alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUBSIDIARIES OF CHEMFIRST INC.

                                                                Jurisdiction
                                                                     of
         Company Name                                           Organization
         ------------                                           ------------

Burmar Chemical, Inc.......................................      California
CEM Investment, Inc........................................      Mississippi
ChemFirst Fine Chemicals, Inc..............................      Mississippi
ChemFirst Foundation, Inc..................................      Mississippi
ChemFirst Texas, Inc.......................................         Texas
Dew Resources, Inc.........................................      Mississippi
EKC Technology, Inc........................................      California
EKC Technology International, Inc..........................      California
EKC Technology K K.........................................         Japan
EKC Technology Limited ....................................       Scotland
FCC Acquisition Corporation................................      California
FEC Marketing, Inc.........................................         Texas
First Chemical Corporation.................................      Mississippi
First Chemical Corporation dba
   ChemFirst Fine Chemicals ...............................      Mississippi
First Chemicals Holdings, Inc..............................      Mississippi
First Chemical Texas, L.P..................................       Delaware
First Energy Corporation...................................      Mississippi
FirstMiss, Inc.............................................         Iowa
FRM, Inc...................................................      Mississippi
FRM International, Inc. ...................................  U.S. Virgin Islands
FT Chemical, Inc...........................................         Texas
Industrial Insulations of Texas, Inc.......................         Texas
Maxadyne Corporation.......................................      California
Maxadyne Corporation of Louisiana..........................       Louisiana
Micropel, Inc..............................................      California
Mycosil, Inc...............................................      California
Plasma Processing Corporation..............................       Delaware
SCE Technologies, Inc......................................       Delaware
Star Corrosion & Refractory, Inc...........................       Louisiana
TriQuest, L.P. ............................................       Delaware
TriQuest Japan K K.........................................         Japan
No. 09-10968.

#### Po Kee Wong, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 857, 131 S. Ct. 126,

178 L. Ed. 2d 76,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6205,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 342 Fed. Appx. 623.
# New command video highlights reverse logistics 

/ Published April 20, 2021
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
A new online video highlights the mission and capabilities of Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services and its worldwide workforce.

The 4-minute infomercial bolsters DLA Disposition Services’ claim as DOD’s preeminent source for reverse logistics expertise. Included among the video highlights are the command’s commitment to supporting warfighters and government agencies with environmentally responsible property disposal, reuse opportunities and surplus property sales. Humanitarian assistance and disaster response, hazardous property removal and demilitarization, expeditionary capabilities and special programs are all covered by the agency-produced info product.04:12VIDEO  | 04:12 |DLA Disposition Services: DOD's Reverse Logistics Experts (open caption)
----

----

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 |   |   |                                                                                       |
|----------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 14, 2011 |   |   |                                                                                       |
|                 |   | By:    | /S/    JOSEPH ACKERMAN         |
|                 |   |   | Joseph Ackerman                                                                            |
|                 |   |   | Chief Executive Officer                                                                    |
|                 |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                                                              |

----

----
P.1 

PICK-UP DATE: 

BOX 10 OF 10 

Step 2: FOR ASRC INTERNAL USE 

ONLY 

(PART A__ 0f_B ) 

EPA DOCKET ID: 102RQ-RN 

41) 102RQ-RN-5-3 

43) 102RQ-RN-5-5 

45) 102RQ-RN-5-7 

47) 102RQ-RN-5-9 

49) 102RQ-RN-5-11 

51) 102RQ-RN-5-13 

53) J02RQ-RN-5-15 

55)( 102RQ-RN-3-4 J . 

57) 

59) 

61) 

63) 

65) 

67) 

69) 

71) 

73) 

75) 

77) 

79) 

Step 3: FOR ASRC INTERNAL USE 

ONLY 

CD: 

OA: / 

42) 102RQ-RN-5-4 

44) 102RQ-RN-5-6 

46) 102RQ-RN-5-8 

48) 102RQ-RN-5-10 

50) 102RQ-RN-5-12 

52) 102RQ-RN-5-14 

54) 102RQ-RN-5-31 

56) 102RQ-RN-2-5-1 

58) 

60) 

62) 

64) 

66) 

68) 

70) 

72) 

74) 

76) 

78) 

80) 

Stepl : FOR ASRC INTERNAL USE ONLY ^ 

Are there more documents for this Docket in another box?(*)/Eq / NO 

Till out Continuation Sheet and go to Step 2 

Internal SFUND Box Number .35 OF 283_ 

Initials/Date: LDS / 3-8-2007 
P.2 

/Omr-re^-^/j- s -y 

DEC 1986 

REFERENCES 

Atonic Energy Act of 1954 

Clean Air Act 

Clean W&ter Act 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

Solid Waste Disposal Act 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 

Toxic Substances Control Act 

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 

Executive Order 12291 

Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Plan 

Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-177) 

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan 

Notification Requirements; Reportable Quantity Adjustments and Designation of 

Additional Hazardous Substances, Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Notification Requirements; Reportable Quantity Adjustments; Final Rule; and 

Additional Hazardous Substances, Proposed Rule 

Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 20, 51 FR 1092, 1/9/86 

Statement of Interpretation 43 FR 11110, 3/16/78 

Superfund Programs; Reportable Quantity Adjustments; Final Rule 

Uraniun Fuel Cycle Standards (40 CFR Part 190) 

Uraniun Mill Tailings Rule (40 CFR Part 192) 

Annual Limitations of Intake (ALIs) developed by the International 

Commission on Radiation Protection 

International Commission on Radiation Protection, Publication #30 

U.S. Department of Transportation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Memorandum of Understanding, 44 FR 38690, 7/2/79 

Exempted Facilities - 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50 & 70 
P.3 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Remedial Response at Hazardous Waste 

Sites, March 1984. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1984 Annual Report.
#### People v Hahn

2d Dept: 150 AD3d 1285

denied*
No. 09-1325.

#### David H. Mills, Director of the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions, Petitioner v. Midwest Title Loans, Inc.

562 U.S. 829, 131 S. Ct. 83,

178 L. Ed. 2d 27,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6552.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 593 F.3d 660.
*September 18, 2017*

2017-Ohio-7645.]

2017-0891.

#### State v. Kouts.

Sandusky App. No. S-16-012, 2017-Ohio-2905. On appellee’s motion for appointment of counsel. Motion granted. The Ohio Public Defender’s Office is appointed to represent appellee.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


              Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-47834) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan, 2000 Stock Option
Plan, 2000 Director Option Plan and 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of
Synplicity Inc. of our report dated January 22, 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Synplicity Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 26, 2001
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                |  |                             
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Name                                            |  | Jurisdiction ofIncorporation
|                                                | 
|Synplicity Deutschland GmbH                     |  | Germany                     
|                                                | 
|Synplicity Europe Ltd.                          |  | United Kingdom              
|                                                | 
|Synplicity France SARL                          |  | France                      
|                                                | 
|Synplicity International, Inc.                  |  | United States               
|                                                | 
|Synplicity Israel Ltd.                          |  | Israel                      
|                                                | 
|Synplicity Japan KK                             |  | Japan                       
|                                                | 
|Synplicity Software India Pvt. Ltd              |  | India                       
|                                                | 
|SYNP AB                                         |  | Sweden                      
|                                                | 
|Synplicity Arastirma Gelistirme Limited Sirketi |  | Turkey                      
|                                                | 
|Synplicity International, Inc                   |  | Korea                       
|                                                | 
|Synplicity International, Inc                   |  | Taiwan                      
|                                                | 
|Synplicity International, Inc                   |  | China
#### San-Dar Associates et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Jacqueline Fried et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[54 NYS3d 273]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered on or about May 19, 2016, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint and dismissing the affirmative defenses and the counterclaim for slander of title, and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiffs’ motion as to the counterclaim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

While the record establishes that defendants’ building now uses more floor area than was reported in previous filings with the Department of Buildings (DOB), it presents questions of fact as to when the increase occurred and whether the building had a basement that was part of the floor-space calculation.

The motion court was free not to dismiss the “affirmative defense” of failure to state a claim, because failure to state may *546be asserted at any time even if not pleaded (CPLR 3211 [e]) and is therefore “mere surplusage” as an affirmative defense *(Bernstein v Freudman,*136 AD2d 490, 492-493 [1st Dept 1988], citing *Riland v Todman & Co.,*56 AD2d 350 [1st Dept 1977]). Plaintiff has not established any legal basis to dismiss the other affirmative defenses at this juncture.

The counterclaim for slander to title is based on statements made in and pertinent to this litigation, which are absolutely privileged *(see Hinckley v Resciniti,*159 AD2d 276 [1st Dept 1990]).

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Richter, Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.
<PAGE>

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                                 N-T HOLDINGS, INC.


     N-T Holdings, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), does hereby
certify that:

     1.   At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, resolutions
were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, declaring such amendment to be
advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholder of the Corporation for
consideration thereof.  The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is
as follows:

          RESOLVED, that the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation
     be amended by changing Article I, so that, as amended, such Article shall
     be and read as follows:

                                         "I

     The name of this Corporation is:  PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc."

     2.   Thereafter, pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors, the
above amendment was submitted to the stockholder of the Corporation for its
approval in accordance with the provisions of Section 222 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware at a meeting duly called and held, at
which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted
in favor of the amendment.

     3.   The above amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions
of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the state of Delaware.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, N-T Holdings, Inc. has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed by its President and Secretary this 14th day of February,
1997.

                                             N-T HOLDINGS, INC.



                                             By:
                                                -----------------------------
                                                  Alan R. Hoops, President

ATTEST:

By:
   -------------------------------
   Joseph S. Konowiecki, Secretary
2017-0567.

#### State ex rel. New Riegel Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Ohio School Facilities Comm.

Seneca App. No. 13-16-22, 2017-Ohio-875. Reported at 151 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2017-Ohio-8842, 87 N.E.3d 222. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

O’Donnell, J., dissents, and would grant the motion for reconsideration and accept the cause on proposition of law Nos. I and II.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
#### Com. v. Muir 35

03/08/2016

912 MAL (2015)

35

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the decision of this matter; Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 107
#### Terry Bradshaw, Appellant-Respondent, v 845 U.N. Limited Partnership et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[768 NYS2d 458]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered July 8, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, inter alia, awarded plaintiff $50,000 in damages for past pain and suffering and no damages for future pain and suffering, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered October 3, 2002, which denied plaintiffs motion for new trial on damages for past and future pain and suffering, unanimously modified, on the facts, to remand the matter for a new trial solely on the issue of damages for future pain and suffering, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, unless defendants, within 20 days of service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry, stipulate to a damages award for future pain and suffering in the amount of $35,000 and to entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. Appeal from the October 3, 2002 order denying plaintiffs motion for a new trial respecting damages for pain and suffering unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Contrary to defendants’ contention, the trial evidence, showing that plaintiff was injured when a coworker helping plaintiff to guide rebar into place fell over a pile of construction material, causing the rebar to catch on and partially sever plaintiff s finger, permitted the jury fairly to conclude that there had been a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2), the regulatory predicate for plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim *(see DeSimone v Structure Tone,*306 AD2d 90 [2003]).

Although the past pain and suffering award cannot be said to have deviated materially from what is reasonable compensation under these circumstances *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]), the jury’s failure to award plaintiff damages for future pain and suffering was insupportable given the evidence showing that in conse*192quence of the alleged injury the distal portion of plaintiffs right ring finger had been amputated and that plaintiff would experience hypersensitivity in the remaining portion of the finger for the balance of her life *(see Cecere v 3950 Blackstone Assoc.,*238 AD2d 200 [1997]; *Ahmed v Children’s Hosp. of Buffalo,*238 AD2d 956 [1997]). We accordingly exercise our additur power to the extent indicated. Concur—Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
No. 09-1575.

#### Riverview Health Institute LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Medical Mutual of Ohio, et al.

562 U.S. 841, 131 S. Ct. 220,

178 L. Ed. 2d 47,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6079.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 601 F.3d 505.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-11013

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

SYLVIA JEAN WILLETT, also known as Jean Meeks Willett,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-31-1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sylvia Jean Willett pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit 

health care fraud and to six counts of health care fraud. Willett appeals the 

sentence imposed, arguing that the district court erred in applying a leadership 

enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.)

§ 3B1.1(a) (2011) because she was the organizer or leader of a criminal activity 

that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. We review 

* 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 Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 25, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-11013 Document: 00512452959 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2013
No. 12-11013

the district court’s § 3B1.1 determination for clear error. United States v. 

Scroggins, 485 F.3d 824, 834 (5th Cir. 2007). 

In her sole point of error, Willett argues that the government failed to 

show that her employees were willing participants in her criminal activity and 

that the activity was otherwise extensive. “A ‘participant’ is a person who is 

criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have 

been convicted.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.1 (2011). 

The district court’s application of the enhancement was not clearly

erroneous. Willett, through her two companies, charged insurance companies 

for medical equipment that doctors did not order and that their patients did 

not receive. The record reflects that to facilitate the fraud, Willett directed at 

least five employees to alter, change, or falsify documents and invoices. The 

employees removed product code stickers that doctors had placed on 

documents and replaced them with codes for more expensive equipment. The 

employees also obliterated product codes and wrote in new codes that were 

provided by Willett. Employees used photocopied doctors’ signatures and, at 

times, forged the signatures themselves. Willett’s employees knew that these

activities were wrong and also knew that their activities formed the basis for 

insurance claims. Accordingly, a finding that there were five or more 

participants in the health care fraud was plausible in light of the record as a 

whole. See United States v. Dadi, 235 F.3d 945, 952 (5th Cir. 2000). The 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-11013 Document: 00512452959 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/25/2013
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                         
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Taiwan (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Taiwan (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | --     | 7.49   | --     | 4.77   | 6.51   | 5.17  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.34   | 7.67   | 10.90  | 6.46   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024