alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

APO Health, Inc., a New York Corporation.

Universal Medial Distributors, Inc., a New York Corporation.


                                       15
<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

                                        APO HEALTH, INC.

Date: January 2, 2004                   By: /s/ Dr. Jan Stahl
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Dr. Jan Stahl,
                                           Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,
                                           acting President, acting Chief
                                           Financial Officer and Secretary
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)


                                       16
Jiten Jay NANDA and Atul Nanda, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8114.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
G.I., petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al.

No. 16-6817.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District denied.
Marvin NICHOLSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7833.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Marc DeWayne HOWELL, petitioner, v. COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS DETENTION FACILITY, et al.

No. 16-6125.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Derrick B. TARTT, petitioner, v. MAGNA HEALTH SYSTEMS, et al.

No. 16-1426.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Lloyd Glen WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-1393.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2138

___________

Billy Tirrell Adams, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Ray Hobbs, Chief Deputy Director, *

Arkansas Department of Corrections; * [UNPUBLISHED]

John Byus, Medical Administrator, *

Arkansas Department of Corrections; *

Wendy Kelley, Deputy Director of *

Treatment, Arkansas Department of *

Corrections; Richard Clark, Dr., East *

Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; *

Charlotte Green, Infirmary Manager, *

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; *

Greg Harmon, Warden, East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 19, 2010

Filed: November 29, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

-2-

Inmate Billy Tirrell Adams appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We conclude that the claims

against the Arkansas Department of Correction defendants were properly dismissed

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, see King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598

F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir.) (de novo standard of review), cert. denied, 79 U.S.L.W.

3226 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2010), but we modify the dismissal of those claims to be without

prejudice, see Calico Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 155 F.3d 976, 978 (8th

Cir. 1998). As to the remaining claims against Charlotte Green and Dr. Richard Clark,

we agree with the district court that Adams failed to create trialworthy issues. See

Davis v. Oregon County, Mo., 607 F.3d 543, 548 (8th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment

standard of review); see also Williams v. Jackson, 600 F.3d 1007, 1014 (8th Cir.

2010) (deliberate indifference claim requires showing more than even gross

negligence); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)

(failure to process grievances, without more, is not actionable under § 1983). To the

extent Adams is arguing that summary judgment was premature and that the record

established deliberate indifference by Dr. Joseph Hughes, Adams did not seek a

continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) by filing an affidavit

showing what facts further discovery might uncover, see Ballard v. Heineman, 548

F.3d 1132, 1136-37 (8th Cir. 2008), and he also did not seek leave to add Dr. Hughes

as a defendant. Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Adams’s pending motion for

appointment of counsel.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 168 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 168

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 13, 2009.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1) making 
supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure 
investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and 
State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2009, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
conference report are waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. 
The conference report shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
the conference report are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the conference report to its adoption without intervening motion 
except: (1) 90 minutes of debate and (2) one motion to recommit if applicable.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Lazarus Antonio REAVES, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6657.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
In Re Daniel M. DAVIS, petitioner.

No. 17-7388.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
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 accompanying Annual Report of Sierra Resource Group,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2003, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Sandra J. Andre,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  hereby  certifies for the purpose of complying  with Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange  Act") and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

     2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.




Dated: June 27, 2005                      By: /s/ SANDRA J. ANDRE
                                          _____________________________________
                                          Sandra J. Andre
                                          President, Chief Executive Officer
                                          and Director



A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE  ELECTRONIC  VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SIERRA RESOURCE  GROUP,  INC., AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY SIERRA RESOURCE GROUP, INC., AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3718 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3718

      To address food and housing insecurity on college campuses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2019

 Mrs. Hayes (for herself and Ms. Fudge) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To address food and housing insecurity on college campuses.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Closing the College Hunger Gap Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. QUESTIONS ON FOOD AND HOUSING INSECURITY IN NATIONAL 
              POSTSECONDARY STUDENT AID STUDY.

    The Secretary of Education shall add questions that measure rates 
of food and housing insecurity to the National Postsecondary Student 
Aid Study.

SEC. 3. INFORMATION ON SNAP ELIGIBILITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 483 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 1090) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(i) Information on SNAP Eligibility.--
            ``(1) In general.--For each year for which a student 
        described in paragraph (2) submits a form described in 
        subsection (a), the Secretary shall send to such student 
        information regarding potential eligibility for assistance 
        under, and application process for, the supplemental nutrition 
        assistance program established under the Food and Nutrition Act 
        of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) in written and electronic form. 
        Both the written and electronic communication shall include 
        contact information for the State agency responsible for 
        administering the supplemental nutrition assistance program in 
        the State in which the student resides.
            ``(2) Students.--A student is described in this paragraph 
        if the student has an expected family contribution equal to 
        zero for the year.''.
    (b) Consultation.--The Secretary of Education shall consult with 
the Secretary of Agriculture, and the head of any other applicable 
Federal or State agency, in designing the written and electronic 
communication regarding potential eligibility for assistance under, and 
application process for, the supplemental nutrition assistance program 
established under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et 
seq.) as described in section 483(i) of the Higher Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1090(i)).

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendment made by this Act shall take effect 120 
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Donald R. Walsh, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Avatech Solutions, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 14, 2005 |  | /s/ Donald R. Walsh    
|                        |  | Donald R. Walsh        
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
In re Andrzej MADURA, et ux., petitioners.

No. 15-9506.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioners have repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioners unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
# C_2011160EN.01002101.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2011 — TTNB v OHIM — March Juan (Tila March)

(Case T-433/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Tila March - Earlier national figurative mark CARMEN MARCH - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 160/31

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TTNB (Paris, France) (represented initially by J.-M. Moiroux, then J.-M. Moiroux and C. Beudard, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Carmen March Juan (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 August 2009 (Case R 1538/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Carmen March Juan and TTNB.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders TTNB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TTNB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortune Industries, Inc., an Indiana corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending May 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John F. Fisbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

 

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

 

2.         The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| Date:  July 7, 2008 | By: /s/ John F. Fisbeck   |
|---------------------|--------------------------------|

|   | John F. Fisbeck, |
|--------|------------------|

Chief Executive Officer
CME Group 

A CME/Chicago Board of Trade/NVMEX Company 

Background on CME Group 

ClearPort Model 

« 

1 ..*•. ' 

Meeting w/CFTC 

October 26, 2010 

!8fl>l^>^^i33^^^3^^^^^3<^^^1^^^33^^KSl^^3Sl^^ :' ' 

fe»«S3^ 

L..,U,JJLfkA^A^^iLi 
Background 

The OTC energy market was looking for a clearing solution post-Enron. 

Under the CEA (pre Dodd-Frank), dealers could have submitted trades directly 

to a DCO without affecting the validity of the transactions. 

However, pursuant to Section 2(g)/2(h) of the CEA (pre Dodd-Frank) market 

participants negotiated transactions off the DCM and then, pursuant to DCM 

rules, entered into futures contracts on the DCM that were submitted to CME 

Clearing. 

In many ways, the ClearPort solution is the poster-child for the policy rationale 

behind Dodd-Frank - reducing systemic risk by requiring derivatives 

transactions to be submitted to a regulated clearing platform. 

NYMEX has successfully offered the ClearPort solution for over 8 years. 

There are in excess of 33 million contracts of open interest (a/o 10/22/10) in the 

Clearport Energy Complex (does not include any core products such as CL, NG, 

HO & RB) 

CME Group 

A CUE/Cnicagc- Boai-d of rroda/HYMEX Company 
Continue Operating With Enhancements 

• DCM rules will govern the negotiation and execution of the transaction. 

• DCM rules also will require contemporaneous public price reporting for 

most transactions. 

e

 Trades will be conducted on the DCM via either Globex or an alternative 

technology solution. 

• These enhancements provide additional pre-trade and post-trade 

transparency. 

CME Group 

A CME/Chicago Board of TrocWNYMEX Company
<PAGE>
                                   Exhibit 23

             Consent of Kraft Bros., Esstman, Patton & Harrell, PLLC

<PAGE>
                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in First Southern
Bancshares, Inc.'s Registration Statement No. 333-03832 on Form S-8 and in First
Southern Bancshares, Inc.'s Registration Statement No. 333-32619 on Form S-8 of
our report dated February 28, 2003 for the year ended December 31, 2002
appearing in this Form 10-KSB.

/s/ KRAFT BROS., ESSTMAN, PATTON & HARRELL, PLLC

Nashville, Tennessee
April 14, 2003
II-00529

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jana Lane <janalane@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:29 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Jana Lane

11 Hillcrest Court

Oakland, CA 94619
David Z. SIMPSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7291.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.