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

List of Subsidiaries of Olympic Steel, Inc.



|                                |  |                       |  |            
|------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | -----------
|Name of Subsidiary              |  | State of Organization |  | % Ownership
|                                |  |                      
|Olympic Steel Lafayette, Inc.   |  | Ohio                  |  | 100%       
|                                |  |                      
|Olympic Steel Minneapolis, Inc. |  | Minnesota             |  | 100%       
|                                |  |                      
|Olympic Steel Receivables, Inc. |  | Delaware              |  | 100%       
|                                |  |                      
|Olympic Steel Receivables LLC   |  | Delaware              |  | 100% (a)   
|                                |  |                      
|Olympic Steel Trading, Inc.     |  | Ohio                  |  | 100%       
|                                |  |                      
|Oly Steel Welding, Inc.         |  | Michigan              |  | 100%       
|                                |  |                      
|Olympic Steel Iowa, Inc.        |  | Iowa                  |  | 100% (b)   
|                                |  |                      
|OLP LLC                         |  | Michigan              |  | 50% (c)    
|                                |  |                      
|G.S.P., LLC                     |  | Michigan              |  | 100% (d)   
|                                |  |                      
|Oly Steel NC, Inc.              |  | Delaware              |  | 100%       
|                                |  |                      
|Tinsley Group  PS&W, Inc.      |  | North Carolina        |  | 100% (e)   





|(a) | Owned 100% by Olympic Steel, Inc. and Olympic Steel Receivables, Inc.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | Owned 100% by Olympic Steel Minneapolis, Inc.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------



|(c) | Owned 50% by Oly Steel Welding, Inc.
|--- | ------------------------------------



|(d) | Owned 100% by Oly Steel Welding, Inc., as of May 1, 2006.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------



|(e) | Owned 100% by Oly Steel NC, Inc.
|--- | --------------------------------
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

JOHNATHAN ROY RIDGE, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

GREGG COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-271-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Johnathan Roy Ridge, a Gregg County Jail inmate proceeding pro se, 

filed this civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to 

United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

and recommendations for disposition. 

On July 7, 2023, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court 

dismiss this case with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Docket No. 11. 

A copy of this Report was sent to Plaintiff. However, no objections have been received. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court 

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

Case 6:23-cv-00271-JDK-JDL Document 12 Filed 08/11/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 44
2 

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 11) as the findings of this Court. It is 

therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11th August, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00271-JDK-JDL Document 12 Filed 08/11/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 45
**EXHIBIT
      32-C**




**FARO
      Technologies, Inc.**


**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





Solely
      for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Senior
      Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer of FARO Technologies, Inc., (the Company),
      and the principal financial officer and principal accounting officer of the
      Company for the period covered the Report, hereby certify, based on my
      knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K, for the year ended December
      31,
      2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.


/
                S
                / Barbara R. SmithBarbara
                R. Smith
              June
                29, 2006
Damon L. CALDWELL, petitioner, v. Stanley PAYNE, Superintendent, Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center.

No. 18-5986.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 Company.

Date: May 14, 2010



|                  |  |                                                                        
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Sunil Bhonsle
|Name:             |  | Sunil Bhonsle                                                          
|Title:            |  | President (Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Craig Alan WALL, Sr., petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-5442.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
Luke O. PICKENS, petitioner, v. BREVARD POLICE TESTING AND SELECTION CENTER.

No. 18-224.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
EXHIBIT 31.02**CERTIFICATION**I, Theresa D. Becks, Chief Financial Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc., the general partner ofCampbell Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P. (the “Fund”), do hereby certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Fund;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       By: /s/ Theresa D. Becks         Theresa D. Becks    Chief Financial Officer    August 15, 2005  
E 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

ADRIAN ALEJANDRO GARCIA (1)

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 4:23-CR-00114

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY

The Court referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge for administration of 

a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge conducted a 

hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court accept 

Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment.

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings.

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of 

the United States Magistrate Judge. The court also accepts Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance 

of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report.

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Adrian Alejandro 

Garcia GUILTY of Count One of the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 

922(a)(6) - Conspiracy to Acquire a Firearm from a Licensed Dealer by False or Fictitious 

Statement.

Case 4:23-cr-00114-SDJ-AGD Document 61 Filed 04/28/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 160
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DAVID HILL, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-230

§

FNU YOUNG, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING THE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Daivd Hill, a former pretrial detainee at the Orange County Jail, proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Defendants FNU Young, FNU Cargill and FNU Rashall. The court referred this matter to the

Honorable Christine Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to the

applicable laws and orders of this court. On January 24, 2024, the magistrate judge entered a

Report and Recommendation in which she recommended dismissing this case for want of

prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (#15). To date, Plaintiff has not

filed objections to the report.1

The court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available

evidence. After careful review, the court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct.

1 A copy of the Report and Recommendation was returned as undeliverable with the notation “RTS

released or no longer at facility” (#16). 

Case 1:23-cv-00230-MAC-CLS Document 17 Filed 02/22/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 78
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate judge (#15)

is ADOPTED. This case is DISMISSED for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b). 

2

Signed this date

Feb 22, 2024

Case 1:23-cv-00230-MAC-CLS Document 17 Filed 02/22/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 79
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Thursday, March 19, 2015

No. 04-14-00669-CR

Leobardo ARAMBULA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR-13-288

Honorable Romero Molina, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. Time is 

extended to April 13, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 19th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
H. R. 171

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To authorize appropriations for the Coastal Heritage Trail Route in New Jersey,

and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 6 of Public Law 100–515 (16 U.S.C. 1244 note) is

amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘$1,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$4,000,000’’; and

(2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘five’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 13a-14(a)/15D-14(a) 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James R. Maronick, certify that:

1.          I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Solitario Resources Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003;

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(s) 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 we 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(s) 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

               (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.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; the Midlife Study.                    

*Date:*                         June 6, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7702,                         *firthkm@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

 Dated: May 10, 2022.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-10421 Filed 5-13-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
KIRK TANG YUK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-240.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., petitioner, v. Doris ALBRECHT, et al.

No. 17-290.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *619*amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

LUCINDA CHOULES, ON BEHALF OF 

ELIZABETH IRVING ARNOLD,

Plaintiff,

v. 

JENNIFER CHOULES OGLE, PAMELA 

CHOULES,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-00055-MJT-ZJH

JUDGE MICHAEL J. TRUNCALE

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff Lucinda Choules filed her Complaint and Motion for Leave to 

Proceed in forma pauperis. [Dkts. 1, 2]. On the same day, the Court referred this case to the 

Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Judge 

Hawthorn found that Choules met the indigence requirements to proceed in forma pauperis. [Dkt. 

5]. On August 8, 2023, Judge Hawthorn sua sponte recommended dismissing Choules’ complaint 

because she failed to establish this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the case. [Dkt. 

5]. The parties have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing 

so has passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

The Court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings, and all available 

evidence. Proper notice was given to Plaintiff at her last known address. See FED. R. CIV. P.

5(b)(2)(C). After careful review, the Court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of 

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct.

Case 9:23-cv-00055-MJT-ZJH Document 7 Filed 09/13/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 79
2

It is therefore ORDERED that Judge Hawthorn’s Report and Recommendation dismissing 

Plaintiff Lucinda Choules’ complaint [Dkt. 5] is ADOPTED. Choules’ complaint [Dkt. 1] is therefore 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Mitchell v. Bailey, 982 F.3d 937, 944 (5th Cir. 2020). 

The Court will issue a Final Judgment separately. 

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 13th day of September, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00055-MJT-ZJH Document 7 Filed 09/13/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 80