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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                 Jurisdiction of

 Name                                                              Organization
-----                                                              ------------

 Hewitt Associates S.A ...........................................Argentina
 Hewitt Associates Pty. Ltd ......................................Australia
 Hewitt Associates GmbH ..........................................Austria
 Hewitt Associates S.A. ..........................................Belgium
 3038402 Nova Scotia Company .....................................Canada
 3409635 Canada Inc ..............................................Canada
 3412822 Canada Inc ..............................................Canada
 Hewitt Associates (Chile) Limitada ..............................Chile
 Hewitt Associates Consulting (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. ................China
 Hewitt Associates SARL ..........................................France
 Hewitt Associates GmbH ..........................................Germany
 Hewitt Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd ..............................India
 PT Hewitt Konsultan Indonesia ...................................Indonesia
 Hewitt Associates Srl ...........................................Italy
 Hewitt Associates Kabushiki Gaisya ..............................Japan
 Hewitt Associates SDN. BHD ......................................Malaysia
 Hewitt Associates de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V ...................Mexico
 Empresas Hewitt S. de R.L. de C.V ...............................Mexico
 Hewitt Mexicana S. de R.L. de C.V ...............................Mexico
 Hewitt Associates S.C ...........................................Mexico
 Hewitt Associates ...............................................New Zealand
 Hewitt Strat Asia, Inc ..........................................Philippines
 Hewitt Associates Sp. z o.o .....................................Poland
 Hewitt Associates LLC Sucursal en Portugal ......................Portugal
 Hewitt Associates Pte. Ltd ......................................Singapore
 Hewitt Associates Korea Yuhan Hoesa .............................South Korea
 Hewitt Associates, S.A ..........................................Spain
 PRASA Hewitt A.G ................................................Switzerland
 Hewitt Associates (Thailand) Limited ............................Thailand
 Hewitt Associates Limited .......................................United Kingdom
 Hewitt Bacon & Woodrow Limited ..................................United Kingdom
 Hewitt Distributions LLC ........................................United States
 Hewitt Insurance Brokerage LLC ..................................United States
 ANNOD Corp ......................................................United States
 Hewitt Financial Services LLC ...................................United States
 Sageo LLC .......................................................United States
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 29, 2020

No. 04-19-00494-CR

Richard A. CANTU, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-11-293-CRW

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On January 2, 2020, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief 

and a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State, 

573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In counsel’s certification to this 

court, Appellant’s counsel explained that he took the following steps:

(1) notified Appellant that counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to 

withdraw, and provided Appellant with a copy of the documents;

(2) advised Appellant of his right to review the appellate record and file a pro 

se brief;

(3) provided Appellant with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record, 

addressed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, that lacked only Appellant’s 

dated signature; and

(4) advised Appellant of his right to seek discretionary review in the Court of 

Criminal Appeals if this court determines his appeal is frivolous. 

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Ex parte Owens, 

206 S.W.3d 670, 674 n.28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 688–89

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

The State filed a letter conditionally waiving its right to file a brief. 
If Appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER Appellant to do so within thirty 

days of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). If Appellant files a pro se brief, the 

State may file a responsive brief not later than thirty days after the date Appellant’s pro se brief 

is filed in this court. See id. R. 38.6(b).

If this court determines Appellant’s appeal is frivolous, Appellant may file a petition for 

discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 

Appellant must file the petition with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty 

days after this court issues its judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). The petition should be 

addressed to Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, P.O. Box 12308, Austin, Texas 78711. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is held in abeyance pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of January, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant, Soil and Nutrition Research: Ithaca, NY
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        Robert W. Holley Center for Agriculture & Health
                                    Emerging Pests and Pathogens ResearchSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Ithaca, New York Robert W. Holley Center for Agriculture & Health Plant, Soil and Nutrition Research Docs





- Research Projects
- Functional and Comparative Proteomics Center
- Research Infrastructure
- Interesting Links
- Ithaca, NY Location

Interesting Linksheadline bar (Coming Soon)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
ies8k_dec09compex10-2.htm


 

 

EXHIBIT 10.2



 

 

 


	 	Fiscal 2010 Consolidated Operating Income (1)
	Executive	< $18.0 MM	$18.0 MM	$20.0 MM	$35.0 MM	> $35.0 MM
	Michael J. Caliel	$0.00	$305,000	$610,000	$1,220,000	$1,220,000
	Raymond K. Guba	$0.00	$148,125	$296,250	$592,500	$592,500
	Richard A. Nix	$0.00	$182,000	$364,000	$728,000	$728,000



(1) Net of incentives paid to all participants
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1)
    
    such Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for
the twelve months ended December 31, 2007, fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    the information contained in such Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Plumas Bancorp.
 Date: March 14, 2008
    /s/ D. N. BiddleDouglas N. Biddle, Chief ExecutiveOfficer
#### Maria C. FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael V. HAYDEN, Lt. General, Director of National Security Agency, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-1118.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 31, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 12, 2009.

Terry B. Blair, Baltimore, Maryland; William T. Glasgow, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Maria C. Fernandez appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Defendant in Fernandez’s civil action and denying her motions to alter or amend judgment, for a protective order, and to compel. On appeal, Fernandez contends the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow her to conduct *726discovery as to count one of her complaint prior to summary judgment, and the district court erred in concluding that there was insufficient evidence of disparate treatment, of retaliatory action, and that Fernandez’s alleged harassment was based on her gender to survive summary judgment. We affirm.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. *Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc.,*487 F.3d 208, 213 (4th Cir.2007), ce*rt. denied,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 955, 169 L.Ed.2d 734 (2008). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s refusal to allow discovery prior to granting summary judgment. *Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names,*302 F.3d 214, 244 (4th Cir.2002); *Nguyen v. CNA Corp.,*44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir.1995).

Summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). “[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” *Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,*477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and find no abuse of discretion or reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Fernandez v. Hayden,*No. 1:04-cv-03009JFM (D. Md. Oct. 23, 2007; Aug. 27, 2007; Apr. 2, 2007; Aug. 25, 2006; Aug. 24, 2006; Sept. 26, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 11





LIVEREEL MEDIA CORPORATION





CODE OF ETHICS





FOR





CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OR CONTROLLER AND PERSONS PERFORMING SIMILAR FUNCTIONS








General Philosophy





The honesty, integrity and sound judgment of LiveReel Media Corporation (“LiveReel ” or the “Company”) Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or Controller and persons performing similar functions (collectively the “Principal Officers”) is fundamental to our reputation and success.  The professional and ethical conduct of the Principal Officers is essential to the proper functioning and success of LiveReel.





Applicability





This Code of Ethics shall apply to LiveReel’s Principal Officers.





Standards of Conduct





To the best of their knowledge and ability, the Principal Officers shall:





·
act with honesty and integrity, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships;





·
provide full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in reports and documents that LiveReel files with, or submits to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and in other public communications made by LiveReel;





·
comply with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations;





·
promote the prompt internal reporting of violations of this Code of Ethics to LiveReel’s board of directors and outside legal counsel;





·
respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of employment;





·
maintain the skills necessary and relevant to LiveReel’s needs; and





·
proactively promote ethical and honest behavior among employees of LiveReel and its subsidiary.





All Principal Officers are expected to adhere to the LiveReel Code of Ethics.  Any violation of this Code of Ethics will be subject to appropriate discipline, up to and including dismissal from the Company and prosecution under the law.  The board of directors shall have responsibility for administration of this Code of Ethics and shall have the sole and absolute discretionary authority to approve any deviation or waiver from this Code of Ethics for Principal Officers.  In the event that a waiver of, modification of and/or change to this Code of Ethics is approved and granted, then the notice of the waiver, modification, and/or change shall be disclosed as may be required by SEC rules or the rules of any exchange on which the securities of the Company are then trading.
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1)
    
    such Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the twelve months
ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the twelve months ended December 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Plumas
Bancorp.
 Date: March 13, 2006
    
    
    
    /s/ D. N. BiddleDouglas N. Biddle, Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019383EN.01004301.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/43

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 August 2019 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v D.-H. T., acting as insolvency administrator in relation to the assets of J & S Service UG (limited liability)

(Case C-620/19)

(2019/C 383/51)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law, appellant in the first appeal and defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law, respondent in the first appeal and applicant: D.-H. T., acting as insolvency administrator in relation to the assets of J & S Service UG (limited liability)

Interested party: the representative of the federal interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 23(1)(j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) also serve to protect the interests of financial authorities? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 23(1)(j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) also serve to protect the interests of financial authorities?

| 2. | If so, does the wording ‘the enforcement of civil law claims’ also cover the defence of the financial authority against civil law claims and must such claims already have been submitted? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, does the wording ‘the enforcement of civil law claims’ also cover the defence of the financial authority against civil law claims and must such claims already have been submitted?

| 3. | Does the provision of Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 relating to the protection of an important financial interest of a Member State in taxation matters allow a restriction of the right of access under Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2016/279 in relation to the defence of civil law insolvency avoidance claims against the financial authority? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the provision of Article 23(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 relating to the protection of an important financial interest of a Member State in taxation matters allow a restriction of the right of access under Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2016/279 in relation to the defence of civil law insolvency avoidance claims against the financial authority?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro ALEGRIA-GONZALEZ, aka Carlos Alfredo Alegria, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-10123.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 9, 2009.

Ronald C. Rachow, Esquire, USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael K. Powell, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDNV-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Alegria-Gonzalez appeals from the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for unlawful reentry by a deported, removed, and/or *96excluded alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Alegria-Gonzalez contends that the district court procedurally erred in fashioning his sentence by failing to meaningfully consider his arguments and the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Alegria-Gonzalez also contends based on *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that *Almendarez-Torres v. U.S.,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) is no longer good law and that the judicial factfinding used to increase his sentence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. These contentions are foreclosed. *See United States v. Becerril-Lopez,*541 F.3d 881, 893 (9th Cir.2008).

Finally, Alegria-Gonzalez contends that the fact of his prior qualifying conviction and the fact of his prior removal were not alleged in the indictment. We conclude that any error was harmless. *See United States v. Calderon-Segura,*512 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
|   | 1.     | Such      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal      year ended December 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects,      the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

| /s/      Yonglin Du                |
|------------------------------------|
| Yonglin      Du                    |
| President      & CEO           |
| (Principal      Executive Officer) |

----
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   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 Tiens Biotech Group (USA), Inc.
(the  "Registrant") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, Jinyuan
Li, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

         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  Registrant as of and for the period covered
                  by the Report.

         Pursuant to the rules and  regulations  of the  Securities and Exchange
Commission, this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.

August 11, 2005                              /s/ Jinyuan Li
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Jinyuan Li
                                            Chief Executive Officer and Chairman