alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S> <C> <C>

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



ENGlobal Corporate Services, Inc.       Incorporated in the State of Texas

ENGlobal Engineering, Inc.              Incorporated in the State of Texas

ENGlobal Systems, Inc.                  Incorporated in the State of Texas

ENGlobal Construction Resources, Inc.   Incorporated in the State of Texas

ENGlobal Automation Group, Inc.         Incorporated in the State of Texas

ENGlobal Technical Services, Inc.       Incorporated in the State of Texas

ENGlobal Canada, ULC                    Incorporated in the Province of Nova Scotia, Canada

ENGlobal Land, Inc.                     Incorporated in the State of Colorado

WRC Canada                              Incorporated in the Province of Alberta, Canada





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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         7022450
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               8178416
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  110932643
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         3384603
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           3493187
<LOANS>                                      111084153
<ALLOWANCE>                                    2263852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               247067275
<DEPOSITS>                                   185874406
<SHORT-TERM>                                  28588433
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            5018103
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       6069300
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               247067275
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                7508785
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              5217529
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              12726314
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             4405078
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5200088
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          7526226
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   213000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               25376
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2699685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3363216
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2288216
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                     397000
<LOANS-PAST>                                     46000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                834000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               2263852
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   337000
<RECOVERIES>                                    175000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Ronald Ian BOATWRIGHT, Appellant.

No. 06-2521.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Oct. 27, 2006.

Filed Dec. 21, 2006.

Eric Pfisterer, Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for United States of America.

Ronald Ian Boatwright, Fairton, NJ, pro se.

Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Ian Boatwright appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. For the following reasons we will affirm.

In 2004 Boatwright pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, for which he received a sentence including 84 months’ imprisonment. He did not appeal. He did, however, file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that because he was sentenced after the Supreme Court’s decision in *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), he should have been sentenced in accordance with *Blakely.*The District Court dismissed the motion because it had, in fact, sentenced him in accordance with *Blakely*(and, *ipso facto,*the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)). The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Again Boatwright did not appeal. Instead, he filed a motion for reduction in *190sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, arguing that *Booker*“invalidated” the federal sentencing guidelines. The District Court denied the motion, explaining that section 3582(c) authorizes a reduction in sentence if the Sentencing Commission has amended a guideline applicable to a specific sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 994(o); it does not authorize alteration of a sentence based on a subsequent judicial ruling such as *Booker.*Boatwright filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied. This appeal followed.1

We agree with the District Court. Section 3582(c) simply does not authorize a district court to reduce a sentence based on a subsequent judicial decision, and the Supreme Court’s decision in *Booker*is not the equivalent of a Sentencing Guidelines amendment made by the Sentencing Commission. Cf*. United States v. McBride,*283 F.3d 612, 616 (3d Cir.2002) (holding that a claim under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is outside the scope of a sentence modification under section 3582(c)(2)).

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the District Court's legal interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. *United States v. Irvin,*369 F.3d 284, 286 n. 1 (3d Cir.2004).
<PAGE>   1


                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of SDL, Inc. of our report dated January 29, 1999, included in the 1998
Annual Report to Stockholders of SDL, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of SDL, Inc. listed
in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.
In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-90848, 33-92200, 333-57683) pertaining to the
1995 Stock Option Plan, 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1992 Stock Option
Plan and the Amended and Restated 1984 Incentive Stock Option Plan of SDL,
Inc. of our report dated January 29, 1999, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements incorporated here by reference, and our report included
in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of SDL, Inc.


                                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP
San Jose, California
March 19, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.2

  Certification by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section
   1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, Robert W. Raiford, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ENGlobal
Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of ENGlobal Corporation.


Date:  March 27, 2008                         //s// Robert W. Raiford
                                              Robert W. Raiford
                                              Chief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15226]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-190-003]


National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

June 12, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 2, 2001, National Fuel Gas Distribution 
Corporation (National Fuel Distribution) filed its final report in 
compliance with the Commission's order dated March 30, 2000, in Docket 
No. RP99-190-001. The filing reports that National Fuel Distribution 
will be able to operate without a waiver of the shipper must have title 
policy following November 1, 2000 for parts of its upstream capacity 
and following April 1, 2001 for all of its upstream capacity.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protests 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before June 19, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be 
filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15226 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the consolidated financial statements accompanying the filing of
Form 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                 450,040
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                          100,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       681,578
<PP&E>                                 416,045
<DEPRECIATION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,188,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  232,899
<BONDS>                                      0
<COMMON>                                 4,272
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                             672,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         1,188,627
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             0
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     3,865,736
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     113,445
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (4,119,612)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (4,119,612)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                        (4,119,612)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (1.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (1.35)
        


</TABLE>
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 ImmunoBiotics., Inc. (the "Registrant")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
P. Lahey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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; and
  (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.
    /s/ Thomas P.
      LaheyThomas
      P. Lahey
                Chief
      Executive Officer
                (Principal
      Executive Officer)
   November
13, 2008
-1-

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 27, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

REVISED JUNE 28, 2005

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60833 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee 

v.

JAMES O. OGLE, 

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In our previous opinion in this case, we affirmed DefendantAppellant Ogle’s conviction and sentence. See United States v.

Ogle, No. 03-60833, 2004 WL 78109 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)

(unpublished). Following our judgment, Ogle filed a petition for

certiorari, in which he challenged for the first time the

constitutionality of the Sentencing Guidelines as applied to him. 

The Supreme Court granted Ogle’s petition for certiorari, vacated
1See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499

(5th Cir. 2004)(party waived argument not included in original

brief to panel); Yokey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.

1993). See also 16A C. WRIGHT, A. MILLER & E. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE

AND PROCEDURE § 3974.1 at 501 (1999)(issues not raised in

appellant’s initial brief normally will not be considered by the

court); FED. R. APP. P. 28 (a)(9)(A) which states that an

appellant’s brief must contain “appellant’s contentions and the

reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of

the record on which the appellant relies.”

-2-

our judgment, and remanded the case to this court for further

consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005). We now reconsider the matter in light of Booker and

decide to reinstate our previous judgment affirming Ogle’s

conviction and sentence.

Because Ogle did not raise any Booker-related challenges to

his sentence until his petition for certiorari, we will not

review his claim absent extraordinary circumstances. United

States v. Taylor, No. 03-10167, 2005 WL 1155245, at *1 (5th Cir.

May 17, 2005). Our cases make it clear that an argument not

raised in appellant’s original brief as required by FED. R. APP.

P. 28 is waived.1 Appellant argues that based on remarks made by

the trial judge at sentencing, he can satisfy the plain-error

test discussed in United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520-22

(5th Cir. 2005). Even if appellant can satisfy the plain error

test, he has not met the even more exacting test required to show

the presence of extraordinary circumstances, which requires

appellant to show a “possibility of injustice so grave as to

warrant disregard of usual procedural rules.” McGee v. Estelle,
-3-

722 F.2d 1206, 1213 (5th Cir. 1984) (footnote omitted).

Accordingly, we decline to consider the merits of his Booker

challenge. Having reconsidered our decision pursuant to the

Supreme Court’s instructions, we REINSTATE OUR JUDGMENT affirming

Ogle’s conviction and sentence.
November 29, 2011

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JECARRA TREMAIN LANE, Appellant

NO. 10-00925-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The 

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN
REGISTRANT'S
FORM 10-K/A1 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
                                              
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         151,698
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,350
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,095
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               156,048
<PP&E>                                       3,881,144
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (589)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,056,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          821,322
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        77,571
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,157,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,056,698
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  543,644
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (144,738)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               144,738
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,557
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (750,939)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (750,939)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.17)


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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000934383
<NAME>                        HCI Direct, Inc. (Formerly, Hosiery Corporation of
                              America, Inc.)
<MULTIPLIER>                      1000

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1999

<CASH>                               0
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                   55,673
<ALLOWANCES>                     6,048
<INVENTORY>                     14,248
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                75,070
<PP&E>                          37,423
<DEPRECIATION>                  20,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 155,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           73,357
<BONDS>                         69,683
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                     38,119
<COMMON>                            14
<OTHER-SE>                     (84,932)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   155,612
<SALES>                        259,881
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               259,881
<CGS>                           55,745
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  117,809
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                28,552
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              16,888
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 20,990
<INCOME-TAX>                     8,762
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             12,228
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                    12,228
<EPS-BASIC>                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 21, 2016

t0914 

# Order

Clerk September 21, 2016

153514

In re DENG, Minors SC: 153514

COA: 328826

Kent CC Family Div: 14

- 053706

- NA ;

14

- 05370 7

- NA ; 14

- 05370 8

- NA ;

14

- 05370 9

- NA

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

James Wesley Brooks Jackson, Appellant

No. 06-13-00077-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 372nd District Court of 

Tarrant County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1283854R). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, James Wesley Brooks Jackson, has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 4, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk