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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                          MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.
                             List of Subsidiaries

                                                                 Jurisdiction of
Subsidiary Name                                          Incorporation/Formation
-----------------------------------------------------    -----------------------

Bravell, Inc.                                                   Wisconsin
Medco Containment Insurance Company of New Jersey               New Jersey
Medco Containment Insurance Company of New York                 New York
Medco Containment Life Insurance Company                        Pennsylvania
Medco Health, L.L.C.                                            Delaware
Medco Health New York Independent Practice
 Association, L.L.C.                                            New York
Medco Health Puerto Rico, L.L.C.                                Delaware
Medco Health Receivables, L.L.C.                                Delaware
Medco Health Solutions of Columbus North, Ltd.                  Ohio
Medco Health Solutions of Columbus West, Ltd.                   Ohio
Medco Health Solutions of Fairfield, L.L.C.                     Pennsylvania
Medco Health Solutions of Henderson, Nevada, L.L.C.             Delaware
Medco Health Solutions of Hidden River, L.C.                    Florida
Medco Health Solutions of Las Vegas, Inc.                       Nevada
Medco Health Solutions of Netpark, L.L.C.                       Delaware
Medco Health Solutions of North Versailles, L.L.C.              Pennsylvania
Medco Health Solutions of Parsippany, L.L.C.                    New Jersey
Medco Health Solutions of Richmond, L.L.C.                      Virginia
Medco Health Solutions of Sabal Park, L.C.                      Florida
Medco Health Solutions of Spokane, Inc.                         Washington
Medco Health Solutions of Texas, L.L.C.                         Texas
Medco Health Solutions of Willingboro, L.L.C.                   New Jersey
medcohealth.com, L.L.C.                                         New Jersey
Merck-Medco of Willingboro Urban Renewal, L.L.C.                New Jersey
NJRE, L.L.C.                                                    New Jersey
PharMark Corporation                                            Delaware
ProVantage Health Management Services, Inc.                     Delaware
ProVantage Mail Services, Inc.                                  Minnesota
PRO VMED, L.L.C.                                                Wisconsin
PVHS, Inc.                                                      Delaware
Systemed, L.L.C.                                                Delaware
The Institute for Effectiveness Research, L.L.C.                Delaware
NRX Federal Corp.                                               Delaware
#### Horace Taylor OLIVER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45795.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 28, 1973.

John G. Gilleland, Houston, for appellant.

Carol Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and William Burge, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*126OPINION

ROBERTS, Judge.

The conviction is for the offense of robbery by assault. Punishment was assessed at 25 years’ confinement.

Appellant alleges three grounds of error.

He first contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of extraneous offenses. We are referred to a portion of the record where the arresting officer testified to the circumstances surrounding appellant’s arrest, some ten days after the alleged offense took place. The record reflects that this testimony was heard during a motion to suppress and was heard outside the presence of the jury. When the jury returned and the officer testified, no mention was made of another offense. At one point, the officer did start to say: “I noticed one of the subjects fitted a description of a man * * Even if this may be construed as an allusion to another offense, no objection to the testimony was voiced. Nothing is presented for review. See Terry v. State, 481 S.W.2d 870 (Tex. Cr.App.1972).

Appellant next alleges that the court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the details of the arrest. No authorities are cited. The jury heard testimony that when arrested, appellant and his companions possessed large amounts of money and were carrying weapons. Under the facts of this case, the evidence was admissible as a circumstance surrounding the arrest of appellant.

Finally, in his last ground, appellant makes multifarious allegations of error, not in accordance with Art. 40.09, Sec. 9, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. Nevertheless, we have examined the argument that the lineups in this cause were conducted in an unduly suggestive manner. The trial judge held an extensive and exhaustive hearing outside the presence of the jury on this issue. Martinez v. State, 437 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). The evidence supports his order overruling appellant’s contention.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

Reference is made to the Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as November 19, 2013 (the “Agreement”), among Jostens, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (“Buyer”), American Achievement Group Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation, Visant Corporation, a Delaware corporation, solely with respect to Section 12.13, and each holder of outstanding equity interests of the Company, and
American Achievement Holdings LLC, in its capacity as Sellers’ Representative. By their signatures below, Buyer and Sellers’ Representative herby agree to terminate the Agreement pursuant to Section 10.1.1 thereof and that such termination
will have the effects set forth in Section 10.2 thereof. 
  

			
	JOSTENS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Marie D. Hlavaty

	
	AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENT
	HOLDINGS LLC, in its capacity as Sellers’
	Representative
		
	By:	 	 /s/ W. Gregg Smart



 Dated: April 17th, 2014
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**CERTIFICATE OF CEO**
     I, Gary D. McGaha, Chief Executive Officer of Southern CommunityBancshares, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, based on my knowledge:
(1) the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant, to whichthis certificate is attached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.   Dated: March 29, 2004 /s/ Gary D. McGaha   Gary D. McGaha, Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**ALTERA CORPORATION**

**CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the periodic report of Altera Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 28, 2008, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Timothy R. Morse, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the UnitedStates Code, that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

Date: May 05, 2008 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Altera Corporation and will be retained byAltera Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   4-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-19-1998
<CASH>                                         109,150
<SECURITIES>                                     7,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,719
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,229
<PP&E>                                         295,848
<DEPRECIATION>                                 156,181
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 271,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,690
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           205
<OTHER-SE>                                     229,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   271,350
<SALES>                                         98,131
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,883
<CGS>                                           20,668
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,838
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,878
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (822)
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,138
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.35
        

</TABLE>
Ex. 32







CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002









I, Vivian Lam Lee Yu, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Oxford Technologies, Inc. on the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Oxford Technologies, Inc.







|                      |  |     |  |                                                              
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |     |  |                                                              
|Date:  April 14, 2011 |  | By: |  | /s/ Vivian Lam Lee Yu                                        
|                      |  |     |  | Vivian Lam Lee Yu, President                                 
|                      |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
---

|Coded Tables | 
|------------ | 



|These data are released whenever there are code changes.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Complete file (364 KB PDF)Cover page and table of contents (36 KB PDF)
Debt growth, borrowing and debt outstanding tables (13 KB PDF)
Flows tables (154 KB PDF)
Level tables (125 KB PDF)
Balance sheet tables (20 KB PDF)
Supplementary tables (29 KB PDF)

|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Release dates | 
Announcements | 
Coded tables | Historical dataCurrent release | 
Screen reader | 
PDF (497 KB) | 
Data Download Program (DDP)

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: June 10, 2010
----

**Exhibit 23.4**

|   |    
 

**Consent of Black Mountain Technology**

In connection with U.S. Geothermal Inc’s registration statement of Form 10K, S-3, S-8 and related filings under the United States Securities Act of 1933, I, Susan Petty, on behalf of Black Mountain Technology (“Black Mountain”), herby consent to the use of Black Mountain’s name and to the use of the “Empire Geothermal Project Evaluation” dated August, 2006, as updated March 2008, references to the Project Evaluation, or portions thereof, or information derived from the Project Evaluation, in the Registration Statement.

Dated at Seattle, Washington, this 20day of August, 2009. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Amos Lincoln BROOKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44226.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 23, 1971.

Ross Teter, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John B. Tolle, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Voll-ers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ROBERTS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for unlawful possession of heroin. Trial was before a jury with punishment set by the jury at life imprisonment.

Appellant asserts, by his first two grounds of error, that the trial court improperly refused his bills of exception. He contends that the court took no action regarding the bills until after the one-hundred day time limit prescribed in Art. 40.09(6) (a), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. as amended, had expired, and therefore, they were deemed approved by the operation of law. The. record, however, indicates that the bills *were*refused within the required time. Appellant contends that tfie trial court back-dated its endorsement refusing the bills.

It is elementary that a mere statement in an appellant’s brief is not suf*31ficient to impeach the record. See, Anderson v. State, 445 S.W.2d 752 (Tex.Cr.App.1969); Robertson v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 35, 322 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Cr.App. 1959); Lucas v. State, 216 S.W.2d 820 (Tex.Cr.App.1949). *No*bystanders’ bill appears in the record. Therefore, the bills are not before us for review.

Appellant complains by his seven remaining grounds of error that he was “denied a fair trial with the effective assistance of counsel.” In each ground he lists some act or omission by his trial counsel as evidence in support of contention.

The measure for determining whether a defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial is whether representation by counsel was so inadequate as to make the trial a farce and a mockery of justice. Foster v. Beto, 412 F.2d 892 (5th Cir. 1969); Campbell v. United States, 401 F.2d 894 (5th Cir. 1968); Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698 (5th Cir. 1965); Meeks v. State, 456 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Washington v. State, 450 S.W.2d 630 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). Applying this test to the instant case, we do not find that appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

That appellant’s counsel on appeal would have conducted the trial in a different manner does not mean that the trial counsel was ineffective. As was so aptly stated by the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit:

> “ * * * the fact that some other lawyer followed a different course in another case, or would have done differently had he been acting as counsel, is no ground for branding the appointed attorney with the opprobrium of ineffectiveness * * * or incompetency. The practice of law is an art as well as a science. As no two men can be exactly alike in the practice of the profession, it is basically unreasonable to judge an attorney by what another would have done, or says he would have done, in the better light of hindsight.” Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698, 706 (5th Cir. 1965), accord, Lucas v. State, 463 S.W.2d 200 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).

The judgment is affirmed.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1806 

To restore to the judiciary the power to decide all trademark and trade 

name cases arising under the laws and treaties of the United States 

by repealing the prohibition on recognition by United States courts 

of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade names, and commercial 

names and impediments to registration of such marks, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 17, 2007 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. BINGAMAN, and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To restore to the judiciary the power to decide all trademark 

and trade name cases arising under the laws and treaties 

of the United States by repealing the prohibition on 

recognition by United States courts of certain rights 

relating to certain marks, trade names, and commercial 

names and impediments to registration of such marks, 

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, 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1806 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Judicial Powers Res3 toration Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

5 The purpose of this Act is to restore to the judiciary 

6 the power to decide all trademark and trade name cases 

7 arising under the laws and treaties of the United States 

8 by repealing the prohibition on recognition by United 

9 States courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, 

10 trade names, and commercial names and impediments to 

11 registration of such marks. 

12 SEC. 3. REPEAL. 

13 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 211 of the Department of 

14 Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

15 1999 (as contained in section 101(b) of division A of Pub16 lic Law 105–277; 112 Stat. 2681–88) is repealed. 

17 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 30 days after the 

18 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treas19 ury shall issue such regulations as are necessary to carry 

20 out the repeal made by subsection (a), including removing 

21 or revoking any prohibition on transactions or payments 

22 to which subsection (a)(1) of section 211 of the Depart23 ment of Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations 

24 Act, 1999 applied. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 21, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.118.b Private Pension Funds Defined Benefit Plans** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 32

                    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 Annual Report of Java Express, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Lance Musicant,
Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of 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 results of
            operations of the Company.


Dated: July 14, 2004            /s/ Lance Musicant
                                --------------------------------------------
                                Lance Musicant,
                                Chief Executive and Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2   Certification of the Principal Accounting 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 the annual report of P2 Solar, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Raj-Mohinder S. Gurm, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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/ Raj-Mohinder S. GurmChief Financial Officer Date: July 14, 2010
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB**

**FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA**

Date: March 27, 2015 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of First National Bank of Omaha (the “Servicer”), pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB and Section 3.05(a) of the First Amended and Restated Transfer and Servicing Agreement, dated asof December 20, 2012, among First National Funding LLC, as Transferor, First National Bank of Omaha, as Servicer, and First National Master Note Trust, as Issuer (the “Transfer and Servicing Agreement”), does hereby certify that: 

1. A review of the activities of the Servicer from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”) andof its performance under the Transfer and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and 

2. To the best of my knowledge,based on my review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Transfer and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this Servicer Compliance Statement the day and year firstwritten above. 

 
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, as ServicerBy/s/ Timothy D. Hart
Timothy D. Hart

Senior VicePresident
Exhibit 10.48

Safety Insurance Group, Inc.  2002 Management Omnibus Incentive Plan, as Amended

This Amendment (the "Amendment") to the 2002 Management Omnibus Incentive Plan, as
amended (the "Plan"), effective as of August 4, 2010, is made by the Board of Directors of Safety Insurance Group, Inc. (the
"Company").

WHEREAS,
the Company maintains the Plan, and pursuant to Article 15 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company may alter, amend, suspend or terminate the Plan at any time;
and

WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors of the Company desires to amend the Plan so that it will have discretion to provide exceptions to the general prohibition on transferability of restricted
stock awards granted under the Plan.

NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by this Amendment, effective as of August 4, 2010, as follows:





---





QuickLinks