alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Soldier Accounted for from Korean War (Lopa, A.)

/ Published April 5, 2024
Washington, 
The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) announced today that U.S. Army Pvt. 1st Class (Pfc.) Anthony J. Lopa, 17, of North Arlington, New Jersey, who was killed during the Korean War, was accounted for July 21, 2023.

In July 1950, Lopa was a member of Delta Battery, 82nd Antiaircraft Artillery Automatic Weapons (Self Propelled) Battalion, 2nd Infantry Division. He was killed in action fighting the North Korean People’s Army along the Naktong River, in the vicinity of Yongsan-Myeon, South Korea, on August 31, 1950. Due to the intense fighting in the region, his body could not be recovered at that time.

A set of remains was recovered near Amp’yong, South Korea, in March 1951. They could not be initially identified and were designated X-2023 C Tanggok, and buried in the United Nations Cemetery Tanggok later that month. In August 1951, the Central Identification Unit Kokura in Japan began a reexamination of X-2023 C. They made several attempts between then and August 1954 before ultimately declaring the remains unidentifiable. All 848 unidentified sets of Korean War remains at CIU-Kokura were sent to Hawaii in 1956 where they were buried at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, known as the Punchbowl, in Honolulu.

In July 2018, the DPAA proposed a plan to disinter 652 Korean War Unknowns from the Punchbowl. In May 2021, DPAA disinterred Unknown X-2023 C as part of Phase Two of the Korean War Disinterment Project and sent the remains to the DPAA laboratory for analysis.

To identify Lopa’s remains, scientists from DPAA used dental and anthropological analysis, as well as chest radiograph comparison and circumstantial evidence. Additionally, scientists from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System used mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis.

Lopa’s name is recorded on the Courts of the Missing at the Punchbowl, along with the others who are still missing from the Korean War. A rosette will be placed next to his name to indicate he has been accounted for.

Pfc. Lopa will be buried in Wrightstown, New Jersey, on a date to be determined.

For family and funeral information, contact the Army Casualty Office at (800) 892-2490.

To see the most up-to-date statistics on DPAA recovery efforts for those unaccounted for from the Korean War, go to the Korean War Accounting page on the DPAA website at: https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaFamWebKorean.

For additional information on the Defense Department’s mission to account for Americans who went missing while serving our country, visit the DPAA website at www.dpaa.mil, find us on social media at www.facebook.com/dodpaa or https://www.linkedin.com/company/defense-pow-mia-accounting-agency.

Lopa’s personnel profile can be viewed at https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaProfile?id=a0Jt00000120sUtEAI
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 21

                              THORATEC CORPORATION
                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

As of March 10, 2001, Thoratec Corporation owned the following companies:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 Registrant's
                                                      State or Jurisdiction       Percent of
                    Name                                 of Incorporation         Ownership
                    ----                                 ----------------         ---------
<S>                                                   <C>                         <C>
           Thoratec Europe Limited                        United Kingdom            100%
      Lightening Acquisition Corporation                    California              100%
        Thoratec Cardiosystems, Inc. *                     Massachusetts            100%
    International Technidyne Corporation *                   Delaware               100%
International Technidyne Corporation Limited *            United Kingdom            100%
              Nimbus Inc. *                                Massachusetts            100%
       TCA Securities Corporation *                        Massachusetts            100%
</TABLE>

* Denotes a subsidiary that became part of Thoratec Corporation in conjunction
with the merger of Thermo Cardiosystems on February 14, 2001. The financial
results reported in Thoratec Corporation's 10-K for the 2000 fiscal year
excludes all financial activity associated with this entity.
#### STATE v. PATTERSON

No. 126 PC.

Case below: 36 N.C. App. 74.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 6 June 1978. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question denied 6 June 1978.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                        
<ARTICLE>                                    5
<CIK>                                                 350194
<NAME>                                       UNITED SYSTEME TECHNOLOGY, INC
                                              
<S>                                            <C>             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1996     DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1996     DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                                 67252        139234
<SECURITIES>                                               0             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         253692        368803
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0             0
<INVENTORY>                                                0             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      321223        516351
<PP&E>                                                115738        164962
<DEPRECIATION>                                        336621        501151
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       1278480       2210802
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                1110927       1448786
<BONDS>                                                50000         50000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0             0
<PREFERRED>                                           205000        205000
<COMMON>                                             3796975       3864315
<OTHER-SE>                                                 0             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         1278480       2210802
<SALES>                                               302305        189756
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     2004747       1771332
<CGS>                                                 124574         60117
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        2625646       2630623
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       13726          7714
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      8608         18349
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0             0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0             0
<CHANGES>                                                  0             0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (634625)       (867005)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (0.02)         (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0             0
        
 

</TABLE>
#### IN RE JOHNSON

No. 167 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 649.

Petition by respondent for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 June 1980. Appeal dismissed 10 June 1980.
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 the Quarterly Report of The X-Change  Corporation on
Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Michael Sheriff,
President  of the  Company,  certify,  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 my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Michael Sheriff
Michael Sheriff, President, Chief
Executive Officer , Treasurer and Chairman
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)


March 24, 2004


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE v. CROSBY

No. 19 PC.

Case below: 10 N.C. App. 363.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 April 1971.
#### John Gledhill, on Behalf of Himself and Others, Appellant, *v.*Jacob H. Schiff et al., Respondents.

*Gledhill*v. *Schiff,*173 App. Div. 890, affirmed.

(Submitted June 14, 1918;

decided July 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, *594entered March 30, 1916, *unanimously*affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term. Plaintiff, as trustee for collection for the Cooperative Wholesale Society, Limited, a British corporation, held certain treasury notes of Austria-Hungary, interest and capital of which were payable in the city of New York at the office of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, the firm name of defendants. In December, 1914, the Austrian government gave notice to the defendants that moneys would be deposited with them to pay only those holders of notes maturing January 1, 1915, who should present with the notes an affidavit stating that the holders were not citizens of countries in a state of war with Austria-Hungary, and that the notes were not acquired after December 22, 1914, from any such citizen. Plaintiff sued to recover the face value of the notes with interest and demanded that the fund held by defendants be impressed with a lien for the amount of his holdings. The court at Special Term held that defendants were mere agents for the Austrian government and dismissed the complaint.

*Melville H. Cane*and *Harrison Clark*for appellant.

*Carl A. de Gersdorff*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,036
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,258
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,387
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,248
<PP&E>                                           2,697
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,927)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,642
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,804
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,058
<SALES>                                         15,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                            7,478
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (18)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    949
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (97)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       852
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,048
<OTHER-SE>                                    (60,048)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (11,954)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,954)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,954)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Eduardo AMADOR-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50783.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Carlos Eduardo Amador-Ramirez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *607
      *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, MarkBuckrey, certify that:

 

1.     I havereviewed this Form 10-KSB/A of STEN Corporation;

 

2.     Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

4.     The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

5.     The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date  January 27,  2006 |  /s/ Mark  F. Buckrey     |
|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                                   |  Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Case 1:07-cv-03320-SHS Document 2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03331-MGC Document 7 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1462

LONG BEACH MORTGAGE TRUST 20 06-6; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiffs - Appellees,

and

MARK EDWARD FRUTROVSKY; FISCHER LAW GROUP, PLLC, Plaintiffs,

v. YVONNE DOVE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-02064-PJM)

Submitted: July 16, 2009 Decided: August 14, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yvonne Dove, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Daniel Cohen, BIERMAN GEESING & WARD, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Yvonne Dove seeks to appeal the district court’s orders remanding the case to state court and denying reconsideration of that order. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960));

accord Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, __, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363-66 (2007). The appeal period is stayed by a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), if filed no later than ten days following entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). An untimely Rule 59(e) motion, however, does not stay the appeal period.

Panhorst v. United States , 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir. 2001). The district court’s order remanding the case was entered on the docket on December 30, 2008. Dove did not file her motion for reconsideration until January 15, 2009, one day beyond the expiration of the ten-day period. That motion, therefore, did not stay the appeal per iod. As the notice of appeal was filed on April 20, 2009, almost three months beyond

23 the expiration of the thirty-day appeal period, and Dove failed to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we do not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s order remanding the case to state court. We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal. Turning to the district court’s order denying reconsideration, Dove has failed to challenge on appeal the court’s basis for denying reconsideration. We therefore find that Dove has forfeited appellate review of that order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying reconsideration of the remand order. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART ; DISMISSED IN PART
#### STARR v. PAPER CO.

No. 133 PC.

Case below: 8 N.C. App. 604.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 28 August 1970.
##### 



Exhibit 21
 
 PLACE OF
    
    % OF VOTINGCOMPANY
    
    INCORPORATION
    
    STOCK OWNEDInternational Helicopter Transport, Inc.
    
    Louisiana
    
    100%PHI Tech Services, Inc.
    
    Louisiana
    
    100%Air Evac Services, Inc.
    
    Louisiana
    
    100%PHI Air Medical Services, Inc.
    
    Louisiana
    
    100%Petroleum Helicopters International, Inc.
    
    Louisiana
    
    100%Helicopter Management, LLC
    
    Louisiana
    
    100%Helicopter Leasing, LLC
    
    Louisiana
    
    100%HELEX, LLC
    
    Florida
    
    100%Sky Leasing
    
    Montana
    
    100%Petroleum Helicopters Angola Limitada
    
    Angola
    
    49%PHI International, LTD
    
    Cayman
    
    100%Energy Risk LTD
    
    Bermuda
    
    100%
Exhibit 10.26
 AMENDMENT TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED SEPARATION BENEFITS AGREEMENT
 Amendment Effective Date Executive Company
 RECITALS
 Agreement
  Section 409A
 AGREEMENT
  Amendment
 Release; Payments upon Termination of Employment
 Definition of Good Reason
 Section 7 of the Agreement




---



##### 



Section 409A
 separation from service
    Termination of Executive After a Change of Control
 2




---



##### 



Other Terms and Conditions
  EXECUTIVE
    
    THORATEC CORPORATION/s/
David V. Smith
    
    By:
    /s/ Gerhard F. BurbachDavid V. Smith
    
    
    Name:
    Gerhard F. BurbachTitle:
    President & Chief Executive Officer
 3
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

### M A N D A T E

TO THE 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF KERR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on February 11, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Devon Alexander Kane, Appellant(s)

V.

State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04

- 14

- 00004

- CR and Tr. Ct. No. A1319

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgments of the

trial court are AFFIRMED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on June 19, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853