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

 

**Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. andSubsidiaries**

**List of Subsidiaries of Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.**

##### **AtFebruary 27, 2009**

##### ** **

1.                                       SimpsonStrong-Tie Company Inc., a California corporation

 

2.                                       SimpsonDura-Vent Company, Inc., a California corporation

 

3.                                       SimpsonStrong-Tie International, Inc., a California corporation

 

4.                                       SimpsonStrong-Tie Canada, Limited, a Canadian corporation

 

5.                                       SimpsonStrong-Tie Europe EURL, a French corporation

 

6.                                       SimpsonStrong-Tie, S.A.S., a French corporation

 

7.                                       SimpsonStrong-Tie Japan, Inc., a California corporation

 

8.                                       SimpsonStrong-Tie Australia, Inc., a California corporation

 

9.                                       ****Simpson Strong-Tie A/S****,a Danish corporation

 

10.                                 ****Simpson Strong-Tie GmbH****,a German corporation

 

****11.********                                ********Simpson Strong-TieSp.z,o.o.****, a Polish corporation

 

****12.********                                ********Simpson France****SCI, a French corporation

 

13.                                 ATFGmbH, a Swiss corporation

 

14.                                 SimpsonStrong-Tie Australia Pty Limited, an Australian corporation

 

15.                                 SimpsonStrong-Tie Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexican corporation

 

16.                                 SimpsonManufacturing Cyprus Limited, a Cyprus limited liability company

 

17.                                 SimpsonStrong-Tie Asia Limited, a Hong Kong company

 

18.                                 SimpsonStrong-Tie Asia Holding Limited, a Hong Kong company

 

19.                                 SimpsonStrong-Tie (Beijing) Company Limited, a Chinese company

 

20.                                 SimpsonStrong-Tie (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd., a Chinese company

 

21.                                 SimpsonStrong-Tie Ireland Limited, an Irish company

 

22.                                 Ahorn-Geräte &Werkzeuge Vertriebs GmbH, a German company

 

23.                                 AhornUpevnovaci Technika s.r.o., a Czech company

 

24.                                 AhornPacific Fasteners (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., a Chinese company

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Highwoods Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terry L. Stevens, Senior Vice President and 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, as amended; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

 

 

| /s/ TERRYL.STEVENS                                                |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Terry L. StevensSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| March 2, 2008                                           |   |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1805

TIANCI CHEN, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-908-112) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: July 12, 2005 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ning Ye, HEMENWAY & ASSOCIATES, Flushing, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mark W. Pletcher, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tianci Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum. Because the Board affirmed under its streamlined process, the immigration judge’s decision is the final agency determination. Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004). We will reverse this decision only if the evidence “‘was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992)). We have reviewed the administrative record and the immigration judge’s decision and find substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Chen failed to establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of future perse cution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 483 (same). Accordingly, we deny Chen’s petition for review. We grant the Government’s motion to strike the portions of the joint appendix that are not part of the administrative record, and the portions of Chen’s brief that reference these documents. See generallyFed. R. App. P. 10(a). We also gr ant the Government’s- 3 - motion to supplement the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2); 4th Cir. R. 10(e). 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.
PETITION DENIED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6428
DARRELL COOK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE P. DODSON, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-297-R) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Cook v. Dodson , No. CA-97-297-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 16, 1998). We decline to consider Appellant's challenge to the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d) because this claim was raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Bornstein , 977 F.2d 112, 115 (4th Cir. 1992). 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.

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-316-CR

BRYANT TRACEY WALKER	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.  See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL:  DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 23, 2008
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4031 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2014 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 

removal of Senior Executive Service employees of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs for performance, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4031 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Department of Vet3 erans Affairs Management Accountability Act of 2014’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE EM5 PLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VET6 ERANS AFFAIRS FOR PERFORMANCE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 7 of title 38, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing new section: 

10 ‘‘§ 713. Senior Executive Service: removal based on 

11 performance 

12 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other pro13 vision of law, the Secretary may remove any individual 

14 from the Senior Executive Service if the Secretary deter15 mines the performance of the individual warrants such re16 moval. If the Secretary so removes such an individual, the 

17 Secretary may— 

18 ‘‘(1) remove the individual from Federal serv19 ice; or 

20 ‘‘(2) transfer the individual to a General Sched21 ule position at any grade of the General Schedule 

22 the Secretary determines appropriate. 

23 ‘‘(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days 

24 after removing an individual from the Senior Executive 

25 Service under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit 

26 to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4031 RDS 

1 House of Representatives notice in writing of such removal 

2 and the reason for such removal. 

3 ‘‘(c) MANNER OF REMOVAL.—A removal under this 

4 section shall be done in the same manner as the removal 

5 of a professional staff member employed by a Member of 

6 Congress.’’. 

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

8 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding 

9 at the end the following new item: 

‘‘713. Senior Executive Service: removal based on performance.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
----

Action brought on 19 November 2004 by Kenzo Takada against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-468/04)

(2005/C 57/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 November 2004 by Kenzo Takada, established in Paris, represented by Fernand de Visscher, Eric de Gryse and Donatienne Moreau, lawyers.

Kenzo SA was also a party to the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Ricardo Edwin LANIER

No. COA16-1069

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 20, 2017

NO ERROR.
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Angelo WHITEHEAD

No. COA16-294-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Oliver G. Wheeler, IV, for the State.

Unti & Smith, PLLC, Raleigh, by Sharon L. Smith, for defendant.

DIETZ, Judge.

This case comes before us on remand from the North Carolina Supreme Court to reconsider our previous decision in light of the Supreme Court's decision in *State v. Brice* , --- N.C. ----, 806 S.E.2d 32 (2017).

On remand, this Court entered an order inviting the parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing *Brice* 's impact on this appeal. The State submitted a supplemental brief asserting that "this case is materially indistinguishable from *Brice* , the decision there is controlling," and under *Brice* there is no error in the trial court's judgment.

Whitehead did not submit a supplemental brief. We interpret Whitehead's decision not to submit a supplemental brief as a concession that there are no non-frivolous arguments to distinguish this case from *Brice* . Having reviewed the record on our own initiative, we agree. Accordingly, under *Brice* , we find no error in the trial court's judgment.

NO ERROR.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge TYSON concur.
# Official Journal C 65/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.065.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 65 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 541 March 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.065.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 65

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 541 March 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 065/01 | Communication from the Commission — Technical guidance notes for implementation of Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 — Publication made in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 065/01

Communication from the Commission — Technical guidance notes for implementation of Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 — Publication made in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals

Publication made in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 689/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent, v. Shaun Christopher WILLIAMS, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 29, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of July, 2003, the petition for allowance of appeal is DENIED without prejudice to petitioner to file any claims of ineffectiveness in a petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541 *et seq. See Commonwealth v. Grant,*572 Pa. 48, 813 A.2d 726 (2002).
#### Janet VELAZQUEZ, Appellant, v. TAUBMAN SERVICES, INC., and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.

No. 3D02-2098.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 3, 2003.

Janet Velazquez, in proper person.

John D. Maher (Tallahassee), for appel-lee Commission.

Before COPE, GERSTEN and SHEVIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Because the appeal to the Unemployment Appeals Commission was untimely filed, we uphold the dismissal order. *See*§ 443.161(4)(b)3., Fla. Stat. (2002).

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 23.1

                          ASCEND COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8) pertaining to the First Amended and Restated 1989 Stock Option Plan
and 1994 Outside Directors Stock Option Plan; 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan;
Individual Option Agreements Issued by Morning Star Technologies, Inc. and
Assumed by Ascend Communications, Inc.; 401(k) Savings Plan; 1996 Restricted
Stock Plan; 1989 Stock Option Plan and Individual Option Agreements Issued by
NetStar, Inc. and Assumed by Ascend Communications, Inc.; and Options Granted
under the Whitetree, Inc. 1993 Incentive Stock Plan, Cascade Communications
Corp. Amended and Restated 1991 Stock Plan, Cascade Communications Corp. 1994
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, Arris Networks, Inc. 1995 Stock Option
Plan and Sahara Networks, Inc. 1995 Stock Plan and Assumed by Ascend
Communications, Inc. and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3) No. 333-
13377, No. 333-11091, No. 333-21751, and No. 333-32781 and in the related
Prospectuses, of Ascend Communications, Inc. of our report dated January 22,
1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Ascend Communications, Inc. included in this annual report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.



Walnut Creek, California                                   ERNST & YOUNG LLP
March 30, 1998
# Official Journal C 115/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.115.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 115 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5519 April 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.115.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 115

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5519 April 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 115/01 | Guidelines accompanying Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012 supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings by establishing a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements | 1 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2012/C 115/02 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (1) | 29 |
| 2012/C 115/03 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (1) | 34 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 115/01

Guidelines accompanying Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012 supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings by establishing a comparative methodology framework for calculating cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings and building elements

1

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2012/C 115/02

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (1)

29

2012/C 115/03

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (1)

34

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-11355 and in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to
the Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-11355 of Mity-Lite, Inc. of our
report dated May 13, 1996 which appears on page 22 of the 1997 Annual Report
(or page 10 of hereto attached Exhibit 13), which is incorporated by reference
on Form 10-KSB of Mity-Lite, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 1997.


Price Waterhouse LLP
Salt Lake City, Utah
June 11, 1997
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19597]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Environmental Impact Statement: Lafayette Regional Airport, 
Lafayette, LA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that the 
FAA's Record of Decision (ROD), resulting from an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
for its I-49 Connector Highway Project (State Project No. 700-24-0073 
and Federal Aid Project No. DE-0009 (802) through Lafeyette, Louisiana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce M. Porter, Environmental 
Specialist, ASW-640D, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest 
Regional Office, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0640. Telephone (817) 222-
5640.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is making available a ROD addressing 
impacts to the Lafayette Regional Airport resulting from the FHWA's 
selected alternative for its I-49 Connector Highway project at 
Lafayette, Louisiana. The ROD documents the final Agency decisions 
regarding the proposed project's impact upon Lafayette Regional Airport 
as described and analyzed in the EIS. The ROD is available for review 
during normal business hours at the following locations: FAA Southwest 
Regional Office, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298 
and at the Lafayette Regional Airport, 200 Terminal Drive, 
<greek-i>200, Lafayette, LA 70508.

    Issued on: September 23, 2005.
Kelvin L. Solco,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 05-19597 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M