alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

Name                                                   Jurisdiction
                                                            of
                                                      incorporation
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Nellcor Puritan Bennett Europe BV                     Netherlands

Nellcor Puritan Bennett Benelux BV                    Netherlands

Nellcor Puritan Bennett Germany GmbH                  Germany

Nellcor Puritan Bennett Belgium NV/SA                 Belgium

Nellcor Puritan Bennett Hong Kong Limited             Hong Kong

Nellcor Puritan Bennett France Holdings SARL          France

Pierre Medical S.A.                                   France

Nellcor Puritan Bennett (Melville) Ltd.               Canada

Nellcor Iberia S.L.                                   Spain

Nellcor Puritan Bennett Export Inc.                   USA, Delaware

Nellcor Foreign Sales Corporation                     Barbados

Nellcor-CMI, Inc.                                     Japan

Puritan-Bennett Corporation                           USA, Delaware
                
Nellcor Puritan Bennett Ireland Holdings Limited      Ireland
                
Puritan-Bennett Ireland Distribution Ltd              Ireland
                
Nellcor Puritan Bennett Ireland Limited               Ireland
                
Puritan-Bennett Aero Systems Co.                      USA, California
                
Nellcor Puritan Bennett de Mexico, SA de CV           Mexico
                
Nellcor Puritan Bennett Finland OY                    Finland
                
Nellcor Puritan Bennett France SARL                   France
                
SEFAM SA                                              France
                
Nellcor Puritan Bennett International Corp            USA, Delaware
                
Nellcor Puritan Bennett U.K. Limited                  England
                
Nellcor Puritan Bennett Italia Srl                    Italy
                
Nellcor Puritan Bennett Canada Ltd                    Canada
                
Nellcor Puritan Bennett Australia Pty, Ltd            Australia
Justin FRANCESCHI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1886

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Justin Franceschi, Milton, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7686

TREMAINE RASHON WRAY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN DENNIS BUSH,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. 

Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:17-cv-03066-BHH)

Submitted: December 1, 2020 Decided: February 25, 2021

Before KEENAN, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tremaine Rashon Wray, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tremaine Rashon Wray seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Wray’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wray has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wray’s motions for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.30
Synovus Financial Corp. 
Amended and Restated Clawback Policy


Any incentive compensation provided to executives will be subject to clawback if the amount of compensation was based on a financial statement or a performance metric that was materially inaccurate or for material failures in the management of company financial, operational or reputational risks that result in or are reasonably expected to result in a material adverse impact to Synovus Financial Corp. or a business unit.
For these purposes, performance metrics include any metric, including corporate financial results, used directly or indirectly to determine whether or not incentive compensation is to be provided to an executive or group of executives or to determine the amount of any such compensation.
With respect to inaccurate financial statements or performance metrics, the portion of the incentive compensation that represents the excess over what would have been provided if there had been no material inaccuracy in the financial results or performance metrics will be subject to clawback.  With respect to failures in risk management, the Compensation Committee shall have discretion to determine the amount subject to clawback; provided, however, that the maximum amount subject to clawback for any executive shall be the amount of incentive compensation awarded to such executive during the three (3) year period preceding the date of the Compensation Committee’s determination of the clawback amount.  The Compensation Committee also retains discretion to determine that it would not be in Synovus Financial Corp.’s best interests to enforce the clawback.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan VARGAS-CAMACHO, also known as Ballecito, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11588 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Juan Vargas-Camacho, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Vargas-Camacho has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vargas-Camacho has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### CHONG SU YI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CABLE NEWS NETWORK; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1158

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 24, 2017

Chong Su Yi, Appellant Pro Se.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Chong Su Yi appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we modify the district court’s dismissal order to show that it is without prejudice and affirm as modified for the reasons stated by the district court. *Yi v. CNN,*No. 8:16-cv-00963-TDC (D. Md, Apr. 22 & May 31, 2016); see *also Nagy v. FMC Butner,*376 F.3d 252, 258 (4th Cir. 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Dana SWEETS, a/k/a Sweets, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6354

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

James Dana Sweets, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

' Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not. binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Dana Sweets appeals the district court’s letter order rejecting as meritless his objection to subject matter jurisdiction and denying his motion for a new trial. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Sweets,*No. 1:04-cr-00564-CCB-4 (D. Md. Mar. 2, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Opinion issued April 8, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01
- 1 5
- 00 310
- C R

——————————— IN RE MIGUEL ANGEL YEPEZ , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION By petition fo r writ of mandamus, Relator Miguel Angel Yepez cha llenges
the Order f or AIDS Testing entered in the trial court on March 5, 2015

. We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. All outstanding motions

are dismissed as moot

. PER CURIAM

1 The underlying cause of action is Miguel Angel Yepez v. The State of Texas , in the District court of Harris County, Texas, 174 th Judicia l District, cause no. 14128 36

.2 Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle

. Do n ot p ublish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
A.I. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160320

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Madison Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala. R.Juv.P.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-82,577-01

EX P ARTE BEN L EE HE NLEY, Appl icant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W11-61328-L(A) IN CRIMIN AL DISTRICT COURT NO. 5

F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (T ex . Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firea

rm and sentenc ed to five y ea rs ’ i mprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Henley v. State , No. 05-13-00053- CR (Tex. App.—Dallas J une 5, 2013) (not desig nated f

or publication). Applicant conte nds, among other thing s, that counsel render ed ineffec tive assistance

. On J une 10, 2014, the trial court enter ed a timely order desig nating issues. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. S t r ickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte2

Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). I n these c ircumstance s, additional fac ts

are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). I n the appropr iate case , the trial court may rely on its persona l rec ollection. Id

. I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall determine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wi s h es to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent him at the hea ring . T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law in response to Applicant’s claims. The trial court shall also make any other fi n d i n gs o f fa ct and conclusions of law that it deems re levant and a

ppropriate to the dispositi on of Applica nt’s claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental t ra n s cr i p t containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of t he date of t his order

. Any extensions of ti me shall be obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: January

28, 2015 Do not publish
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 RAE Systems Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald W. Morgan, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |                                           
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|                     |  | /s/ Donald W. Morgan                      
|                     | 
|Date: March 31, 2006 |  | Donald W. Morgan                          
|                     |  | Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos SANCHEZ-SANTILLAN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10812 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Helen Miller Liggett, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Carlos Sanchez-Santillan raises an argument that is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*623 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 360 (1998), which held that convictions used to enhance a sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) need not be set forth in the indictment. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig Lamont SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6344

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 21, 2017

Craig Lamont Scott, Appellant Pro Se.

David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

*100Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Craig Lamont Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of á constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012), When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v.*McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Scott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Scott’s motion to amend, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, and dismiss the appeal.' We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS 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 officers of 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to the best of such officers’ knowledge, that:





(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended July 3, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date: September 16, 2011                                                                    /s/ James F.
McCann
 James F. McCann
 Chief Executive Officer and
 Chairman of the Board of Directors








Date: September 16,
2011                                                                                    /s/ William E. Shea
 William E. Shea
 Senior Vice President of Finance and
 Administration and Chief Financial Officer








These certifications are furnished 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 certifications will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference in to any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates them by reference.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DONNELL D. JOHNSON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 2056

[ March 2, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Sara Alijewicz , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 502017CF003749AXXXWB

.

Donnell D. Johnson, Milton, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf,

Senior Assi stant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

C IKLIN

, L EVINE and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.