alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Jon C.  Nicolaysen,  Chief  Executive  Officer of Rancher  Energy Corp.  (the
Company),  certify,  that  pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code:

         (1) The  Company's  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q for the  quarterly
period ended  September  30,  2009,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (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)  Information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.


/s/ Jon C. Nicolaysen
-----------------------------------
Jon C. Nicolaysen
Chief Executive Officer

February 19, 2010
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

 October 24, 2017

t1017

Order 

Clerk

October 24, 2017

155606

THOMAS M. KOHLOFF,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155606

COA: 335124

MCAC: 14-000016

CHRYSLER GROUP, LLC,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 2, 2017 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 212 (Thursday, November 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 66903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21891]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Construction Advisory Board; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the 
Construction Advisory Board will be held on Tuesday November 15, 2005, 
at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 
430, Washington, DC. The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. and end at 5 p.m.
    The purpose of the Board is to provide advice to the Secretary of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding VA construction. The Board 
will make recommendations to the Secretary on the nature and scope of 
the Department's construction processes.
    The meeting will be open to the public from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m., with 
an opportunity for public comments during that period. The Board will 
discuss its final recommendations to the Secretary. From 2 p.m. to 5 
p.m., the Board will discuss selected personnel matters affecting the 
management of VA's construction program. To protect personal privacy 
and in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), that portion of the meeting 
will be closed.
    Members of the public may direct questions or submit written 
statements for review by the Board in advance of the meeting. Any 
member of the public wishing to make a brief oral presentation or to 
attend the meeting should contact Doug Belling, Designated Federal 
Officer, at the Office of Asset Enterprise Management (004B), 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20420, or by telephone at (202) 273-6675.

    Dated: October 27, 2005.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21891 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
for the 26 weeks ended June 26, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-26-1999
<CASH>                                          30,274
<SECURITIES>                                     4,397
<RECEIVABLES>                                  753,396
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,266
<INVENTORY>                                    515,389
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,360,217
<PP&E>                                       1,733,560
<DEPRECIATION>                                 889,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,519,192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,239,419
<BONDS>                                        587,334
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,750
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,517,807
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,519,192
<SALES>                                      6,576,119
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,576,119
<CGS>                                        6,188,937
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,188,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               167,526
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,015
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                198,641
<INCOME-TAX>                                    75,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            123,141
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   123,141
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32


</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD WEIDERMAN C/O MAJOR LEAGUE LANES, INC.

No. 7327SC781

(Filed 14 November 1973)

Criminal Law § 18 — judgment for defendant on motion to quash — appeal to Superior Court — jurisdiction of Superior Court

Where the State was properly allowed to appeal to the Superior Court from the judgment of the District Court which gave judgment for defendant upon defendant’s motion to quash, and the Superior Court entered an order reversing the allowance of the motion to quash, the case should remain in the Superior Court for trial *de novo,*since the State’s appeal gave the Superior Court the same jurisdiction as the District Court had in the first instance. G.S. 15-179(3); G.S. 7A-271(b).

Appeal by defendant from *Friday, Judge, 21*August 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Gaston County.

Defendant was charged with a violation of an ordinance of the City of Gastonia. The District Court allowed defendant’s *754motion to quash, and the State appealed to the Superior Court where an order was entered reversing the allowance of the motion to quash and remanding the case to the District Court for trial. Defendant gave notice of appeal.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Millard R. Rich, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; Mullen, Holland & Harrell, P.A. by Graham C. Mullen, attorneys for the State.*

*Sanders & LaFar by W. Marshall LaFar for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

In criminal cases defendant may appeal to the Appellate Division from convictions in the Superior Court. G.S. 15-180. A defendant may not appeal from an order denying a motion to quash an indictment or warrant. *State v. Baker,*240 N.C. 140, 81 S.E. 2d 199.

On our own motion, we modify that part of the order of the Superior Court Judge which directs that the case be remanded to the District Court for trial. The State was properly allowed to appeal to the Superior Court from the judgment of the District Court which gave judgment for defendant upon defendant’s motion to quash. G.S. 15-179(3). The appeal by the State from the District Court to the Superior Court gave the Superior Court the same jurisdiction as the District Court had in the first instance. G.S. 7A-271(b). The case remains in the Superior Court for trial *de novo.*

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Morris and Parker concur.
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

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Developmental Therapeutics Study Section, October 27, 2005, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., October 28, 2005, Pooks Hill Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 7, 2005, 70 FR 58725-58728.                

The meeting will be held at the Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852. The meeting dates and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: October 20, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-21660 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF WMS INDUSTRIES INC.



|                                 |  |                                        
|-------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Subsidiary                       |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation/Formation
|WMS Gaming Inc.                  |  | Delaware                               
|WMS Gaming (Canada) Ltd.         |  | New Brunswick, Canada                  
|WMS Gaming International, S.L.   |  | Spain                                  
|WMS Gaming Australia PTY Ltd.    |  | Australia                              
|WMS Gaming Africa (Pty) Ltd.     |  | South Africa                           
|WMS Gaming (UK) Limited          |  | United Kingdom                         
|WMS Gaming Slovakia, s.r.o.      |  | Slovakia                               
|Lenc-Smith Inc.                  |  | Delaware                               
|Williams Electronics Games, Inc. |  | Delaware                               
|WMS Finance Inc.                 |  | Delaware
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MEMPHIS 

NETWORK DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Memphis, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0325

Issued: January 28, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On December 24, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a February 5, 2019 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 22-0325.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed her appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final 

adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current 

appeal.3 The February 5, 2019 decision was an acceptance of appellant’s claim and, therefore, 

does not constitute a final adverse decision. As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

Id.
2

over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that th e appeal 

docketed as No. 22-0325 must be dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0325 is dismissed.

Issued: January 28, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 20 

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
[No. 23607.

*En Banc.*

November 16, 1932.]

#### William Steward, *Respondent,*v. L. E. Bounds *et al., Appellants.**1*

*LaBerge, Cheney & Hutcheson, H. B. Gilbert,*and *I.-J. Bounds,*for appellants.

*Shumate*cG *Clarke,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 15 P. (2d) 1119.

On Rehearing.

Per Curiam

— A rehearing having been granted in this case from the Departmental decision reported in 167 Wash. 554, 9 P. (2d) 1112, the court adheres to the decision in all respects except one.

Inadvertently, the opinion refers to the judgment as a “community judgment against all appellants,” whereas it is a community judgment against the only existing community, I. J. Bounds and wife.

Under our uniform decisions, the judgment against the individuals, L. E. Bounds and I. J. Bounds, and their separate property, should he, and is, affirmed.

The judgment as to the community of I. J. Bounds and wife stands reversed.

The cause is reversed as to the community of I. J. Bounds and wife, and remanded for further proceedings in conformity herewith.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 22 (Thursday, February 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2084]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-030-1430-EU; NMNM 100778]


Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act Classification; Lease 
and Conveyance of Public Land in Sierra County, NM

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: In Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 2, Notices, beginning on 
page 379 in the issue of Tuesday, January 4, 2005, make the following 
correction. Under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION heading, the legal 
description should read:

New Mexico Principal Meridian

T. 13 S., R. 4 W., NMPM
    Sec. 10, lot 5

    Containing 5 acres, more or less.

    Dated: January 27, 2005.
Edwin L. Roberson,
Field Manager, Las Cruces.
[FR Doc. 05-2084 Filed 2-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VC-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5357 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5357

To provide for the deployment of additional National Guard troops along 
   the international border between the United States and Mexico in 
 support of the border control activities of the United States Customs 
     and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2010

Mr. Mitchell (for himself and Mr. Rohrabacher) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the deployment of additional National Guard troops along 
   the international border between the United States and Mexico in 
 support of the border control activities of the United States Customs 
     and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security.

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

SECTION 1. DEPLOYMENT OF ADDITIONAL NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ALONG 
              INTERNATIONAL BORDER BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND 
              MEXICO.

    (a) Immediate Increase; Duration.--As soon as practicable after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall--
            (1) increase the number of members of the National Guard 
        deployed along the international border between the United 
        States and Mexico in support of the border control activities 
        of the United States Customs and Border Protection of the 
        Department of Homeland Security by at least 3,000 above the 
        number so deployed as of May 1, 2010; and
            (2) maintain such increased numbers through December 31, 
        2011.
    (b) Treatment of Deployed National Guard Troops.--Members of the 
National Guard deployed pursuant to subsection (a) shall not be 
included in the calculation to determine compliance with--
            (1) limits on end strength; or
            (2) limits on the number of members of the National Guard 
        who may be placed on active duty for operational support.
    (c) Optional Early Reduction.--Notwithstanding the date specified 
in subsection (a)(2), if the number of Border Patrol agents serving 
along the international border between the United States and Mexico is 
more than 20,163, the Secretary of Defense may reduce the number of 
members of the National Guard deployed along such border to comply with 
subsection (a)(1) by the number of additional border patrol agents that 
are authorized, funded, hired, trained, and deployed. However, the 
additional border patrol agents must be fully deployed before the 
Secretary may reduce the number of members of the National Guard so 
deployed.
                                 <all>
```
#### In re REQUEST OF the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION.

No. 90-133-M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 9, 1990.

ORDER

The House of Representatives, acting pursuant to Section 3 of Article 10 of the Rhode Island Constitution, adopted Resolution No. 90-H 8618 that requests an advisory opinion from the members of the Supreme Court regarding the following question of law:

> “Whether the Governor may unilaterally reduce, impound and/or withhold from distribution more than $10 million of funds lawfully appropriated by the General Assembly to the individual cities and towns of the State of Rhode Island, notwithstanding the express provisions of 1989 R.I. Public Laws, eh. 126; R.I. General Laws, § 45-13-1; R.I. General Laws, §§ 35-3-2, 35-3-7 through 35-3-12; R.I. Constitution, Article VI, Sections 1, 2, and 10; and R.I. Constitution, Article IX, section 2.”

Due to the constraints of time and the importance of the issue presented, our immediate response is that a majority of the members of this court respond to the question asked in the negative. An opinion setting forth the views of the justices will be published in due course.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CITY VIEW POST 

OFFICE, Fort Worth, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0457

Issued: February 26, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On February 2, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a March 27, 2018 nonmerit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-0457.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the March 27, 2018 decision was September 23, 2018. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until February 2, 2021, more than 180 days after 

the September 23, 2018 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0457

is untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0457 is dismissed.

Issued: February 26, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
EXHIBIT 21.1  Subsidiaries of NeoStem, Inc.(1)

          

          Jurisdiction of Incorporation/OrganizationNeoStem Therapies, Inc.

          

          DelawareStem Cell Technologies, Inc.

          

          FloridaNeoStem (China), Inc.

          

          Peoples Republic of ChinaCBH Acquisition LLC

          

          DelawareChina Biopharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc.(2)

          

          DelawareSuzhou Erye Pharmaceuticals Company Ltd.(2)

          

          Peoples Republic of ChinaProgenitor Cell Therapy, LLC

          

          DelawarePCT Allendale, LLC(3)

          

          New JerseyDomaniCell, LLC(3)

          

          DelawareAthelos Corporation(4)

          

          Delaware
  (1)

          Unless otherwise specified, each entity listed in the chart is a wholly-owned direct subsidiary of NeoStem, Inc. (2)

          China Biopharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBH Acquisition LLC and holds the 51% interest in Suzhou Erye Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. (Erye). Suzhou Erye Economy and Trading Co. Ltd. owns the remaining 49% interest in Erye. (3)

          This entity is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Progenitor Cell Therapy, LLC. (4)

          Progenitor Cell Therapy, LLC holds an 80% interest in this entity.