alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE BANK
<PAGE>
 
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE BANK
                           ------------------------ 

         As of June 30, 1998, the Company owned a 64.3% interest in Jamestown
Savings Bank. In addition, the Company owns 100% of the outstanding common stock
of Northwest Savings Bank. The following is a list of subsidiaries of Northwest
Savings Bank:


Northwest Financial Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
Great Northwest Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation
Northwest Consumer Discount Company, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation which
operates under this name in five locations in Western and Central Pennsylvania
and also operates:
         d/b/a Northwest Finance Company in Jamestown, NY, a New York          
          Corporation 
         d/b/a Butler Consumer Discount Company in eight locations in 
          Southwestern PA 
         d/b/a Preis Consumer Discount Company in one location in Central PA 
         d/b/a Uniontown Financial Services in Uniontown, PA 
         d/b/a Erie Consumer Discount in two locations in Erie, PA 
         d/b/a Franklin Consumer Discount in Franklin, PA d/b/a Corry Consumer
          Discount in Corry, PA 
         d/b/a Community Consumer Discount in Warren, PA
         d/b/a Thrift Financial Services in Indiana, PA 
         d/b/a Clearfield Consumer Discount in Clearfield, PA 
         d/b/a Titusville Consumer Discount in Titusville, PA 
         d/b/a Lewistown Consumer Discount in Lewistown, PA
         d/b/a Friendly Loan Consumer Discount in Jeannette, PA 
         d/b/a Zelie Consumer Discount in Zelienople, PA 
         d/b/a Johnstown Consumer Discount in Johnstown, PA 
         d/b/a Washington Consumer Discount in Washington, PA
         d/b/a St. Mary's Consumer Discount in St. Marys, PA 
         d/b/a Brookville Financial Services in Brookville, PA 
         d/b/a Dubois Financial Services in Dubois, PA 
         d/b/a Hazleton Financial Services in Hazleton, PA 
         d/b/a State College Financial Services in State College, PA
Northwest Mortgage Corporation, a Delaware corporation
Northwest Capital Group Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
Rid-Fed Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
#### Nathan D. YOUNG, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 42123.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 6, 1990.

Raymond L. Legg, Columbia, for mov-ant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GAITAN, P.J., and CLARK and MANFORD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Direct appeal from a judgment denying post conviction relief sought pursuant to Rule 29.15.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**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**

 

 

The undersigned, Terry Fitzgerald, of Dussault Apparel Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dussault Apparel Inc. for the three month period ended July 31, 2007 (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 Dussault Apparel Inc.

Date:  September 19, 2007

/s/ Terry Fitzgerald                                                                

Terry Fitzgerald

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

 

 

 

CW1423507.1
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 923 

Requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives all 

documents in the possession of the President relating to the effects 

on foreign intelligence collection of the transfer of detainees held at 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2009 

Mr. HOEKSTRA submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) 

RESOLUTION 

Requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives all documents in the possession of the President relating to the effects on foreign intelligence collection of the transfer of detainees held at Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States. 

1 Resolved, That the President is requested to transmit 

2 to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days 

3 after the adoption of this resolution all documents (includ4 ing records, memos, correspondence, or other communica5 tions) in the possession of the President that refer or re6 late to the effects on foreign intelligence collection of the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 923 IH 

1 transfer of detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo 

2 Bay, Cuba, into the United States. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Diane J. Humetewa Date: August 31, 2023

USA v. Michael Lacey, et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-DJH

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Kevin Rapp, Austin Berry, Margaret Perlmeter, Andrew Stone, Peter 

Kozinets

Attorneysfor Defendants: Paul J. Cambria Jr., Retained for Defendant Lacey, present; Bruce S. Feder, 

Retained and Eric W. Kessler, CJA for Defendant Spear, present; Gary S. Lincenberg and Gopi K. 

Panchapakesan, Retained for Defendant Brunst, present; David S. Eisenberg, CJA for Defendant 

Padilla, present; Joy M. Bertrand, CJA for Defendant Vaught, present.

Defendants: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ

JURY TRIAL (Day 3):

8:47 a.m. Court reconvenes. Discussion held re: objections to presentations. IT IS ORDERED the 

parties shall proceed as ordered by the Court. 8:56 a.m. Voir Dire resumes with Jurors 98-110. 9:48 

a.m. Prospective jurors exit courtroom. IT IS ORDERED excusing Jurors 100 and 98. Discussion 

held re: Preliminary Jury Instructions. 10:23 a.m. Recess.

10:40 a.m. Court reconvenes. Argument re: strikes for cause/hardship heard. IT IS ORDERED

excusing Jurors 5, 4, 87, 39, 54, and 78. 11:59 a.m. Recess.

12:38 p.m. Court reconvenes. (Counsel exercised their strikes during the recess.). Counsel inform the 

Court that there are no objections or issues related to their respective peremptory strikes. 12:48 p.m. 

Prospective jurors present. Panel of 16 jurors as renumbered on the record are called forward and 

sworn, and the remainder are released. 1:08 p.m. Jury is preliminary instructed. 1:35 p.m. Recess.

2:08 p.m. Court reconvenes. 2:10 p.m. Jury present. Government’s Opening Statement. 3:04 p.m.

Defendant Lacey’s Opening Statement. 3:44 p.m. Recess.

4:01 p.m. Court reconvenes. Jury present. Defendant Brunst’s Opening Statement. 4:35 p.m. Jury 

released for the evening. Discussion held with counsel. 4:41 p.m. Court in recess until Wednesday, 

September 6, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

Court Reporter Hilda Lopez/Jennifer Pancratz

Deputy Clerk Liliana Figueroa

Start: 8:45 AM

Stop: 4:41 PM

Total: 6hrs 8min

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1745 Filed 08/31/23 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Stephen F. Ghiglieri, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NeurogesX, 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, not 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(s) 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) 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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting that 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.

Dated: May 15, 2008



By:

/s/ Stephen F. GhiglieriStephen F. Ghiglieri Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit A 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 331-3 Filed 10/04/18 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

R.O. vs. Medalist Holdings LLC

1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE

________________________________________________________

R.O., by and through her mother, )

S.H., and K.M., by and through )

her mother, L.M., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. 17-2-04897-1

)

 vs. )

)

MEDALIST HOLDINGS, INC., et al. )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________________________________

VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

_________________________________________________________

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Before The Honorable G. Helen Whitener

Pierce County Courthouse

Tacoma, Washington

<<<<<< >>>>>>

Kimberly A. O'Neill, CCR #1954

Official Court Reporter

Department 11, Room 202-A

(253) 798-7281

APP0855

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 331-3 Filed 10/04/18 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

R.O. vs. Medalist Holdings LLC

72

joint representation agreements that are in the sealed 

declaration. I don't want to go into those; but in general, 

we don't believe there is a conflict or anything 

impermissible about us beginning to represent the Medalist 

parties. 

I'll also point out, again, you're dealing with parties, 

as a practical matter, who don't have the ability, as 

Mr. Grant alluded to earlier, to obtain new counsel, so 

disqualification is prejudicial to them at this point; so we 

would ask the Court to not disqualify us and for all the 

reasons we've stated, I think, in the objections as well. 

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, do you 

want to be heard? 

MR. AMALA: No, Your Honor. Thank you. 

THE COURT: And, counsel on the phone, did 

you want to be heard in regards to the disqualification? 

MR. CASTILLO: Your Honor, we cannot -- 

I'm not in a position to move or support disqualification. 

I think there are issues that I can't -- I can't move for 

that of DWT to support disqualification.

MR. AMALA: The -- 

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. AMALA: I'm sorry. 

THE COURT: Go ahead. 

MR. AMALA: The only comment that I would 

APP0926

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 331-3 Filed 10/04/18 Page 3 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

James Larkin, 

 

 Defendant.

Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-SMB-2

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court, having reviewed James Larkin’s Motion to Continue Trial and good cause 

appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that the January 12, 2021 trial date is reset to April 12, 2021 and the 

Court will extend and reset related deadlines.

DATED this day of , 20 .

 

HON. SUSAN M. BRNOVICH

United States District Court Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1058-1 Filed 09/21/20 Page 1 of 1
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 122 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16030]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

Notice of a Change in Status of an Extended Benefit (EB) Period 
for Puerto Rico

    This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under 
the EB Program for Puerto Rico.

Summary

    The following change has occurred since the publication of the last 
notice regarding States' EB status:
     May 5, 1996--Puerto Rico triggered ``on'' EB. Puerto 
Rico's 13-week insured unemployment rate had been above the 6.0 percent 
threshold necessary to be trigger ``on'' to EB since the week of March 
9, 1996. However, Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Federal-State Extended 
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 specifies that no extended 
benefit period may begin for a State before the fourteenth week after 
the close of the States' most recent extended benefit period. Puerto 
Rico's previous extended benefit period ended February 3, 1996 and the 
fourteenth week following the end of that extended benefit period is 
the week beginning May 5, 1996.

Information for Claimants

    The duration of benefits payable in the EB Program, and the terms 
and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and 
the operating instructions issued to the States by the U.S. Department 
of Labor. In the case of a State beginning an EB period, the State 
employment security agency will furnish a written notice of potential 
entitlement to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular 
benefits and is potentially eligible for extended benefits (20 CFR 
615.13(c)(1)).
    Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB benefits, or who 
wish to inquire about their rights under the programs, should contact 
the nearest State employment service office or unemployment 
compensation claims office in their locality.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on June 19, 1996.
Timothy M. Barnicle,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment and Training.
[FR Doc. 96-16030 Filed 6-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GEORGE T. PAETH and 

MARGARET C. PAETH,

Plaintiffs, Case Number 08-13926

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

WORTH TOWNSHIP, 

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPELLATE ATTORNEY’S FEES

AND COSTS AND DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS

The Court entered an amended judgment against the defendants on September 21, 2010.

Shortly thereafter, the defendant moved for a new trial or remittitur. After the defendant’s motion

for new trial or remittitur was denied, the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. On June 8, 2012,

the court of appeals issued an opinion reversing the grant of summary judgment on the plaintiffs’

due process violation; vacating the award of damages for that violation; and affirming the Court’s

judgment with regard to the plaintiffs’ First Amendment violation, the award of damages for that

violation, and the award of attorney’s fees. The court of appeals has not issued a mandate yet.

Presently, the matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees and

costs and disbursement of funds for the payment of funds.

The Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs’ motion because the court of

appeals has not issued a mandate. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Milliken, 200 F.3d 942, 951-52

(6th Cir. 1999) (“Although the issuance of the mandate is largely a formality, the court of appeals

retains jurisdiction over the case until it issues, and the district court or agency whose order is being

reviewed cannot proceed in the interim.”). Therefore, the Court must deny the plaintiffs’ motion.

2:08-cv-13926-DML-RSW Doc # 115 Filed 06/21/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3733
-2-

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees and

costs and disbursement of funds for the payment of funds [dkt. #114] is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. 

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: June 21, 2012

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on June 21, 2012.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:08-cv-13926-DML-RSW Doc # 115 Filed 06/21/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3734
form10k08ex10ao.htm


    


      


      SUMMARY
OF MODIFICATION TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TAUBMAN COMPANY ASIA
LIMITED AND MORGAN PARKER

      (THE
“EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT”)

      


      


      


      Provision
2.3 of the Employment Agreement has been modified to provide that vacation time
may be accrued by Mr. Parker up to 150% of the annual leave provided for in the
Employment Agreement. This change was made to conform this provision to the
standard policy for employees of the Company.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin W Glass,

Plaintiff,

v. 

AsicNorth Incorporated,

Defendant.

No. CV-18-00898-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike the declaration of John Condrey. 

(Docs. 51, 52.) The Court will not consider new evidence presented in a reply to a motion 

for summary judgment without giving the non-movant the opportunity to respond. Provenz 

v. Miller, 102 F. 3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996). 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. 51) is DENIED. Plaintiff 

may file a surreply addressing the new evidence presented in John Condrey’s affidavit no 

later than November 4, 2019. 

Dated this 22nd day of October, 2019.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

Scott Spear. )

)

Defendant. )

)

NO. CR18-00422 PHX SMB

ORDER

Upon First Joint Motion of Defendants, by and through their attorneys, for an Order

extending the time to disclose anticipated initial and rebuttal expert testimony, and good cause

appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED extending the Defendants’ deadlines to disclose initial expert

testimony to the ____ day of __________, 2019;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the Defendants’ deadline to disclose rebuttal

expert testimony to the ____ day of ______________, 2019.

The Court finds excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h) from _________________ to

______________________.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 498-14 Filed 03/12/19 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1123 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1123

To provide for a five-year payment increase under the Medicare program 
          for home health services furnished in a rural area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2009

 Ms. Collins (for herself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Bond) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a five-year payment increase under the Medicare program 
          for home health services furnished in a rural area.

    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 ``Medicare Rural Home Health 
Preservation Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FIVE-YEAR APPLICATION OF THE MEDICARE RURAL HOME HEALTH ADD-ON 
              POLICY.

    Section 421(a) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173; 117 Stat. 2283), as 
amended by section 5201(b) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public 
Law 109-171; 120 Stat. 46), is amended--
            (1) by striking ``, and episodes'' and inserting ``, 
        episodes''; and
            (2) by inserting ``and episodes and visits ending on or 
        after January 1, 2010, and before January 1, 2015,'' after 
        ``January 1, 2007,''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charif Souki, Chief Executive Officer of Cheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Partnership.

Date: August 11, 2014


/s/ Charif SoukiCharif SoukiChief Executive Officer ofCheniere Energy Partners GP, LLC, the general partner ofCheniere Energy Partners, L.P.