alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 8.1





The following list shows all of the subsidiaries of Enodis plc, as of December 5, 2002, except for inactive subsidiaries, those used only as vehicles to hold non-operating assets and those which, in the aggregate, are not
significant.





|
|

Significant Subsidiaries

Country of Incorporation

Percentage HeldFood equipmentCastel MAC S.p.A.

Italy

100%Cleveland Range, LLC

USA

100%Cleveland Range Ltd.

Canada

100%Convotherm Elektrogeräte GmbH

Germany

91%Convotherm Limited

England

91%Convotherm Singapore Pte Ltd.

Singapore

91%Enodis Corporation

USA

100%Enodis Deutschland GmbH

Germany

100%Enodis France SA

France

100%Enodis Group Limited

England

100%Enodis Holdings Limited

England

100%Enodis Iberia SA

Spain

100%Enodis UK Limited

England

100%Frimont S.p.A

Italy

100%Frymaster L.L.C.

USA

100%Garland Commercial Industries, Inc.

USA

100%Garland Commercial Ranges, Limited

Canada

100%Guyon Productions SA

France

100%Hartek Awagem Vertriebsges m.b.H.

Austria

100%Hartek Beverage Handling GmbH

Germany

100%Jackson MSC Inc.

USA

100%Kysor Industrial Corporation

USA

100%Lincoln Foodservice Products, Inc.

USA

100%Merco/Savory, Inc.

USA

100%Merrychef Holdings Limited

England

100%Mile High Equipment Company

USA

100%New Ton Food Equipment Co. Ltd.

Thailand

99.9%Scotsman Beverage Systems Limited

England

100%Scotsman Group Inc.

USA

100%Scotsman Ice Systems (Shanghai) Company Ltd.

China

100%Technyform Productions SA

France

100%The Delfield Company

USA

100%VentMaster (Europe) Limited

England

100%Viscount Catering Limited

England

100%Welbilt Manufacturing (Thailand) Ltd.

Thailand

50%Welbilt Walk-Ins, L.P.

USA

100%Whitlenge Drink Equipment, Limited

England

100%PropertyEnodis Property Developments Limited

England

100%Enodis Investments Limited

England

100%
EXHIBIT
32.2





PERICOM
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 this quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended December 27, 2008 (the
“Report”), I, Angela Chen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:


(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated.




September
25, 2009




By:
              /s/ Angela ChenAngela
      ChenChief
      Financial OfficerPericom
      Semiconductor Corporation
#### John Smelser et al. v. The State.

Where the verdict was wholly unsupported by evidence a new trial ought to have been granted.

Appeal from Brazoria. The case was tried before Hon. Benjamin Shropshire, one of the district judges.

*96The defendant, John Smelaer, a white man, and Mary Ann Eraulis, a freed woman, were indicted under article 392 of the Criminal Code [Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2022] for living together in a state of fornication. The defendants pleaded not guilty, but they were convicted, and each fined $100. A motion for a new trial was overruled, and the case turned upon the sufficiency of the pfoof to convict. There was proof that the parties lived together in the same house, but occupied different rooms. There was no other proof to sustain the verdict, except that the woman had been the other defendant’s slave, was nearly white, and wore short hair.

Ho brief for the appellants has been furnished to the *Reporter.*

*M B. Turner, Attorney General,*for the state,

did not believe this conviction supported by any testimony.

Lindsay, J.

—The facts exhibited in the record of this case do not warrant the verdict of the jury. The judgment therefore is

Reversed.
**Exhibit32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Southern Copper Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Eduardo GonzalezFelix, Vice President Finance, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
|                  | /s/ J. Eduardo  Gonzalez Felix |
|------------------|--------------------------------|
|             | J. Eduardo  Gonzalez Felix     |
|             | Vice President,  Finance       |
|             | and Chief  Financial Officer   |
|             |                           |
| November 3, 2006 |                           |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby section 906 has been provided to Southern Copper Corporation and will beretained by Southern Copper Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

RICCKY JOSEPH FRILOUX, JR.

Respondent

Docket Number 2023-0163

Ilnforcement Activit) No.7660459

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEN{ENT

OnMay 22,2023. the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of a

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find that it is f-air

and reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. { 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement is

APPRO\aED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated this 22nd day ofJune 2023. at

Galveston. Texas

HON. TOMMY B. CANTRELL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

vs.

I
# C_2022361EN.01003901.xml

| 20.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/39

---

P9_TA(2022)0093

Automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Italy *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 March 2022 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Italy (14837/2021 — C9-0003/2022 — 2021/0807(CNS))

(Consultation)

(2022/C 361/13)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Council draft (14837/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council draft (14837/2021),

| — | having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0003/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0003/2022),

| — | having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,

| — | having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0050/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0050/2022),

| 1. | Approves the Council draft; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

---

(1)  OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          29,261
<SECURITIES>                                    11,613
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,766
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,602
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,222
<PP&E>                                          22,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,413
<BONDS>                                          1,088
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,653
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,696
<SALES>                                         43,104
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,610
<CGS>                                            8,222
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,851
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,177
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,255
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,922
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,922
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7715

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODNEY EARL RISPER, a/k/a Menace, a/k/a Rodney Risper, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-134-BR) Submitted: April 13, 2000 Decided: April 20, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Rodney Earl Risper, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The district court also denied Risper’s request for the return of a firearm and an address book. He has waived any challenge to the court’s denial as to those two items because he did not address those items in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 2 PER CURIAM: Rodney Risper appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Risper sought the return of $5000 seized when he was arrested. * We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Risper, No. CR-97-134-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 19, 1999). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,491
<ALLOWANCES>                                       548
<INVENTORY>                                     21,682
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,223
<PP&E>                                          30,709
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,439
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,949
<BONDS>                                          4,119
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,771
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,738
<SALES>                                         12,795
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,795
<CGS>                                            8,413
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    79
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  77
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    644
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (225)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                419
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       419
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,503
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        402
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,400
<PP&E>                                          66,688
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,827
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,595
<BONDS>                                            760
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,523
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,261
<SALES>                                        101,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,678
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,643
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (269)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,239
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,767
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,472
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,472
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
        

</TABLE>
#### Hamilton *et al. v.*Steck *et al.*

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.*

May 16, 1890.)

ATTACHMENT— AFFIDAVIT—INFORMATION AND BELIEF.

An affidavit for an attachment which states that plaintiffs sold goods to defendants ; that affiant, who was in charge of plaintiffs’, office in New York, made the sale, and had been informed by plaintiffs that they dealt with defendants only through affiant as agent; and that plaintiffs are entitled to recover the sum sued for, over and above all counter-claims known to plaintiffs or affiant,—is not objectionable as being one on information and belief. Affirming 5 N. Y. Supp. 831.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Ralph S. Hamilton and Ralph S. Hamilton, Jr., against Frederick D. Steck, William H. Payne, and another. The motion of Robert B. Holden and diaries I. Gardiner, as junior lienors, to vacate an attachment obtained by Ralph S. Hamilton and another against the property of William H. Payne, on the ground of the insufficiency of the papers on which the warrant was granted, was denied, and the applicants appeal. For report of decision at special term, see 5 H. Y. Supp. 831.

Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Brady and Daniels, JJ.

*Franklin Bien,*for appellants. *Charles H. Maehin,*for respondents.

Van Brunt, P. J.

The affidavit upon which the attachment was granted seems to he sufficient. The allegations therein set forth are not all upon information and belief. The affidavit states the cause of action: That the plaintiffs sold and delivered goods to the defendants; that the alliant sold them; that he is in charge of the plaintiffs’ office in Hew York, and manages their business there; that their principal place of business is Providence, R. I.; -that he has been informed by them that they have had no dealings with the defendants except through the affiant as agent, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the sum sued for, over and above all counter-claims known to the plaintiffs or to the affiant; and that the defendant Payne is a non-resident. We think this is sufficient. The goods were sold by affiant. He managed the plaintiffs’ business in Hew York, and consequently is presumed to have the best knowledge as to the condition of the transactions between the plaintiffs and defendants. There is an express allegation of sale and delivery of the goods, and we see no reason for disturbing the attachment. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6692

FRANKIE M. MILLER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:16-cv-00645-MSD-DEM)

Submitted: November 18, 2021 Decided: November 19, 2021

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frankie M. Miller, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Frankie M. Miller, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). See generally United 

States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Steinkopf, Chief Financial 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 Company.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Timothy J. Steinkopf                         
|Timothy J. Steinkopf                             
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|December 6, 2005
#### O’Gorman *et al.,*Respondents, v. National Fire Ins. Co., Appellant.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment and orders affirmed, with costs.