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

                         Subsidiaries of Hydril Company
             Percentage of Voting Securities Owned by Hydril Company

<Table>
<S>                                                                            <C>
Hydril General LLC (Delaware)                                                  100%
         Hydril Company LP (Delaware)                                            1%

Hydril Limited LLC LP (Delaware)                                               100%
         Hydril Company LP LP (Delaware)                                        99%

Hydril Acquisition Sub, Inc. LP (Delaware)                                     100%
         3084408 Nova Scotia Company                                           100%
                  RF Ironworks Limited Partnership                           (1)99%
                  Hydril Canadian Company Limited Partnership              (4)99.9%
                  3078778 Nova Scotia Company                                  100%
                  3083489 Nova Scotia Company                                  100%

Hydril S.A. (Switzerland)                                                    (2)53%

Hydril U.K. Ltd. (England, U.K.)                                               100%
         Rototec Ltd. (Scotland, U.K.)                                         100%

Hydril Private Ltd. (Republic of Singapore)                                    100%
         Technical Drilling & Production Services Nigeria, Ltd. (Nigeria)       60%
         P.T. Hydril Indonesia                                               (3)99%

Hydril S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)                                                   100%

Bettis de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)                                         100%

SubSea MudLift Drilling Company, LLC (Delaware)                                100%
</Table>



(1) 3078778 Nova Scotia Company owns the remaining 1% equity interest in RF
Ironworks Limited Partnership.

(2) Hydril Private Ltd. owns the remaining 47% equity interest in Hydril S.A.

(3) Hydril Company owns the remaining 1%.

(4) 3083489 Nova Scotia Company owns the remaining 0.1% equity interest in
Hydril Canadian Company Limited Partnership.
# C_2019065EN.01003501.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/35

---

Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-891/16) (1)

((Action for failure to act - State aid - Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link - Individual aid - Adoption of a position by the Commission - Inadmissibility))

(2019/C 65/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark) and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and by S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by: C. Thorning, and subsequently by J. Nymann-Lindegren, acting as Agents, and by R. Holdgaard, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission acted unlawfully by failing to define its position on aid measures concerning the financing, planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | The Kingdom of Denmark is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of Denmark is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

---
# C_2022303EN.01003901.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 June 2022 — Ryanair v Commission (Finnair II; Covid-19)

(Case T-657/20) (1)

(State aid - Finnish air-transport market - Aid granted by Finland to Finnair in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic - Recapitalisation of an airline by its public and private shareholders on a pro rata basis in proportion to the previously existing ownership structure - Decision not to raise any objections - Temporary Framework for State aid measures - Measure intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Derogation from certain requirements of the temporary framework - No weighing of the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition - Equal treatment - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 303/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, E. Vahida, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, S. Noë and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: T. Stéhelin and P. Dodeller, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and A. Laine, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of European Commission Decision C(2020) 3970 final of 9 June 2020 on State aid SA.57410 (2020/N) — Finland COVID-19: Recapitalisation of Finnair.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ryanair DAC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---
Case 3:04-cv-00893-G Document 30 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 13 PageID 237
Case 3:04-cv-00893-G Document 30 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 13 PageID 238
Case 3:04-cv-00893-G Document 30 Filed 06/24/05 Page 3 of 13 PageID 239
Case 3:04-cv-00893-G Document 30 Filed 06/24/05 Page 4 of 13 PageID 240
Case 3:04-cv-00893-G Document 30 Filed 06/24/05 Page 5 of 13 PageID 241
Case 3:04-cv-00893-G Document 30 Filed 06/24/05 Page 6 of 13 PageID 242
Case 3:04-cv-00893-G Document 30 Filed 06/24/05 Page 7 of 13 PageID 243
Case 3:04-cv-00893-G Document 30 Filed 06/24/05 Page 8 of 13 PageID 244
Case 3:04-cv-00893-G Document 30 Filed 06/24/05 Page 9 of 13 PageID 245
Case 3:04-cv-00893-G Document 30 Filed 06/24/05 Page 10 of 13 PageID 246
Case 3:04-cv-00893-G Document 30 Filed 06/24/05 Page 11 of 13 PageID 247
Case 3:04-cv-00893-G Document 30 Filed 06/24/05 Page 12 of 13 PageID 248
Case 3:04-cv-00893-G Document 30 Filed 06/24/05 Page 13 of 13 PageID 249
EX PARTE William BEST

CR-16-0737

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Case 3:03-cv-02318-K Document 26 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 101
Case 2:03-cr-00047-Z-BR Document 918 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 2411
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 38 Filed 07/03/02 Page 1 of 3 PageID 156
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 38 Filed 07/03/02 Page 2 of 3 PageID 157
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 38 Filed 07/03/02 Page 3 of 3 PageID 158
Supplemental
Agreement for the Cooperation Agreement Between Benefactum Alliance Business Consultant (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and Yinxin Small Loan
Co., Ltd. in Fangzi District of Weifang City


 


Party
A: Benefactum Alliance Business Consultant (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Party A)


 


Party
B: Yinxin Small Loan Co., Ltd. in Fangzi District of Weifang City (hereinafter referred to as Party B)


 


Unless
otherwise noted, all terms used in the Agreement shall have the same definition in the Cooperation Agreement Between Benefactum
Alliance Business Consultant (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and Yinxin Small Loan Co., Ltd. in Fangzi District of Weifang City (hereinafter
referred to as the “Original Agreement”), which was signed on October 30, 2015.


 


WHEREAS:


 


For
other and conditions unmentioned in the “Original Agreement” signed on October 30, 2015 by Party A and Party
B, the following supplemental agreement shall be concluded according to the principle of equality and mutual benefit and the principle
of achieving agreement through consultation.


 


Supplementary
content:


 


1. Both
parties shall go forward together on the cooperation of credit loans business by taking the specific cooperation mode as the
assignment of debt. Party A shall assess and investigate the debt assignment project of credit financing and shall control
its risk. 


 


2. As
seek to ensure the interest of both parties and carry out their normal business, both parties hereby agree through
negotiation that Party B shall open an account to the public at Branch of Bank as account owner with the
accounting number . At first, RMB ten thousand yuan shall be deposited into the account as basic security
deposit, and 10%-20% of business financing amount provided by Party B shall be deposited into the account as business
deposit. The account shall be managed by both parties. 


 


3. During
the period of cooperation, it is strictly not allowed that Party B separately mortgages, pledges and guarantees the funds in
the account to any third party, and both parties shall not have the right to extract and transfer the funds in the managed
account, unless both parties operate it together. 


 


Validation
of the Agreement:


 


After
the Agreement takes effect, it shall become an inalienable part of the “Original Agreement” with the equal
legal effect.


 


Except
as explicitly set forth in these terms and conditions of the Agreement, the remaining sections of the “Original Agreement”
shall continue in full force and effect.


 







    	 



    	 



    

 








 


Party
A (official seal): Party B (official seal):


 


Benefactum
Alliance Business Consultant (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
(seal) Seal of Liu Bodang


 





 





Yinxin
Small Loan Co., Ltd. in Fangzi District of Weifang City (seal) Seal of Shan Hengmin


 





 


Legal
representative              Legal representative


 


(or
authorized representative): (or authorized representative):


 


February
23, 2016                  February 23, 2016
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 Quarterly Report of James River Coal Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Samuel M. Hopkins, II, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the registrant.







May 10, 2011






/s/     Samuel M. Hopkins, IISamuel M. Hopkins, IITitle:  Chief Accounting Officer
# C_2020279EN.01002302.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 3 April 2020 — FI v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-157/20)

(2020/C 279/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FI

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Question referred

Does a trade union organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff (in this case the cabin crew) constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
# C_2022171EN.01002802.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Degode- v EUIPO — Leo Pharma (Skinovea)

(Case T-715/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Skinovea - Earlier national word mark SKINOREN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 171/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Degode-Dermago Development GmbH (Strausberg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Leo Pharma A/S (Ballerup, Denmark)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2020 (Case R 337/2020 5) relating to opposition proceedings between Leo Pharma and Degode-Dermago Development.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Degode-Dermago Development GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Degode-Dermago Development GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.

---
# C_2021422EN.01001601.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Bimbo Donuts Iberia v EUIPO — Hijos de Antonio Juan (DONAS DULCESOL)

(Case T-697/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark DONAS DULCESOL - Earlier national word mark DONAS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of proof of genuine use of earlier mark - Classification of the goods in respect of which genuine use has been shown - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 422/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo Donuts Iberia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez, I. Robledo McClymont and M. Hernández Gázquez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hijos de Antonio Juan, SL (Villalonga, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2020 (Case R 514/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo Donuts Iberia and Hijos de Antonio Juan.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bimbo Donuts Iberia, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bimbo Donuts Iberia, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.

---
Timothy Lavon RANDOLPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4385

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 14, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 Quarterly Report of PetroHunter Energy Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles
      B. Crowell, CEO (Principal Executive 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 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/
      Charles B.
      Crowell


Charles
      B. Crowell, Chief Executive Officer








September
      6, 2007
Case 4:03-cv-00277-Y Document 20 Filed 04/24/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID 139
Fredrick CHATMAN and Kathy Chatman v. RES-AL TWO, LLC

2160585

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Charlene BARKER, Appellant, v. COMPOUNDING DOCS, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D16-3662

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Roderick MULLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2565

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 4, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 370

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I

No. E-22-309

KATHY HICKS

APPELLANT

V.

DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF 

WORKFORCE SERVICES; AND JOHN 

CAGE ENTERPRISES

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered September 6, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS 

BOARD OF REVIEW

[NO. 2021-BR-05219]

REMANDED

WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge

Appellant Kathy Hicks appeals an adverse decision of the Arkansas Board of Review 

(the “Board”) finding her liable to repay unemployment benefits plus a statutory penalty. We 

remand for proceedings consistent with our opinion.

The Division of Workforce Services (the “Division”) issued a notice of fraud 

overpayment determination on July 29, 2021, finding Hicks liable to repay benefits in the 

amount of $15,025 pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-532(a) (Supp. 

2023). The determination was affirmed on appeal first by the Appeal Tribunal (the 

“Tribunal”) and then by the Board. The basis for the repayment determination involves an 

initial underlying claim for unemployment benefits filed by Hicks on April 7, 2020. 
2

In the underlying claim, the Division issued a determination disqualifying Hicks from 

receiving these benefits under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-519(a)(1) (Supp. 

2023), and its determination was affirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that Hicks 

indicated in her claim for benefits that she was working reduced hours but found the 

evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated she had not actually worked since March 

17, 2020. The Board affirmed the Tribunal’s decision. Hicks’s appeal from the Board’s 

decision is also handed down today. Hicks v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App. 371 (Hicks I).

The basis of the Tribunal’s finding in Hicks I is that Hicks allegedly made a 

misrepresentation of fact in the application for benefits that she filed on April 7, 2020. 

Because the record on appeal in Hicks I did not contain the April 7 application, we remanded 

to supplement the record. Hicks I. We cannot reach the merits of Hicks’s appeal in this case 

until there has been a final determination on the underlying unemployment-benefits claim. 

Therefore, in light of our disposition in Hicks I, we remand this case until a final 

determination is made by the Board in the underlying claim. 

Remanded.

VIRDEN and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree. 

Kathy Hicks, pro se appellant.

Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, Associate General Counsel, for appellee.
# United Stat es Court of Appeals For the First C ircuit

No. 03-2364 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v. CARLOS HUMBERTO CABRERA-POLO, Defendant, Appellant.
ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issuedon July 16, 2004 is corrected as follows: On cover page, delete " Sonia I. Torres-Pabó n a nd Thomas F. Klumper " and insert " Sonia I. Torres-Pabón , Thomas F. Klumper and Nelson Pérez-Sosa ," . . .
JACARANDA, LLC & a New Mexico, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee, et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2369

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 06, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

SANTOS McGILL , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1305

[ August 10, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Charles E. Burton

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2000CF011129A

.
Santos McGill, Punta Gorda, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

T

AYLOR , L EVINE and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_data(2)
              - products_publications(8)
              - multimedia_audio(2)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(2)
              - (-)multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_video(6)
              - multimedia_video-149194(3)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149225(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(6)
              - arizona(2)
              - california(3)
              - hawaii(25)
              - maryland(1)
              - massachusetts(2)
              - minnesota(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(1)
              - (-)oregon(1)
              - south dakota(4)

## By Year

Photography        December 31, 2012        Sprague River Basin, Oregon
Exhibit 32.1

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 Sheffield Products, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
period ending December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, James Charles, President and a director 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 requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange
> Act of 1934; and
> 
> 
> 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/James Charles



James Charles,

 President and a director

April 14, 2004