alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1


                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                                      State of Incorporation
--------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
<S>                                                       <C>
            Concentra Management Services, Inc.           Nevada
            Concentra Managed Care Services, Inc.         Massachusetts
            Concentra Health Services, Inc.               Nevada
            Concentra Prepared Systems, Inc.              Delaware
            Prompt Associates, Inc.                       Delaware
            First Notice Systems, Inc.                    Delaware
            Focus Healthcare Management, Inc.             Tennessee
            Hillman Consulting, Inc.                      Nevada
            OCI Holdings, Inc.                            Nevada
            QMC3, Inc.                                    Colorado
            CRA of Washington, Inc.                       Washington
            Drug Free Consortium, Inc.                    Texas
            Occucenters I, L.P.                           Texas
            Concentra Managed Care Business Trust         Massachusetts
            CRA-MCO, Inc.                                 Nevada
            California Occupational Medical Group, Inc.   California
            Greaney Medical Group, A Professional         California
              Medical Corporation
            The Exam Center, Inc.                         Utah
</TABLE>
C OURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SECURITY SERVICE FEDERAL

CREDIT UNION

,

Appellant,

v.

MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 154

- C V

Appeal from the

168 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018DCV3979 )

O R D E R

On the Court’s own motion, and pursuant to Tex.R.App.P . 39.1, the Court finds that oral

argument in the above styled and numbered cause would not materially aid in the disposition of

this cause, therefore, this case is scheduled to be submitted without oral argument on March 31

,

20 20

. The March 16, 2020 orde r resetting this cause to May 7, 2020, is hereby withdrawn.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19 th day of March , 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
Case 3:05-cv-00036-K Document 11 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 78
# C_2016191EN.01003901.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/39

---

Action brought on 4 April 2016 — Commission v IEM

(Case T-141/16)

(2016/C 191/51)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune)

Applicant:

Defendant: IEM — Erga — Erevnes — Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE (Athens, Greece)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 105 416,47, together with default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations on 1 July 2010 (2 %) plus 1 %, that is to say, at a total rate of 3 %, calculated from 6 July 2010 until the day on which that sum has been paid in full, less EUR 30 208 (which was paid by way of set-off on 4 September 2010); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 105 416,47, together with default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations on 1 July 2010 (2 %) plus 1 %, that is to say, at a total rate of 3 %, calculated from 6 July 2010 until the day on which that sum has been paid in full, less EUR 30 208 (which was paid by way of set-off on 4 September 2010);

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action, brought before the General Court pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeks delivery of a judgment ordering the defendant to pay to the European Commission the sum of EUR 75 208,47, together with interest, in relation to contract FAIR-CT98-9544 for the project entitled ‘Development of a new process in fruit cleansing and peeling’.

The European Commission pleads, as the principal legal basis, breach of the defendant’s contractual obligations. It submits in particular that the sum which was paid to the defendant pursuant to the contract at issue was not used to carry out any work relating to the contract and that the defendant has not adduced any relevant documentary evidence. In the alternative, the European Commission puts forward a claim of unjust enrichment of the defendant, as provided for in Articles 904 and 908 of the Civil Code.

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16I0016. JAMES T.L. ROBERTS v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et al.

James T.L. Roberts sued JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association and

Associated Credit Union. Associated Credit Union filed a motion to dismiss, which

the trial court granted on August 13, 2015. The court entered a certificate of

immediate review on Tuesday, August 25, and Roberts filed this application for

interlocutory review. We lack jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), a party may request interlocutory review only if the

trial court certifies within ten days of entry of the order at issue that immediate review

should be had. If the certificate of immediate review is not entered within that tenday period, it is untimely, and the party seeking review must wait until the final

judgment to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Wilcher v. Confederate Packaging,

Inc., 287 Ga. App. 451, 452 (1) (651 SE2d 790) (2007). Here, the certificate of

immediate review was entered 12 days after the order was entered. Accordingly, we

lack jurisdiction to consider this application for interlocutory appeal. Associated

Credit Union’s motion to dismissis herebyGRANTED, and this application is hereby

DISMISSED.

September 21, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/21/2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NELSON ARMANDO FOLGAR, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-72794 

Agency No. A094-290-134 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Immigration Judge 

Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Nelson Armando Folgar, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for 

review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 

denial of a motion to reopen. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008). 

We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 23 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-72794 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Folgar’s contention that his proposed 

particular social group is based on a familial relationship because he failed to raise 

the issue before the IJ. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 

2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

Assuming the IJ had the authority to reopen proceedings, she did not abuse

her discretion in denying Folgar’s untimely motion to reopen where he failed to 

establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2); RamirezMunoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (denying motion to 

reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought). 

Folgar does not challenge the IJ’s determination that there was no 

jurisdiction to reopen his initial removal proceedings or the IJ’s denial of sua

sponte reopening. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 

1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are 

waived).

Folgar’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is denied as 

moot. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
Andres HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Andres Hernandez, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1600

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 1175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00099]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; A Solicitation of the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 
Contract Proposals (PHS 2025-1), NIH/NIAID 142--Adjuvant Development 
for Vaccines.
    Date: January 30-31, 2025.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G22, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Video Assisted Meeting).
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Contact Person: Michael M. Opata, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G22, 
Rockville, MD 20892, 240-627-3319, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 2, 2025.
Victoria E. Townsend,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2025-00099 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
* 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

September 27, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10303 

Summary Calendar

 

In The Matter Of: Walter G. Berry, III

 Debtor,

MACLEAN ODDY & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Appellant,

versus

DANIEL SHERMAN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE 

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District f Texas, Dallas Division

C.A. No. 3:03-CV-1557-K 

Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern

District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the debtor

upon finding that the debtor’s pre-petition payment to Maclean Oddy

constituted an avoidable preference because Maclean Oddy was an

unsecured creditor at the time the payment was made. The district

court affirmed.
2

On appeal, Maclean Oddy asserts that the pre-petition

payment was not an avoidable preference because: (1) it created a

security interest by filing a judicial lien, an abstract of

judgment, outside of the 90-day preference period; (2) a subsequent

escrow agreement continued the security interest created by the

abstract of judgment; (3) a new trial order (in the case that

spawned the lien) did not void ab initio its security interest

because the escrow agreement was executed prior to the entry of the

new trial order; and (4) it did not receive more than it would have

received had the transfer not occurred. In the alternative,

Maclean Oddy argues that its contemporaneous release of the

security interest in exchange for the escrow payment pursuant to a

settlement agreement entered into with the debtor constituted a

contemporaneous exchange for value or new value so as to avoid the

transfer.

Maclean Oddy has failed to cite, and we have been unable

to find, federal or Texas state authority in support of Maclean

Oddy’s contentions. Thus, after careful review of the briefs and

record, we find no reason to reverse the bankruptcy court’s

judgment or the district court’s affirmance. The judgments of

those courts are

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
required by Rule 13a-14(b) or


Rule
15d-14(b) and Section 906 of


the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of NGP Capital Resources Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen
K. Gardner, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(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 results of operations of the
Company.





Date:
June 24, 2010




/s/
      Stephen K. GardnerStephen
      K. GardnerChief
      Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Secretary





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
NGP Capital Resources Company and will be retained by NGP Capital Resources
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 780 

Recognizing August 1, 2024, as ‘‘National Poll Worker Recruitment Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2024 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mrs. FISCHER) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing August 1, 2024, as ‘‘National Poll Worker 

Recruitment Day’’. 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes August 1, 2024, as ‘‘National 

3 Poll Worker Recruitment Day’’; 

4 (2) recognizes the need for, and appreciation of, 

5 the service of poll workers; and 

6 (3) encourages eligible people to help American 

7 citizens to vote in the 2024 elections by serving as 

8 poll workers. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2020378EN.01004802.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/48

---

Order of the General Court of 15 September 2020 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council

(Case T-108/20) (1)

(2020/C 378/58)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---
##### 



Exhibit 12.1 GLOBALSANTAFE CORPORATION
STATEMENT SETTING FORTH DETAIL FOR COMPUTATION OF
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES (Millions of dollars) Year Ended December 31,2003
    
    2002
    
    2001Fixed charges:Interest expense, gross
    
    $
    67.5
    
    
    $
    57.1
    
    
    $
    57.4Portion of rentals representative of interest
    
    
    26.6
    
    
    
    25.2
    
    
    
    39.0Total fixed charges
    
    $
    94.1
    
    
    $
    82.3
    
    
    $
    96.4Earnings before fixed charges:Income before income taxes
    
    $
    145.7
    
    
    $
    312.6
    
    
    $
    322.4Fixed charges
    
    
    94.1
    
    
    
    82.3
    
    
    
    96.4Capitalized interest
    
    
    (34.9
    )
    
    
    (20.5
    )
    
    
    (1.1
    )Amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    3.1
    
    
    
    3.0
    
    
    
    3.0Total earnings before fixed charges
    
    $
    208.0
    
    
    $
    377.4
    
    
    $
    420.7Ratio of earnings to fixed charges:Earnings before fixed charges
    
    $
    208.0
    
    
    $
    377.4
    
    
    $
    420.7Fixed charges
    
    $
    94.1
    
    
    $
    82.3
    
    
    $
    96.4Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.21
    
    
    
    4.59
    
    
    
    4.36
# C_2018408EN.01001901.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission

(Case C-173/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clauses - Doc@Hand Agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 2007-2013 - Eligible costs - European Commission decision - Obligation to reimburse sums paid - Counter-claim))

(2018/C 408/22)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: S. Paliou, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---
Case 3:03-cv-03015-R Document 8 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 25
Brack JASKEY, Appellant, v. Simon REYNOLDS, Ian Drewe, and Applied Efforts, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees.

No. 4D17-2080

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 28, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Johnny THOMPSON, Jr.

No. 2018-KH-1044

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF MOREHOUSE**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claim, applicant fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 811 

Condemning the horrific shooting at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, recognizing the victims, and expressing condolences and support 

to their families and their communities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 

Mr. WARNOCK (for himself and Mr. OSSOFF) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning the horrific shooting at Apalachee High School 

in Winder, Georgia, recognizing the victims, and expressing condolences and support to their families and their 

communities. 

Whereas, on September 4, 2024, a student violently opened 

fire at Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia; 

Whereas this reprehensible action resulted in the deaths of 2 

students and 2 teachers— 

(1) Christian Angulo, age 14, a son and brother; 

(2) Richard William ‘‘Ricky’’ Aspinwall II, age 39, 

a husband, dad, son, coach, and teacher; 

(3) Cristina Irimie, age 53, a teacher, wife, daughter, and friend; and 

(4) Mason Schermerhorn, age 14, a son and brother; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 811 ATS 

Whereas 9 additional victims were injured and hospitalized; 

Whereas countless other students, teachers, and staff experienced significant trauma and mental anguish as a result 

of this shooting; 

Whereas the entire Winder, Georgia, community has been 

tragically and irrevocably affected by this tragedy; and 

Whereas all children should be able to attend school without 

fearing for their lives: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) condemns the violence that occurred at 

3 Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, on Sep4 tember 4, 2024; 

5 (2) honors the memory of the victims— 

6 (A) Christian Angulo; 

7 (B) Richard William ‘‘Ricky’’ Aspinwall II; 

8 (C) Cristina Irimie; and 

9 (D) Mason Schermerhorn; 

10 (3) extends its deepest condolences and support 

11 to their friends and families, and to the communities 

12 of Apalachee High School and Winder, Georgia; 

13 (4) expresses hope for those wounded to recover 

14 fully and quickly; 

15 (5) offers appreciation and gratitude to law en16 forcement, first responders, healthcare workers, and 

17 teachers and faculty for their bravery and decisive 

18 action; and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 811 ATS 

1 (6) reaffirms its duty to protect the safety and 

2 security of all people in the United States. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
John GAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2275

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 30, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.