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

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN DENTAL PARTNERS, INC.**

 

PDHC, Ltd., a Minnesota corporation 

Texas Dental Partners, Inc., a Texascorporation 

Northpark Dental Group, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Louisiana, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Pennsylvania,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Apple Park Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

American Dental Partners of Ohio, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Innovative Practice Concepts, Inc., an Arizona corporation

American Dental Professional Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Virginia, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Maryland, LLC,a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Alabama, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Oklahoma, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of North Carolina, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of California, Inc., a Delawarecorporation 

American Dental Partners of New York, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

National Dental Alliance, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

American Dental Partners of Tennessee, LLC, a Delaware limitedliability company 

Voss Dental Lab Inc., a New York corporation 

American Dental Partners of Michigan, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16903]

[[Page 34651]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984.
    Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the 
Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., Room 962. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement 
to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, 
within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register.

Agreement No.: 224-200993-001
Title: Oakland-Yang Ming Terminal Use Agreement
Parties:
    Port of Oakland Yang Ming Marine Transport Corporation
Synopsis: The proposed amendment allows Yang Ming's cargo handled at 
Howard Terminal to and from Cosco vessels to be treated as Yang Ming's 
cargo being handled at Seventh Street Terminal to and from Yang Ming 
vessels. Cosco's cargo handled at Seventh Street Terminal to and from 
Yang Ming vessels will be treated as Cosco cargo being handled at 
Howard Terminal. The term of the agreement continues to run through May 
1, 2001.

    Dated: June 19, 1998.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16903 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
```
# DLA Distribution Corpus Christi hosts annual Forklift Rodeo 

/ Published Feb. 23, 2016
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas, 
Earlier this month, DLA Distribution Corpus Christi, Texas, hosted its annual Forklift Rodeo.  Spanning Feb. 9 through 12, the event consisted of a three-phase challenge: a 30-question written test, a timed demonstration course and a bonus round.  
This year’s event showcased the skills of 36 operators, who were judged on their ability to safely maneuver through two obstacle courses without hitting any of the cones, stacking and unstacking three pallets, and following proper techniques and Job Hazard Analysis.  

After both courses were completed, the operators moved to a bonus round where they recovered a basketball from a cone with their forks and were challenged to determine the angle and velocity to successfully drop it into a receptacle.  

Of the 36 operators that competed, seven were able to dunk the basketball.  

Storage Branch employee Enrique Hernandez was declared the winner of the rodeo after demonstrating his outstanding knowledge and overall skill in forklift operation.
The top five operators from DLA Distribution will compete again in a base-wide event hosted by DLA Distribution Corpus Christi, Texas, tentatively scheduled for April 2016.
#### Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Respondent, v Telecommunications Systems, Inc., Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 384]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered May 8, 2017, which granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant alleges that plaintiff committed legal malpractice by failing to file a timely motion for attorneys’ fees in a federal patent proceeding in which it represented defendant. Defendant relies on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 54 (d) (2) (B), which sets the deadline at 14 days after entry of a judgment in the proceeding. It alleges that 16 months after the deadline, and following extensive posttrial proceedings, plaintiff moved for attorneys’ fees as a sanction. As the motion court found, federal case law holds that a motion for attorneys’ fees is timely under rule 54 (d) (2) (B) when filed 14 days after the entry of judgment or within 14 days of the resolution of postjudgment motions *(see e.g. Sorenson v Wolfson,*170 F Supp 3d 622, 628 [SD NY 2016], *affd*683 Fed Appx 33 [2d Cir 2017]). Thus, the court correctly dismissed the counterclaim for failure to state a cause of action for legal malpractice predicated on the missed deadline.

On appeal, defendant argues that plaintiff’s filing of a sanctions motion, instead of a motion for attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party pursuant to 35 USC § 285, constitutes malpractice. We may entertain this new legal argument because it appears on the face of the record, involves no new facts, and is determinative *(Vanship Holdings Ltd. v Energy Infrastructure Acquisition Corp.,*65 AD3d 405, 408 [1st Dept 2009]). However, the argument does not avail defendant.

The record shows that plaintiff had contemplated filing a motion pursuant to 35 USC § 285 and decided against it. The statute provides that the court may award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party “in exceptional cases” *(see Octane Fitness,*
      *458
      *LLC v Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.,*572 US -, -, 134 S Ct 1749, 1756 [2014]). Plaintiff advised defendant that it would be a “stretch” to argue prevailing party under section 285. Thus, defendant’s theory that plaintiff breached a duty of care to it by choosing to apply for attorneys’ fees via a sanctions motion instead of a motion under section 285 amounts to no more than an allegation that plaintiff made an error in judgment, which does not state a cause of action for malpractice *(see Rosner v Paley,*65 NY2d 736, 738 [1985]; *Sitomer v Goldweber Epstein, LLP,*139 AD3d 642 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 906 [2016]).

Moreover, defendant failed to allege that the choice of a sanctions motion rather than a motion under section 285 was a proximate cause of its claimed injury, since there are no allegations in the counterclaim that would establish that the patent proceeding was an exceptional case warranting attorneys’ fees *(see Octane Fitness,*572 US at -, 134 S Ct at 1756).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
No. 10-5650.

#### Ernest Wholaver, Jr., Petitioner v. Pennsylvania.

562 U.S. 933, 131 S. Ct. 332,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7487.

178 L. Ed. 2d 216,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, denied.

Same case below, 605 Pa. 325, 989 A.2d 883.
#### U.S. Bank National Association, Respondent, v Lennon A. Thomas, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[65 NYS3d 695]

Appeal from unsigned and unentered judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), deemed appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 17, 2014, which granted plaintiff’s motion for a final judgment of foreclosure and sale, and denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss this action on the basis that plaintiff lacks standing, and, so considered, said order unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*558Because defendant failed to timely raise defenses based on service of process and standing in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss, those defenses are waived (CPLR 3211 [e]; *International Bus. Machs. Corp. v Murphy & O’Connell,*172 AD2d 157, 158 [1st Dept 1991], *appeal dismissed*78 NY2d 908 [1991] [service of process]; *Security Pac. Natl. Bank v Evans,*31 AD3d 278, 280-281 [1st Dept 2006], *appeal dismissed*8 NY3d 837 [2007] [standing]).

In any event, the affidavit of service of the summons and complaint on defendant constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service, which defendant failed to rebut with anything more than conclusory denials of receipt *(Kihl v Pfeffer,*94 NY2d 118, 122 [1999]; *Grinshpun v Borokhovich,*100 AD3d 551, 552 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*21 NY3d 857 [2013]).

Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has standing by providing the affidavit of Marc Hinkle, a vice president of the mortgage loan servicer, affirming that plaintiff was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage at the commencement of this action *(Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor,*25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]).

Defendant’s failure to move to vacate the default judgment against him also precludes his success on this appeal. Any such motion would be time-barred (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]), and defendant has not attempted to show that he has a justifiable excuse for his default and a meritorious defense to this foreclosure action *(Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co.,*67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Richter, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2335

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

to require that OMB and CBO estimates for paygo purposes to recognize

the increased revenues generated by economic growth resulting from

legislation implementing any trade agreement.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 28 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1994

Mr. BROWN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, to the Committees on

the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be discharged

A BILL

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to require that OMB and CBO estimates for paygo purposes to recognize the increased revenues generated by economic growth resulting from legislation implementing any trade agreement.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and Emer4 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended—
2

•S 2335 RIS

1 (1) in the last sentence, by inserting ‘‘Except as

2 provided by the next sentence,’’ before ‘‘OMB’’ the

3 first place it appears; and

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new sen5 tence: ‘‘OMB and CBO estimates prepared under

6 this subsection respecting legislation implementing a

7 trade agreement entered into between the United

8 States and one or more foreign countries shall take

9 into account increased revenues generated by the

10 growth in the gross domestic product resulting from

11 that legislation to offset any loss in tariff revenues

12 due to that legislation subject to the condition that

13 the increased revenues generated by the gross do14 mestic product growth resulting from the legislation

15 implementing a trade agreement shall not be used as

16 offsets beyond the total of lost revenues due to that

17 legislation.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                             MFC MERCHANT BANK S.A.









                                                                    June 7, 2000

Mr. Franz Eder
President
MSO Inc.
Rotherstrasse 7
Berlin 10245
GERMANY


Dear Mr. Eder,

Based on recent discussions, MFC understands MSO cash flow is severely
constrained until a successful equity raise is completed. MFC further
understands it is your intention to raise the required equity sometime this
calendar year. MSO has requested MFC consider deferring its monthly fees for the
balance of this year in light of these cash flow constraints.

MFC agrees to defer the monthly MSO fee obligations of 100,000DM and 5,000USD
from May 1, 2000 through to and including December 1, 2000 or until an equity
raise is completed, whichever comes first. In return for granting this deferral,
the deferred fee will be increased by 10%. This 10% premium may be paid in MSO
stock.

During this period MFC will continue to provide investment advisory services as
per our current agreement. Please keep us advised as to the need for our
services as we understand MSO is considering refocusing efforts on constructing
the shuttle under the German model.

Please confirm your agreement to this proposal by affixing your signature in the
appropriate space below.

Very truly yours,


------------------------------                     -----------------------------
Claudio Morandi                                          Peter S. Jessop
President                                                 Vice President


Accepted:
           -------------------------
                  Franz Eder
                  President
                  MSO Inc.







          53, ROUTE DE MALAGNOU P.O.BOX 509 1211 GENEVA 17 SWITZERLAND
  TELEPHONE (41 22) 718 02 02 TELEFAX (41 22) 718 02 30 E-MAIL mfc@mfcbank.ch
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16368]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD 08-98-023]


Drawbridge Operating Regulation; Dulac Bayou, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District has issued a 
temporary deviation from the regulation in 33 CFR 117.5 governing the 
operation of the SR 57 swing span drawbridge across Dulac Bayou, mile 
0.6, at Dulac, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. This deviation allows the 
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development to close the 
bridge from 7 a.m. and noon and from 12:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m., on 
July 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28 and 29, 1998. The span 
will open for the passage of traffic from noon until 12:30 on each of 
these days. The bridge will operate normally at all other times. This 
temporary deviation is issued to allow for the cleaning and painting of 
the swing span, an extensive but necessary maintenance operation.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on July 6 until 3:30 
p.m. on July 29, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Johnson, Bridge 
Administration Branch, Commander (ob), Eighth Coast Guard District, 501 
Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70130-3396, telephone number 
504-589-2965.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SR 57 swing span drawbridge across Dulac 
Bayou, mile 0.6, in Dulac, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana, has a vertical 
clearance of 7 feet above high water in the closed-to-navigation 
position and unlimited clearance in the open-to-navigation position. 
Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, fishing vessels, 
sailing vessels, and other recreational craft. The Louisiana Department 
of Transportation and Development requested a temporary deviation from 
the normal operation of the bridge in order to accommodate the 
maintenance work. The maintenance work involves cleaning and painting 
of the swing span. This work is essential for the continued operation 
of the draw span.
    This deviation allows the draw of the SR 57 swing span bridge 
across Dulac Bayou, mile 0.6, at Dulac to remain in the closed-to-
navigation position between 7 a.m. and noon and from 12:30 p.m. until 
3:30 p.m., on July 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28 and 29, 
1998. The span will open for the passage of traffic from noon until 
12:30 on each of these days. The bridge will operate normally at all 
other times.
    This deviation will be effective from 7 a.m. on July 6 until 3:30 
p.m. on July 29, 1998. Presently, the draw opens on signal at any time.

    Dated: June 11, 1998.
A.L. Gerfin, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, 8th Coast Guard Dist.
[FR Doc. 98-16368 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tiffany Solomon, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 878]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered November 19, 2012, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Sweeny, Gische, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
#### People v Rodriguez

1st Dept: 145 AD3d 489

denied
#### Com. v. Williams

12/07/2015

711 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 100
No. 10-5381.

#### Gerald Pittman, Petitioner v. Michigan.

562 U.S. 918, 131 S. Ct. 286,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6883.

178 L. Ed. 2d 188,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Michigan, Wayne County, Criminal Division, denied.
# DLA Distribution Red River, Texas is live with WMS

/ Published Aug. 10, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Red River, Texas, celebrated the transition to a new warehouse management system July 27. The third largest distribution center within the agency, DDRT is the largest center to date to implement the new system.

“We went live in WMS this week, and now have a modern, industry standard IT system that will not just enable us to continue our mission, but will improve auditability and cost savings,” said Army Lt. Col. Joe Lee.

                Army Lt. Col. Joseph Lee, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Red River, Texas, commander, hosts a cake cutting ceremony to celebrate the launch of the new DLA warehouse management system, July 27, 2023.                            DLA Distribution Red River, Texas is live with WMS                            Army Lt. Col. Joseph Lee, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Red River, Texas, commander, hosts a cake cutting ceremony to celebrate the launch of the new DLA warehouse management system, July 27, 2023.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Distribution Public AffairsVIRIN: 230727-D-D0441-0015

Lee thanked the DDRT for, “knocking every task out the park,” and accomplishing the transition a year earlier than expected. To date, DLA Distribution Red River is the largest distribution center to transition. That doesn’t happen without hard work, dedication and long hours.

DDRT has over $7 billion in assets and over 11,000 major end items spanning 16,000 square acres. The ability to perform their mission hinges on technology. Over the past few months, the team has been working hard learning new processes, communicating the issues encountered and working together toward the ultimate goal... keeping the Warfighters ready.

                Army Lt. Col. Joseph Lee, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Red River, Texas, right, commander, selected  Collin Smith, left,  the youngest DLA Distribution Red River employee,  to cut the cake celebrating the launch of the new DLA warehouse management system, July 27, 2023.                            DLA Distribution Red River, Texas is live with WMS                            Army Lt. Col. Joseph Lee, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Red River, Texas, right, commander, selected  Collin Smith, left,  the youngest DLA Distribution Red River employee,  to cut the cake celebrating the launch of the new DLA warehouse management system, July 27, 2023.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Distribution Public AffairsVIRIN: 230727-D-D0441-0006
<PAGE>
                                                                    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

I, Rose Frawert, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of Mid-State
Raceway, Inc. and Subsidiary (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: January 10, 2004

/s/ Rose H. Frawert
Rose H. Frawert
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer


                                       15
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 08/22 /2014 **FROM:** Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013
- 0602 **SUBJECT:** R8 State of North Dakota Call
- August 22 , 2014 **SUMMARY :**  EPA Headquarters and Region 8 staff participated in a conference call with the North Dakota D epartment of Health on August 22 , 2014, to discuss questions related to the proposed rule under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act
. The r ule was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES: EPA**  **Headquarters** Jan Cortelyou
- Lee - Lead David Grisley et al, Gabriele Stevens Jim Ketcha m - Co l will, Brian Fisher, Erica Wilson , Robyn DeYoung, Juan Santiago, David Solomon , Ellen Kurlansky **EPA Region 8**  Laura Farris **External Participants** ND Department of Health: Tom Bachman, Maggie Olsen, and other staff
. **Discussion Topics** See attached.