alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF SIMPLETECH, INC.



|                             |  |               
|---------------------------- |  | --------------
|Name                         |  | Jurisdiction  
|S.T.I., LLC                  |  | California    
|SimpleTech Europe            |  | Scotland      
|STEC, Inc.                   |  | California    
|SimpleTech Europe, BV        |  | Netherlands   
|SimpleTech Global Limited    |  | Cayman Islands
|SimpleTech Cayman Limited    |  | Cayman Islands
|SimpleTech Hong Kong Limited |  | Hong Kong     
|Memtech SSD, Corporation     |  | California
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10133]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[KS-6-1-6985b, MO-31-1-7153b; FRL-5449-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; States of 
Kansas and Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revisions submitted by the states of Kansas and Missouri for the 
purpose of updating the emissions inventory in the Kansas City 
Maintenance Plan. The submittals also establish a motor vehicle 
emissions budget for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the 
Federal Transportation Conformity rule. In the final rules section of 
the Federal Register, the EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as 
a direct final rule without prior proposal, because the Agency views 
this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in 
the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response 
to this proposed rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation 
to this rule. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final 
rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this 
time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
May 28, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Lisa V. Haugen, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota 
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa V. Haugen at (913) 551-7877.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final rule which is located in the rules section of the Federal 
Register.

    Dated: February 9, 1996.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-10133 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
GIOVANNI MOJICA 

Appellant 

THE STATE OFTEXAS 

Appellee 

Comes now, 

Cause No. MAIS-57202 

IN THE COUNTY 

JUH/i r tiit' uo 

CiiU'N ~~ ;;·~~l••ni:.N "". · r t, f-RK 

DALLAS COUNTy 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

GIOV ANN! MOJICA, the Defendant in this Cause, having 

been convicted on August 4th, 2014 of assault- family violence, after a jury trial on the merits · 

and having been sentenced to 135 days confinement and a $0 fine hereby gives notice of appeal. 

SIGNED THIS 

5th Court of Appeals

FILED: 08-28-15

Lisa Matz, Clerk
Cause No. A Is--S 1 Z 0 z__ 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

vs. &' 0\..9 &!. II ,{ ,' 

u 

§ 

§ 

§ 

TRIAL COURT'S CERTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT'S RIGHT OF APPEAL* 

, u ge o the trial court, certify this criminal case: 

is not a plea-bargain ca.~e, and the defendant has the ri t of appeal, [or] 

is a plea-bargain case, but matters were r.:lised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, 

and not withdrawn or waived, and the defendant has the right of appeal, [or] 

o is a plea-bargain case, but the trial court has given permission to appeal, and the defendant has 

the right of appeal, [or] 

0 is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal, for] 

0 the defendant has waived the right of appeal, [or] 

0 other (pi s specify): ----------------------

Ju 

I have received a copy of this certification. I have also been informed of my rights concerning any appeal of this 

criminal case, including any right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. I have been admonished that my attorney must mail a copy of the court of appeals' 

judgment and opinion to my last known address and that I have only 30 days in which to file a prose petition for 

discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. I acknowledge that, if I wish to appeal 

this case and if I am entitled to do so, it is my duty to inform my appellate attorney, by written communication, of 

any change in the address at which I am currently living or any change in my current prison unit. I understand that, 

because of appellate deadlines, if I fail to timely inform my appellate any change in my address, I may 

lose the opportunity to file a prose petition for discretionary rev· 

c:~ Defendant 

Mailing Address: 

Telephone #: 

Fax # (if any): 

~l«f'"11Jo.: 

Mailing Address: 

Telephone #: 

Fax # (if any): 

* A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal under these rules. The trial court shall enter a certification of 

the defendant's right to appeal in every case in which it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order. In a plea 

bargain case- ·-· that is, a case in which a defendant's plt:a was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not 

exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant .. _. a defendant may appeal 

only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial 

court's permission lO appeal." TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 25.2(a)(2).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2251-2252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1116]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER96-8-000]


PacifiCorp; Notice of Filing

January 19, 1996.
    Take notice that on December 18, 1995, PacifiCorp tendered for 
filing an amendment in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 

[[Page 2252]]
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or 
before January 29, 1996. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-1116 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### James O. BROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 40830.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 27, 1988.

James O. Brooks, pro se.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, C.J., and BERREY and COVINGTON, JJ.

*529ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 27.26 motion for postconviction relief.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 83 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10454]



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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans 
Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and 
respondent burden, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) invites 
the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on this 
information collection. This request for comment is being made pursuant 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(A)). Comments should address the accuracy of the burden 
estimates and ways to minimize the burden including the use of 
automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of 
information technology, as well as other relevant aspects of the 
information collection.

DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposal for the 
collection of information should be received on or before June 28, 
1996.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans 
Benefits Administration (20M30), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420. All comments will become a 
matter of public record and will be summarized in the VBA request for 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. In this document VBA is 
soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
    OMB Control Number: 2900-0166.
    Title and Form Number: Application for Ordinary Life Insurance (Age 
70), VA Form 29-8701.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Need and Uses: The form is used by the policyholder to apply for 
replacement insurance for Modified Life Reduced at Age 70.
    Current Actions: The information collected on the form is used by 
VBA personnel to initiate the granting of coverage for which applied.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households; required to obtain or 
retain benefits.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 350 hours.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 5 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,200.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
copies of the form should be directed to Department of Veterans 
Affairs, Attn: Jacquie McCray, Information Management Service (045A4), 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20420, telephone (202) 565-8266 or FAX (202) 565-8267.

    Dated: April 19, 1996.

    By direction of the Secretary.
William T. Morgan,
Management Analyst.
[FR Doc. 96-10454 Filed 4-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
CAUSE NO. 6,112

UNITED RESOURCES, LP

VS.

SEPCO TUBULARS, INC. and

NORTH AMERICAN INTERPIPE, INC.,

a/k/a NORTH AMERICAN INTERPIPE, INC.

SEPCO S.A., ALLIED STEEL, S.A., JSC

NIZHNEDNEPROVSKY TUBE ROLLING

PLANT a/k/a NIZHNEDNEPROVSKY

TRUBNY ZAVO a/k/a INTERPIPE NTRP

a/k/a NTRP, INTERPIPE, INTERPIPE

EUROPE, S.A., INTERPIPE UKRAINE

LLC, CJSC NIKOPOLSKY SEAMLESS

PIPE PLANT a/k/a NIKOPOLSKY ZAVOD

BESSHOVNYKH TRUB, NIKOPOL

TRUBNAYA COMPANY, JSC

NOVOMOSKOVSKY PIPE PRODUCING

PLANT a/k/a NOVOMOSKOVSKY TRUBNY§

ZAVOD, and PADRE TUBULARS, INC.

CLE

in THE2RSSflB8iei5 cAilkT^rZAPATAj

ZAPM

BY_-

49TM JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF APPEAL

COME NOW the following Defendants and file this Notice of Appeal:

JSC NIZHNEDNEPROVSKY TUBE ROLLING PLANT a/k/a

NIZHNEDNEPROVSKY TRUBNY ZAVOD a/k/a INTERPIPE NTRP a/k/a

NTRP;

Sepco Tubulars, Inc. n/k/a North American Interpipe, Inc.;

Sepco SA n/k/a Interpipe Europe SA; and

Padre Tubulars, Inc.

These Defendants give notice that they are appealing from the trial court's Final Judgment

signed in this cause on November 11, 20!4, as well as the court's rulings on their pre-trial

and post-trial motions. All of these Defendants desire to appeal from the court's judgment

and rulings.

000380
This appeal will be taken to the Fourth Judicial District Court of Appeals, San

Antonio, Texas.

Respectfully submitted.

TIMOTHY Kt. HIGHTOWER

State Bar No. 00795421

ALEXANDRA MUTCHLER

State Bar No. 24051102

HIGHTOWER CAPELLAN

639 Heights Blvd.

Houston, Texas 77007

(832)433-7279;(832)431-4288 (f

thightower(fl),hrc leatil.com

tnnutchlgrfflihrclcaal.com

ax)

^CKNAIR

State Bar No. 14650500

LAW OFFICE OF AUDREY

MULLERT VICKNAIR

802 N. Carancahua Ste. 1350

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401-0022

(361)888-8413; (361)887-6207 (fax)

avicknair^vicknairlaw.com

Counselfor Defendants/Appellants

00088
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing motion was served on counsel

for the Plaintiff, as designated below, on this the 5"1 day of February, 2015, in the manner

prescribed by the Texas Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure:

Mr. Michael E. McElroy

McElroy, Sullivan Miller, LLP

1201 Spyglass, Ste. 200

Austin, Texas 78746

mmcelrov@msmtx.com

Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellee

Timothy R. Hightower

Audrey Mullert Vicknair

000882
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Columbus SANDERS, Appellant.

No. 67073.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Sept. 26, 1995.

Columbus Sanders, Cameron, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL, and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Columbus Sanders, pleaded guilty to burglary second degree and stealing a firearm. He was sentenced as a prior, persistent, and class X offender under § 558.016, RSMo, (1986), to two concurrent sixteen year terms of imprisonment.

Movant appeals the denial of his “nunc pro tunc motion to set aside judgment for errors of facts.”

The judgment of the trial court denying defendant’s nunc pro tune motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. A written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Lamont FULTZ, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 63117.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 9, 1993.

*435Susan K. Eekles, St. Louis, for defendant, appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff, respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury of second degree drug trafficking, § 195.223, RSMo Supp.1992. The court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to a term of sixteen years’ imprisonment. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit.- An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.-25(b).
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 30466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11967]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel; HEAL Initiative RFA Review: Optimizing Multi-
Component Service Delivery Interventions for OUD, Co-Occurring 
Conditions, and/or Suicide Risk.
    Date: June 29, 2021.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Nicholas Gaiano, Ph.D., Review Branch Chief, 
Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental 
Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center/Room 6150/MSC 9606, 6001 Executive 
Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-2742, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#244a4d474f0a43454d454a4b644a4d4c0a434b52"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="224c4b41490c45434b434c4d624c4b4a0c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental 
Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 3, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11967 Filed 6-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of Betsy V. Scherbyn, Appellant, v Wayne-Finger Lakes Board of Cooperative Educational Services et al., Respondents.

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for the reasons stated in the decision of Supreme Court (Henry, Jr., J.). We add only that the rule that "[¡Judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds invoked by the agency” *(Matter of Aronsky v Board of Educ.,*75 NY2d 997, 1000) is not applicable here. This action is in the nature of mandamus to compel petitioner’s reinstatement to a *968position from which she had taken a leave of absence more than one year previously *(see,*19 NY Jur 2d, Civil Servants and Other Public Officers and Employees, § 402); it is not a proceeding in the nature of certiorari to review a quasi-judicial determination of a quasi-judicial body following a hearing. The burden of proof in this action in the nature of mandamus is upon petitioner to show that she was entitled to reinstatement. In the answers of both the County Personnel Officer and the employer, it is alleged that petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement because, by operation of the civil service rules, she had resigned from her position. Supreme Court properly decided the issues raised by the answer. Moreover, this proceeding to compel petitioner’s reinstatement is not properly directed against the County Personnel Officer because she has no power of appointment and it would be impossible for her to comply with any order directing petitioner’s reinstatement *(see, Matter of McCraw v Finegan,*243 App Div 778). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Henry, Jr., J.—art 78.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5442 

To consolidate within the Department of Defense all executive authority 

regarding the use of armed unmanned aerial vehicles, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 

Ms. LEE of California (for herself and Mr. BURGESS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To consolidate within the Department of Defense all executive authority regarding the use of armed unmanned 

aerial vehicles, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Drone Reform Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY 

6 OVER USE OF ARMED UNMANNED AERIAL VE7 HICLES. 

8 (a) DOD EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY.— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5442 IH

1 (1) PROHIBITION.—No operation involving the 

2 use of an armed unmanned aerial vehicle shall be 

3 carried out under the authority of a department or 

4 agency of the Federal Government other than the 

5 Department of Defense. 

6 (2) USE BY MILITARY PERSONNEL.—Only uni7 formed members of the United States Armed Forces 

8 may— 

9 (A) operate, or order the operation of, an 

10 armed unmanned aerial vehicle; or 

11 (B) operate or fire, or order the operation 

12 or firing of, any weapon or other munition car13 ried on an armed unmanned aerial vehicle. 

14 (3) APPLICABLE LAW.—The operation and use 

15 of an armed unmanned aerial vehicle shall be subject 

16 to the requirements of title 10 of the United States 

17 Code. 

18 (b) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec19 tion shall be construed— 

20 (1) to limit or expand any authority of any 

21 component of the Federal Government to provide ad22 vice, including intelligence, to the Department of De23 fense in support of actions described in paragraphs 

24 (1) and (2) of subsection (a); or 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5442 IH

1 (2) to create any authority, or expand any ex2 isting authority, for the Federal Government to kill 

3 any person. 

4 (c) UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE.—The term ‘‘un5 manned aerial vehicle’’ means an aircraft that is operated 

6 without the possibility of direct human intervention from 

7 within or on the aircraft. The term includes aircraft re8 ferred to as a drone, UAV, unmanned aircraft (UA), un9 manned aerial system (UAS), remotely piloted aircraft 

10 (RPA), remotely piloted vehicle (RPV), remotely operated 

11 aircraft (ROA), and unmanned aerial vehicle system 

12 (UAVS). 

13 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

14 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7232

Omron Management Center of America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel