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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

              Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation Subsidiaries
              --------------------------------------------------

3007152 NOVA SCOTIA COMPANY
AUTOTRONIC SYSTEMS, INC.
BAY AREA PETROCHEMICALS COMPANY, L.L.C.
BELVEX, INC.
BIG DIAMOND, INC.
BIG DIAMOND NUMBER 1, INC.
BIOREMETEC INC.
CANADIAN ULTRAMAR COMPANY
CANADIAN ULTRAMAR HOLDING CORP.
COLONNADE ASSURANCE LIMITED
COLONNADE VERMONT INSURANCE COMPANY
COLORADO REFINING COMPANY
CORPORATE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC.
COYOTE FUNDING, L.L.C.
D-S MONT BELVIEU, INC.
D-S SYSTEMS, INC.
D-S UNITED, INC.
D-S VENTURE COMPANY, L.L.C.
D. S. E. PIPELINE COMPANY
D-K DIAMOND-KOCH, L.L.C.
DIAMOND-KOCH, L.P.
DIAMOND-KOCH II, L.P.
DIAMOND-KOCH III, L.P.
DIAMOND REFORMING, INC.
DIAMOND SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.
DIAMOND SHAMROCK ARIZONA, INC.
DIAMOND SHAMROCK BOLIVIANA, LTD.
DIAMOND SHAMROCK LEASING, INC.
DIAMOND SHAMROCK OF BOLIVIA, INC.
DIAMOND SHAMROCK PIPELINE COMPANY
DIAMOND SHAMROCK REFINING AND MARKETING COMPANY
DIAMOND SHAMROCK REFINING COMPANY, L.P.
DIAMOND SHAMROCK STATIONS, INC.
DSRM NATIONAL BANK
EASTERN CANADA RESPONSE CORPORATION LTD.
EMERALD CORPORATION
EMERALD MARKETING, INC.
EMERALD PIPE LINE CORPORATION
GEO WILLIAMSON FUELS LTD.
HANOVER PETROLEUM CORPORATION
INTEGRATED PRODUCT SYSTEMS, INC.
LA PORTE PIPELINE COMPANY, L.P.
LA PORTE PIPELINE GP, L.L.C.
METRO OIL CO.
NATIONAL CONVENIENCE STORES INCORPORATED
NATIONAL MONEY ORDERS INCORPORATED
NATURAL/TOTAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
OCEANIC TANKERS AGENCY LIMITED
PETRO/CHEM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
SCHEPPS FOOD STORES, INC.
SHAMROCK LOGISTICS GP, LLC
SHAMROCK LOGISTICS, L.P.
SHAMROCK LOGISTICS OPERATIONS, L.P.
SHAMROCK VENTURES, LTD.
SIGMOR BEVERAGE, INC.
<PAGE>

SIGMOR CORPORATION
SIGMOR NUMBER 5, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 11, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 24, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 43, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 79, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 80, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 103, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 105, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 111, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 119, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 125, I NC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 140, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 156, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 170, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 178, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 181, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 196, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 206, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 228, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 229, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 232, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 238, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 239, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 259, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 306, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 363, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 422, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 605, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 606, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 611, INC.
SIGMOR NUMBER 613, INC.
SIGMOR PIPELINE COMPANY
SKELLY-BELVIEU PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C.
SKIPPER BEVERAGE COMPANY, INC.
STOP 'N GO MARKETS OF GEORGIA, INC.
STOP 'N GO MARKETS OF TEXAS, INC.
SUNSHINE BEVERAGE COMPANY
TEXAS SUPER DUPER MARKETS, INC.
THE SHAMROCK PIPE LINE CORPORATION
TOC-DS COMPANY
TPI PETROLEUM, INC.
TPI PIPELINE CORPORATION
UDS CAPITAL I
UDS CAPITAL II
UDS CORPORATION
UDS FUNDING I, L.P.
UDS FUNDING II, L.P.
ULTRAMAR ACCEPTANCE INC.
ULTRAMAR CREDIT CORPORATION
ULTRAMAR D.S., INC.
ULTRAMAR ENERGY INC.
ULTRAMAR INC.
ULTRAMAR LTEE / ULTRAMAR LTD.
ULTRAMAR SERVICES, INC.
WEST EMERALD PIPE LINE CORPORATION
XCEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02307-WYD-KMT

JULIO ALVAREZ-CORTEZ;

LORENZA MORALES-ALVAREZ, individually and as next friend of H G-T, a minor and

V G-T, a minor; and

EMMANUEL RUIZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LOU VALLARIO, Sheriff of Garfield County, Colorado, in his individual capacity;

JANET NEPOLITANO, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in her

official capacity,

JESSE BURRIS, in his individual capacity,

JAMES MILLER, in his individual capacity,

BRIAN SUTTON, in his individual capacity,

DANIEL FITZGIBBONS, Supervisory Immigration Enforcement Agent, ICE, in his

individual capacity,

STEVE TURZA, an ICE Agent, in his individual capacity, and

CHRIS CARTER, an ICE Agent, in his individual capacity

Defendant(s).

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

This matter is before the Court on the Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice

(ECF No. 75). Having reviewed the stipulation and the case file, and being fully advised

in the premises, I find and order as follows:

IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation is approved. The instant case is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The parties are to pay their own costs and fees.
Dated: February 13, 2013

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

Wiley Y. Daniel

United States Senior District Judge
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





I,
Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
TierOne Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)
            The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
      2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
      78o(d)); and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








Date:  March
11,
2009                                                                                     By:/s/ Gilbert
G. Lundstrom


Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of the Board


and Chief Executive Officer
#### Charles David BUCKHOLTZ, Appellant, v. AUGUST, FRIMENT, GOREN & MURPHY, P. C., Appellee.

No. 4554.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Eastland.

June 23, 1972.

*881Green, Gilmore, Crutcher, Rothpletz & Burke, David A. Newsom, Dallas, for appellant.

Berman, Fichtner & Mitchell, Linda A. Whitley, Dallas, for appellee.

McCLOUD, Chief Justice.

This is a summary judgment case. August, Friment, Goren & Murphy, P. C., a professional corporation, sued Charles David Buckholtz on a Michigan divorce judgment which ordered Buckholtz to pay attorneys’ fees to August, Friment, Goren & Murphy. The trial court granted the professional corporation a summary judgment. Charles David Buckholtz has appealed. We affirm.

Appellant, Charles David Buckholtz, contends that the trial court erred in failing to take judicial notice of his discharge in bankruptcy. Appellee’s summary judgment evidence consisted of written interrogatories and answers, an affidavit, and requests for admissions of facts and genuineness of documents, which were deemed admitted by order of the court. Appellant filed no response to the motion for summary judgment.

Appellant, in his original answer, alleged that the debt had been discharged in bankruptcy and attached to his answer an exhibit which purports to be a copy of an order of discharge. Appellant’s pleadings cannot be regarded as summary judgment evidence. The Court in Kuper v. Schmidt, 161 Tex. 189, 338 S.W.2d 948 (1960), stated the rule as follows:

> “Defendants argued in the Court of Civil Appeals that summary judgment for the plaintiff was improper because they had alleged conditional delivery. There is no merit in this contention. When facts entitling the moving party to prevail have been established by affidavits, deposition testimony or admissions, the motion for summary judgment will not be denied merely because the opposite party has alleged matters which, if proved, would require that a different judgment be rendered. See Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. McBride, Tex., 322 S.W.2d 492. ... If the defendants expected to defeat the motion for summary judgment by showing an issue of fact as to whether the note was conditionally delivered, it was incumbent upon them to come forward with ‘evidence’ sufficient to raise that question.”

Appellant argues that at the summary judgment hearing he orally requested the trial court to take judicial notice of his discharge in bankruptcy. We do not think that such request alone would satisfy the rules regarding summary judgment proof. However, we do not reach that question because there is nothing in the record to show that such oral request was made by appellant.

We have considered all of appellant’s points of error and all are overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Order entered March 21, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-11-00490-CR

No. 05-11-00491-CR

No. 05-11-00492-CR

No. 05-11-00493-CR

DIONTE MATTHEWS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-51260-X, F07-73298-X, F08-51985-X, F10-00641-X

ORDER

Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and Lewis

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DIRECT the Clerk to issue the mandates in 

these appeals forthwith.

/s/ JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02636-WJM-CBS

STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAY H. WILLIAMS, an individual, and 

NEWTOWN TEN, INC., a Colorado corporation

Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulation (“Stipulation”)

(ECF No. 67). The Court having reviewed the Stipulation and all related exhibits,

pleadings and documents, and being fully advised in the premises, hereby ORDERS as

follows:

1. The Parties Motion for Judgment is GRANTED (ECF No. 69). 

2. Consistent with the Stipulation and pursuant to F.R.C.P 54, final judgment

is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and

severally, on Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief - Fraud related to Lien

Affidavit and Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief - Fraud related to Omnibus

Amendment for the total principal amount of $800,000.00, plus postjudgment interest from the date of the Settlement Agreement at the rate of

36% per annum (“Fraud Judgment”).

Case 1:11-cv-02636-WJM-CBS Document 76 Filed 11/14/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

3. Plaintiff shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs

incurred in attempting to collect and/or enforce the Fraud Judgment, which

fees and costs shall be added to and included in the judgment amount.

4. Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties and this Court’s Order approving

same, execution of the Fraud Judgment is stayed so long as Defendants

fulfil their payment obligation to Plaintiff.

5. The Clerk shall enter Final Judgment in accordance with this Order.

Dated this 14th day of November, 2013, nunc pro tunc 16th day of April, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________

William J. Martínez 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02636-WJM-CBS Document 76 Filed 11/14/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Scott Barek, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
      8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
      periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Corporate
      Backed Trust Certificates, Kinder Morgan Debenture-Backed Series 2002-6
      Trust (the "Trust");

2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
      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 as of
      the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
      to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the pooling and
      servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is
      included in these reports; and

4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Depositor
      and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and
      based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under
      that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the Depositor and
      Trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 26, 2008


/s/ Scott Barek
----------------------------------
Scott Barek, Senior Vice President
Order filed January 8, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00513-CV

____________

SUNCHASE AMERICAN, LTD, Appellant

V.

ELBERT WARNER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10CV3896-A

ORDER

Appellant's brief was due December 18, 2012. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant submits its brief, and a motion reasonably explaining why 

the brief was late, to the clerk of this court on or before February 7, 2013, the 

court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 31.2

                           ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

      I, David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, the Trustee in respect of the Corporate Backed Trust
Certificates, General Electric Capital Services Note-Backed Series 2002-5
Trust (the "Trust"), certify that:

    1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
        Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing
        reports of the Trust filed by Lehman ABS Corporation in respect of
        periods included in the year covered by this annual report of the
        Trust;

    2.  Based on my knowledge, the information in those reports, taken as a
        whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
        report;

    3.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be
        provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by the Trustee
        under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement for inclusion in
        such distribution reports is included in such reports; and

    4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Trustee
        under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and based on my
        knowledge, except as disclosed in such reports, the Trustee has
        fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

Date: March 27, 2006



      /s/ DAVID J. KOLIBACHUK
-----------------------------------
David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President
#### Rose Schrager et al., Plaintiffs, v. Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

June 14, 1957.

*605*William T. Granfield*for Milton Kurtz, defendant appearing specially.

*Dorsey <& Berko*for plaintiffs.

*William T. Granfield*for Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc., defendant.

Edgar J. Nathan, Jr., J.

Defendant, Kurtz, moves to set aside service of process effectuated pursuant to sections 52 and 52-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and to dismiss the complaint.

In the complaint plaintiff alleges in substance that Kurtz, the operator of a bus, stopped the vehicle on the highway and got out of the bus to chase unknown persons. As a result Kurtz collided with plaintiff causing her to be injured.

Defendant Kurtz, who left the State after the occurrence, contends that since the complaint discloses that the accident did not arise out of the operation of the bus, jurisdiction could not be obtained under the provisions of sections 52 and 52-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

Plaintiff does not claim that she was struck by the vehicle or that it was negligently operated. Obviously the accident did not grow out of the operation of the vehicle on the public highway within the meaning of section 52 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see *Brown*v. *Hertz Drivurself Stations,*203 Misc. 728; *Mulligan*v. *Jersey Truck Renters,*196 Misc. 828).

Accordingly, the motion is granted, the service of process on Kurtz vacated, and the complaint dismissed as to him.
#### Hachel HUTTON and Jack Hutton, Appellants, v. MADISON COUNTRY CLUB, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 19, 1973.

Thomas D. Shumate, Shumate, Shumate & Flaherty, Richmond, for appellants.

Charles R. Coy, Coy & Coy, Richmond, for appellee.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by

Special Commissioner HENRY M. GRIFFIN,

Affirming*

*

 Opinion ordered not to be published.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                               CERTIFICATE OF CEO

      I, Gary D. McGaha, Chief Executive Officer of Southern Community
Bancshares, Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, based on my knowledge:

      (1)   the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant, to which this
            certificate is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies
            with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)); and

      (2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Registrant.

Dated: March 31, 2005                 /s/ Gary D. McGaha
                                     ---------------------------------------
                                     Gary D. McGaha, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31


                                 CERTIFICATION


I, Richard Smitten, CEO and CFO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Stock Market Solutions,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. I am 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 we 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 is made known to us
by others within the Corporation, particularly during the period in which this
annual 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date:  April 12, 2005

                                        /s/ Richard Smitten
                                        ----------------------
                                        Richard Smitten
                                        CEO and CFO
**Exhibit32.2**

 

Certification of CFO under Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I certify that this periodic report containing theissuer’s financial statements fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) andthat information contained In this periodic report fairly presents in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theissuer.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ John F Coger                  |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | John F Coger                      |
|   |   | Executive Vice President, CFO/COO |
|   |   | March 11, 2005               |

 

----
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I,
James A. Krantz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Platinum Underwriters Holdings, Ltd., hereby certify to the best of my
knowledge and belief that this Annual Report on Form 10-K fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Platinum Underwriters Holdings,
Ltd.
 
 
 Date:
      February 25, 2009
              /s/
      James A. KrantzBy:
      James A. KrantzExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 31, 2018

No. 04-17-00849-CV

MCJAM, INC.,

Appellant

v.

CD AUTO SERVICE, INC.,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CV-04322

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellee’s second unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby 

GRANTED. Time is extended to August 1, 2018.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of July, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C.
        Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Radiant Logistics, Inc. (the "Company")
        hereby certifies that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
        period
        ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
        of
        Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: March 14, 2006By:
                /s/ Bohn H. CrainChief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer
 
 This
        certification is
        made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge
        standard set forth therein, and not for any other purpose. It is not being
        filed
        as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
 
 A
        signed original of
        this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Radiant
        Logistics, Inc and will be retained by Radiant Logistics, Inc and furnished
        to
        the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.