alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|EXHIBIT 21.1                                                             |                        |            |  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------- | ---------- | -
|List of Subsidiaries and Associated Companies of                        
|Cardtrend International Inc.                                            
|Name Of Companies                                                        | Country of             | Effective  |  
|                                                                         |                        | Percentage |  
|Subsidiaries of Cardtrend International Inc.                             | Incorporation          | Holding    |  
|Asia Payment Systems (HK) Ltd                                            | Hong Kong, SAR, China  | 100        | %
|Asia Payment Systems (China) Co. Ltd.                                    | Shanghai, China        | 100        | %
|Asia Payment Systems Pte. Ltd.                                           | Singapore              | 100        | %
|Welway Developments Ltd.                                                 | Hong Kong, SAR, China  | 100        | %
|Cardtrend Systems Sdn. Bhd.                                              | Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia | 100        | %
|Interpay International Group Ltd.                                        | British Virgin Islands | 100        | %
|Subsidiaries & Associated Companies of Interpay International Group Ltd. |                        |            |  
|Interpay International Franchising Ltd.                                  | British Virgin Islands | 100        | %
|Intterpay International Associates Ltd.                                  | British Virgin Islands | 100        | %
|Interpay International Resources Ltd.                                    | British Virgin Islands | 100        | %
|Associated Companies of Interpay International Resources Ltd.            |                        |            |  
|Synergy Cards Sdn. Bhd.                                                  | Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia | 20         | %
|iSynergy Sdn. Bhd.                                                       | Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia | 20         | %
|Interpay Asia Sdn. Bhd.                                                  | Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia | 100        | %
|Interpay International M-Commerce Pte. Ltd.                              | Singapore              | 100        | %
|Interpay International Airtime Pte. Ltd.                                 | Singapore              | 100        | %
|Subsidiary of Interpay International Airtime Pte. Ltd                    |                        |            |  
|Etop Services (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.                                       | Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia | 60         | %
|Payment Business Solutions Sdn. Bhd.                                     | Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia | 100        | %























---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demario COVINGTON, a/k/a Booger, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6584

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Demario Covington, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

■ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*254PER CURIAM:

Demario Covington seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (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 Covington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 32
                                                                      ----------

                            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 SBS Interactive, Co. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Todd
Gotlieb, President and Principal Accounting 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, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and 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.



                                /s/Todd Gotlieb
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                 By:  Todd Gotlieb
                                 President and Principal Accounting Officer
                                 June 14, 2004
<PAGE>

Catalina Marketing Corporation
200 Carillon Parkway
St. Petersburg, Florida  33716

November 9, 2001

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are aware that Catalina Marketing Corporation has incorporated by reference
in its Registration Statement Nos. 33-46793, 33-77100, 33-82456, 333-07525, 333-
13335 and 333-86905, its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2001,
which includes our report dated October 18, 2001, covering the unaudited interim
financial information contained therein.  Pursuant to Regulation C of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), that report is not considered a part of the
registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or
certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,


/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Estimated Costs: -

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

Compressor . .. 1:·1'.11 

inspection 40.0 $0 I ''J.I:·Ii 34 , I '"'il : i : " 

Compressor 40.0 • l'•li.li $40,000 2 replacement il 1 i . ' , ! ' . -:; . q -:J 

il.iii"l • ·.I'll "!,\J 

!l.iill 1) ·: !I 11,1:(1 

ill!\) ,. 1,1!1 ;, iii I 

il.ti·:l . ,; iJII ;! 1···.1 

ii.<J:I (, <Iii II'''' 

IJ :,:,1 • ., Jli ; Iii 

II ii(l ..... :;;; • •.II 

!J,ti-:l . !. ·.)! 

[11.'',1 li.IJi:· ' ·.II 

,j I::J ,l_illi t:· ill.-

!' i!-:1 !) !:(;. .n:-

·'1:·•:1 li.!Ji:· . !I, 

,11,;1 ii.IP.: . )"I 

''·'''' ,, !JI.i 'II'' 

ili•il li IJ!i • Ill• 

ll,t•:i 'i.ll',i '·' i,ll 

" :.-:1 i!,lili ., '•'' 111:!1 ,l,lill :I,". I 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $202,400 

Costs covered under warranty ((fknown) $ 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and close- up) 

• 

:,:II 

. ... 

. 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used ta explain warranty costs): 
g

y 

Is the AD significant? ·-

YES'D NOD 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer .• 

YESD NOD 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? 

YES'D NOD 

*Explanation:
#### George H. Douglass et al., Respondents, *v.*Gilman Dudley, Appellant.

(Argued January 8, 1872;

decided May term, 1872.)

Action upon a promissory note. The note was placed by defendant in the hands of a broker to be discounted for and on account of defendant. The broker had also in his hands fifty, shares of Pacific Mail Steamship Company stock belonging to plaintiffs. Without the knowledge or assent of the parties, the broker pledged the note and stock for a loan for his individual benefit. He subsequently failed. Plaintiffs, without knowledge that defendant’s note had been diverted,- or that it was other than business, paper given for value, paid the amount of the loan and received the stock and note. ^The referee, before whom the cause was tried, decided that plaintiffs were entitled to contribution in the proportion the amount of the note bore to the value of the stock, and gave judgment accordingly.

*Wm. F. Shepard*for the appellant.

*John S. Jenness*for the respondents.

Gray, C., reads for affirmance.

All concur. Judgment affirmed.
A.L. v. D.L. and T.L.

2160167

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2010

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the Issuer). This certification is made
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010.

I, Nicholas J. Tomashot, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Issuer.

This certification is executed as of July 30, 2010.



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Nicholas J. Tomashot                                 
|Name: Nicholas J. Tomashot
Title: Chief Financial Officer
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

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mikel Walters, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop F-63, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone (404)639-0913,                         *MWalters@cdc.gov.*

                        The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Kalwant Smagh,

Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2022-03272 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-7743 

WILLIE A. HOWELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COLIE L. RUSHTON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (4:07-cv-01582-CMC)

Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 3, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie A. Howell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, William

Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH

CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Willie A. Howell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Howell has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jonathan MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11129 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

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

Jonathan Morris, Pro Se

*136Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jonathan Morris 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). Morris 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.
AFS-12-530-E October 12, 2012

Exemption No. 8839C Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26739

Mr. David L. Jones

Aviation Institute of Maintenance

4455 South Blvd. Virginia Beach, VA 23452

Dear Mr. Jones:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8839. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated August 22, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of American Trans Air Training Corp. d.b.a. Aviation Institute of Maintenance (Aviation Institute) (operating under Air Agency Certificate USBT077S) for an extension of Exemption No. 8839. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Aviation Institute to administer the aviation mechanic general written test to students immediately following their successful completion of the general curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77.

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

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register. The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aviation Institute.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8839 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 has2

delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8839 to February 28, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8839 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8839.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
SERVED JUNE 3, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

ilAiiO^ 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CENTRAL FLYING SERVICES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CPlOSWOOOl 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMSNo. FAA-2010-0016 

AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER 

The court has been notified of a potential settlement in this case. Accordingly, 

paragraph #2 of the Procedural Order is amended as follows: 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the 

following procedural schedule: 

... On or before August 1, 2010, the parties shall conclude all discovery 

including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to 

production requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a 

discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution 

in a timely manner... 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

The court does not anticipate scheduling this case prior to 1 August 2010. 
FAA Docket No. CPlOSWOOOl 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Central Flying Service, Inc., Respondent 

Attention: Richard N. Holbert, President 

1501 Bond Street 

Little Rock, AR 72202 

TEL: 501-375-3245 

FAX: 501-375-7274 

Stellamaris Williams, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Fort Worth, TX 76193-0007 

TEL: 817-222-5081 

FAX: 817-222-5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building - Room 

2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### Larry Brandon MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George T. SOLOMON, Director of N.C.D.P.S., D.A.C., individually and in their official capacity; Peck Taylor, Assistant Superintendent of Custody and Operations and Acting Superintendent at A.M.C.I., individually and in their official capacity; Monica Bond, Chief Disciplinary Hearing Officer (D.H.O.) of N.C.D.P.S., individually and in their official capacity; Randy S. Mull, D.H.O., individually and in their official capacity; Woodring, Inmate Work Supervisor at A.M.C.I., individually and in their official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7653

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: May 3, 2017

Larry Brandon Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Before DIAZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry Brandon Moore appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Moore’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.*
      *Moore v.*Solomon, No. 1:16-cv-00238-FDW, 2016 WL 6272406 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 25, 2016). 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*

Contrary to the district court’s finding, Moore did allege that he was placed in segregation prior to the prison disciplinary hearing and was punished after the hearing. However, Moore received all the process he was due at that hearing, and his Thirteenth Amendment claim is meritless. *See Newell*v. *Davis,*563 F.2d 123, 124 (4th Cir. 1977).