste Mae White, as Trustees for Seven Stones Trust, a/k/a Seven Stones Holding Company, Defendants, of whom Robert Hayne Hagins is Respondent.

(347 S. E. (2d) 881)

Supreme Court

May 22, 1986.

ORDER

This is an appeal by a non-party witness from an order directing him to attend a deposition and produce certain documents. Respondent moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground the order is interlocutory and not directly appeala-ble. We grant the motion to dismiss.

An order directing a party to participate in discovery is interlocutory and not directly appealable under S. C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330 (1976). *Patterson v. Specter Broadcasting,*287 S. C. 249, 335 S. E. (2d) 803 (1985); *Lowndes Products, Inc. v. Brower,*262 S. C. 431, 205 S. E. (2d) 184 (1974). We now hold that an order directing a non-party to submit to discovery is not immediately appealable.

Instead of appealing immediately, a non-party has two alternatives. He may either comply with the discovery order and waive any right to challenge it on appeal, or refuse to comply with the order and appeal after he is held in contempt for his failure to comply. This is the same rule applied by the federal courts. *See United States v. Ryan,*402 U. S. *581532, 91 S. Ct. 1580, 29 L. Ed. (2d) 85 (1971); *Cobbledick v. United States,*309 U. S. 323, 60 S. Ct. 540, 84 L. Ed. 783 (1940); *Federal Trade Commission v. Alaska Land Leasing, Inc.,*778 F. (2d) 577 (10th Cir. 1985); *Newton v. National Broadcasting Co.,*726 F. (2d) 591 (9th Cir. 1984).

Moreover, this rule is consistent with S. C. Code Ann. § 18-1-30 (1976), which limits appellate review to parties aggrieved by a judgment or order below. *Brode v. Brode,*278 S. C. 457, 298 S. E. (2d) 443 (1982); *Asbury v. South Carolina,*268 S. C. 40, 231 S. E. (2d) 306 (1977). This Court has defined an aggrieved party as one who is injured in a legal sense or one who has suffered an injury to person or property. *Dunson v. Dunson,*278 S. C. 210, 294 S. E. (2d) 39 (1982); *Cisson v. McWhorter,*255 S. C. 174, 177 S. E. (2d) 603 (1970); *Bivens v. Knight,*254 S. C. 10, 173 S. E. (2d) 150 (1970).

A non-party suffers no legal injury when he is ordered to participate in discovery. The necessary legal injury does not arise until he is held in contempt.

Because appellant has not yet been held in contempt, he has not right to appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

It is so ordered.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JOSEPH HEBERT, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC. 

AND CHESAPEAKE 

OPERATING, LLC, 

Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-00852 

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOLSON 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO WITHDRAW 

MOTION FOR EQUITABLE TOLLING AS MOOT 

The Court having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion to Withdraw Motion for Equitable Tolling 

(Doc. 35) as Moot, is of the opinion that it should be GRANTED. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Equitable Tolling (Doc. 35) is Denied as moot. 

 Dated this ___25th _ day of January, 2019. 

 

 s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

 GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT