alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The significant subsidiaries of Sears, Roebuck and Co., thenames under which such subsidiaries do business, and the states or countries inwhich each was organized, were as follows as of December 29, 2001:

 

Names                                                                                                          Place of Organization

Consolidated Subsidiaries:Sears CanadaInc.                                                                                      CanadaSears Acceptance CompanyInc.                                                            CanadaSears Logistics Services,Inc.                                                                  DelawareSears NationalBank                                                                                  United StatesSRFG,Inc.                                                                                                   DelawareSears Roebuck AcceptanceCorp.                                                          Delaware104 othercompanies                                                                                 Various

The Company owns 20% to 50% of the outstanding voting securities of 35companies, which are accounted for on the equity method.

The Company has investments in a number of other corporations representingsubstantial percentages (but not more than 20 percent) of their outstandingcapital stock. The Company disclaims control of any such companies.
#### Duncan W. Caney *v.*Olf Veldhuis et al.

*Joan J. Baird,*in support of the petition.

Decided May 17, 1993

The defendant Lydia Veldhuis’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 907 (AC 10703), is denied.
Exhibit 99.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Investment Properties Associates (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Irving
Schneider, General Partner and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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/ Irving Schneider
-------------------------
Irving Schneider

General and Special Limited Partner

August 28, 2002


                                       9
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
               [CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC. LETTERHEAD]
 
                                 March 12, 1999
 
Permian Basin Royalty Trust
500 West 7th Street, Suite 1300
P.O. Box 1317
Fort Worth, Texas 76101
 
Gentlemen:
 
     Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the oil
and gas reserve information in the Permian Basin Royalty Trust Securities and
Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 1998 and in the
Permian Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ending December 31, 1998,
based on reserve reports dated March 17, 1999 prepared by Cawley, Gillespie &
Associates, Inc.
 
                                        Submitted,
 
                                          /s/ CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES,
                                                        INC.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                          CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
<PAGE>   1

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                              HANOVER DIRECT, INC.

            (Pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law
                           of the State of Delaware)

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


         The undersigned hereby certifies as follows:

         1.   That he is the President of Hanover Direct, Inc.

         2.   That the Certificate of Incorporation was filed with the
              Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on the 15th day of
              April, 1993.

         3.   That the amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation as set
              forth herein and recommended by the Board of Directors was duly
              adopted in accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation
              Law of the State of Delaware.

                  RESOLVED:    That the first paragraph of ARTICLE FOURTH be
                  amended as follows:

                           FOURTH:  The total number of shares of all classes
of stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is 318,172,403
shares, of which 40,000 shares shall be class B 8% cumulative preferred stock,
par value $.01 per share and stated value of $1,000 per share (the "Class B
Preferred"), 861,900 shares shall be shares of 7.5% cumulative convertible
preferred stock, par value $.01 per share and stated value of $20.00 per share
(the "7.5% Preferred"), 5,000,000 shares shall be shares of additional
preferred stock, par value $.01 per share (the "Additional Preferred Stock"),
300,000,000 shares shall be common stock, par value $.66-2/3 per share (the
"Common Stock"), and 12,270,503 shares shall be shares of class B common stock,
par value $.01 per share (the "Class B Common Stock").









<PAGE>   2


                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Hanover Direct, Inc., has caused this
Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation to be signed by
Rakesh K. Kaul, its President and Chief Executive Officer, and attested by
Monte E. Wetzler, its Secretary, this 28th day of May, 1999.


                              HANOVER DIRECT, INC.



                              By: /s/ RAKESH K. KAUL
                                  -------------------------
                                  Name:   Rakesh K. Kaul
                                  Title: President and Chief Executive Officer



ATTEST:

By: /s/ MONTE E. WETZLER
    -------------------------
    Name:   Monte E. Wetzler
    Title: Secretary
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350, the
undersigned officer of Mercury Air Group, Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies that to the knowledge of
the undersigned:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Companys Quarterly Report on
    Form 10-Q/A for the three and six-month periods ended
December 31, 2002
    fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or
    15(d), as applicable, 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.                                                                                     



| |                                     
| | ------------------------------------
| | /s/ Joseph Czyzyk                   
| |                                     
| | Joseph Czyzyk                       
| | Chief Executive Officer and Director

January 9, 2004

44
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 MERCURY AIR GROUP, INC CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 CERTIFICATION I, Joseph Czyzyk, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on SEC Form 10-Q of Mercury Air Group, 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, nor 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. designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for
external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; c. 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 d. disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal controls 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 similar 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. /s/ Joseph CzyzykJoseph CzyzykChief Executive Officer and Director May 27, 2005
# C_2007307EN.01000301.xml

| 18.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 307/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 307/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4640 — BAE Systems/VT/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 307/02)

On 17 October 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4640. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4640. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5553 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5553

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until December 31, 2013.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 2010

   Mr. Cao introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until December 31, 2013.

    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 ``National Flood Insurance Program 
Extension Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) the National Flood Insurance Program should be extended 
        before it expires to ensure homeowners are not left financially 
        vulnerable in the event of a natural disaster; and
            (2) the National Flood Insurance Program is not sustainable 
        in its current form and needs permanent reform before the 
        three-year extension under this Act expires.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Program Extension.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
    (b) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is 
amended by striking ``September 30, 2008'' and inserting ``December 31, 
2013''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2007132EN.01000701.xml

| 14.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4579 — Investor/Morgan Stanley/Mölnlycke)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 132/03)

On 27 March 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4579. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4579. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7706
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLEN MARK, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CR-89-263-G, CA-95-112-2) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glen Mark, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Mark , Nos. CR-89-263-G; CA-95-112-2 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 10, 1995). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, GRACIE POST 

OFFICE, New York, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0627

Issued: May 2, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On March 22, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a September 7, 2022 nonmerit decision

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0627.

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 September 7, 2022 decision was March 6, 2023. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until March 22, 2023, more than 180 days after 

the September 7, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0627

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

explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

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.”
2

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-0627, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0627 is dismissed.

Issued: May 2, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

at § 501.6(d).
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10486

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL JONATHAN CARLSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LESLIE WOODS ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:97-CV-129-AH

- - - - - - - - - -

April 6, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Michael Carlson, Texas prisoner # 328076, appeals the

magistrate judge’s grant of the defenda nts’ motion for summary

judgment, dismissing Carlson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims that he was

denied his right to exercise his religion because he and other

Christian Identity followers were not allowed separate services,

Bible study meetings, an d a cassette player for their meetings.

Carlson argues that the magistrate judge erred in granting summary

judgment and that the magistrate judge’s protective order stayingdiscovery pending a resolution of the defendants’ asserted

qualified immunity defense was an abuse of discretion.

We review a summary judgment de novo and use the same

standards which exist for the district court. Guillory v. Domtar

Industries, Inc. , 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir. 1996). Our review

of the record reveals that there were no issu es of material fact

that the prison’s policy of not allowing separate services and

Bible study meetings f or Christian Identity followers was

rationally related to legitimate penological interests of staffing,

security, available time and space, and the possible ripple effect

of having to afford numerous other religious groups within the

prison separate services and Bib le study meetings. Carlson was

afforded the opportunity to attend generic weekly services and to

receive and possess religious materials. Summary judgment was

proper. O ’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz

, 482 U.S. 34 2, 349 (1987)

(quoting Turner v. Safley

, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)); Ganther v.

Ingle , 75 F.3d 207, 211 (5th Cir. 1996).

Carlson consented to the protective order in the dist rict

c ourt, and he has not shown on appeal that the order constituted

plain error. S ee Robertson v. Plano City of Texas

, 70 F.3d 21, 23

(5th Cir. 1995) (rulings not objected to in the district court are

subject to plain error review).

The magistrate judge’s summary judgment and grant of the

motion for a protective order are AFFIRMED.

Carlson is sufficiently able to present his arguments, and his

motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.