alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF ANR PIPELINE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                      State of
                                                                                                    Incorporation
                                                                                                    -------------
<S>                                                                                                   <C>
ANR Alliance Pipeline Company Canada, Inc.......................................................      Canada
ANR Alliance Pipeline Company U.S., Inc.........................................................      Delaware
ANR Atlantic Pipeline Company...................................................................      Delaware
ANR Capital Corporation.........................................................................      Delaware
ANR Energy Conversion Company...................................................................      Michigan
ANR Field Services Company......................................................................      Delaware
ANR Iroquois, Inc...............................................................................      Delaware
   Subsidiary:
     ANR New England Pipeline Company...........................................................      Delaware
ANR Mayflower Company...........................................................................      Delaware
ANR Southern Pipeline Company...................................................................      Delaware
American Natural Offshore Company...............................................................      Delaware
   Subsidiaries:
     Texas Offshore Pipeline System, Inc........................................................      Delaware
     Unitex Offshore Transmission Company.......................................................      Delaware
</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AMDL, 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a  15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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):
   Date: May 15, 2009
    /s/ Douglas C. MacLellanDouglas C. MacLellanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
AMDL, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 233 (Thursday, December 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 72057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28525]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Charter Renewal of the Commercial Space Transportation 
Advisory Committee (COMSTAC)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA announces the charter renewal of the COMSTAC, a 
Federal Advisory Committee that provides information, advice, and 
recommendations to the Department of Transportation and the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on the 
critical matters facing the U.S. commercial space transportation 
industry.

DATES: Effective Date: December 4, 2014. The effective date of the 
charter renewal is November 17, 2014, and will expire after 2 years.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Beavin, COMSTAC Executive 
Director, telephone (202) 267-9051; email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#264b4f454e47434a08444347504f486640474708414950"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd90949e959c9891d39f989c8b9493bd9b9c9cd39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>, FAA 
Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST-3), 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Room 331, Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), FAA is giving notice of the 
charter renewal for the COMSTAC. This charter renewal took effect on 
November 17, 2014, and will expire after 2 years.
    The primary goals of COMSTAC are to: Evaluate economic, 
technological, and institutional developments relating to the U.S. 
commercial space transportation industry; provide a forum for the 
discussion of problems involving the relationship between industry 
activities and government requirements; and make recommendations to the 
FAA Administrator on issues and approaches for Federal policies and 
programs regarding the industry.
    COMSTAC membership consists of senior executives from the 
commercial space transportation industry; representatives from the 
satellite industry, both manufacturers and users; state and local 
government officials; representatives from firms providing insurance, 
financial investment and legal services for commercial space 
activities; and representatives from academia, space advocacy 
organizations, and industry associations.
    Complete information regarding COMSTAC is available on the FAA Web 
site at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 24, 2014.
George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2014-28525 Filed 12-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
The Board of Directors of the Corporation adopted and approved the following
resolution amending Article Fourth of the Certificate of Incorporation:

     "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Article Fourth of the Certificate
of Incorporation is hereby amended by deleting the first paragraph of Article
Fourth in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

     'The total number of shares of the stock which the Corporation shall have
authority to issue is Eleven Million(11,000,000), consisting of Ten Million
(10,000,000) shares of common stock, $.05 par value per share (the Common
Stock), and One Million (1,000,000) shares of preferred stock, $.05 par value
per share (the Preferred Stock).  Upon November 18, 1992, each five
outstanding shares of Common Stock are combined, reconstituted and converted
into one share of Common Stock.'"
ixo-i* UA V<fcO.

COA# 08-11-00137-CR OFFENSE: 22.021

Gilbert Sanchez v. The State -''

STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: El Paso

COA DISPOSITION: Affirm

DATE: 6/20/2014

. TRIAL COURT: 120th District Court

Publish: No TC CASE #: 20100D02745

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

Gilbert Sanchez v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

APPELLAfJT^S Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEWIN CCA IS:

JUDGE: f.*^ L/sst^A-*^- _

CCA#:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE: _

SIGNED:.

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE: ___

Vol. Irf*

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR
11331.

#### Martin *v.*The State.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Indictment for larceny after trust; from Chatham superior court — Judge Meldrim. January 27, 1920.

The indictment charged larceny after trust of one automobile. In the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error it is contended that if the venue was proved, it was proved to be in Bulloch county, and not in Chatham county.

The material facts of the case were stated by the trial judge, in his judgment overruling the motion for a new trial, as follows: “ This is the ease of larceny of an automobile, and the only question is: Was the larceny committed in Chatham county? . . It appears that the prisoner hired an automobile in Savannah for five hours, to go to Marlow, Ga., and return. After the expiration of the five hours he telephoned that he would not return before 8 o’clock p. m. The next heard of him he was arrested in Jacksonville, Florida. He went to Statesboro and Douglas, Ga., Orlando, Florida, and thence to Jacksonville. In Jacksonville he went under the assumed name of Hughes. He had a suit-case in'the car. It is not probable that a person going from Savannah to Marlow and return, in October, to be gone five hours, would require a suitcase. For a man to start off for a neighborhood trip of five hours, and then go to Statesboro, thence to Douglas, spending two or three days there, then to Orlando, Florida, for a day or two, 'and then to'Jacksonville, where he is picked up by the police under the assumed name of Hughes, is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the intent to steal was formed in this county.”

*J. Hartridge Smith,*for plaintiff in error,

cited: 143 *Ga.*632 *305(3), 639; 86 *Ga.*800; 77 *Ga.*719; 97 *Ga.*330; 111 *Ga.*671; 119 *Ga.*868.

*304Luke, J.

Martin was convicted of the offense of larceny after trust. The sole question raised in the bill of exceptions is as to the proof of venue. The evidence amply authorized the jury to find that the defendant had the intent and did in Chatham county convert the property. The trial judge approved the verdict, and it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*

*305
      *Walter C. Hartridge, solicitor-general,*contra.
POWER OF ATTORNEY

      We, the undersigned directors of Mountain Fuel Supply Company,
hereby severally constitute D. N. Rose and S. E. Parks, and each of them
acting alone, our true and lawful attorneys, with full power to them and
each of them to sign for us, and in our names in the capacities
indicated below, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1996 and any and all
amendments to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by
Mountain Fuel Supply Company, hereby ratifying and confirming our
signatures as they may be signed by the attorneys appointed herein to
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1996 and any and all amendments to
such Report.

      Witness our hands on the respective dates set forth below.

     Signature                          Title              Date



 /s/ R. D. Cash                 Chairman of the Board     2-11-97
R. D. Cash



 /s/ D. N. Rose                   President & Chief       2-11-97
D. N. Rose                        Executive Officer
                                      Director


 /s/ R. H. Bischoff                   Director            2-11-97
R. H. Bischoff



 /s/ W. W. Hawkins                    Director            2-11-97
W. W. Hawkins



 /s/ R. E. Kadlec                     Director            2-11-97
R. E. Kadlec



 /s/ Dixie L. Leavitt                 Director            2-11-97
Dixie L. Leavitt



 /s/ Gary G. Michael                  Director            2-11-97
Gary G. Michael



 /s/ Harris H. Simmons                Director            2-11-97
Harris H. Simmons
#### Baskin *v.*Mosaic Templars of America

Opinion delivered April 9, 1928.

Judgment — injunction—meritorious defense. — An insurance society could not enjoin enforcement of a judgment recovered against it in a justice of the peace court on the ground that the judgment was rendered without proper service, where it did not allege that it had a valid defense on which the judgment was rendered.

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; *Frank FL. Dodge,*Chancellor;

reversed.

*Andrew J. Gilmer,*for appellant.

*Scipio A. Jones*and *Thomas J. Price,*for appellee.

Smith, J.

Appellee, a fraternal insurance society, brought this suit to enjoin the enforcement of a judgment recovered against it in the court of a justice of the peace in Conway County, upon the ground that the judgment was rendered without proper service being first had.

The complaint recited facts which, it is alleged, show that there had been no proper service of summons before the rendition of the judgment, but the complaint did not allege that there was a valid defense to the claim upon which the judgment was rendered. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and, as the judgment creditors stood on the demurrer and refused to plead further, the relief prayed was granted and the enforcement of the judgment was enjoined, and this appeal is from that decree.

The case of *Rotan*v. *Springer,*52 Ark. 80, 12 S. W. 156, was one in which the enforcement of a judgment was *941sought to he enjoined upon the ground that it had been rendered without notice, and it was there said: “The plaintiff offered no suggestion of a defense to the claim upon which the judgment which he sought to enjoin was based. His complaint therefore stated no cause of action *(State*v. *Hill,*50 Ark. 458, 8 S. W. 401), and the court did not err'in sustaining the demurrer.

The doctrine of that case has been followed many times since. *Horn*v. *Hull,*169 Ark. 463, 275 S. W. 905; *McDonald Land Co.*v. *Shapleigh Hdw. Co.,*163 Ark. 524, 260 S. W. 445; *Derringer*v. *Stevens,*145 Ark. 293, 225 S. W. 14; *Renfroe*v. *Parmelee,*143 Ark. 547, 220 S. W. 816; *Williams*v. *Alexander,*140 Ark. 442, 215 S. W. 721; *Baxter County Bank*v. *Davis,*137 Ark. 459, 208 S. W. 797; *Sovereign Camp W. O. W.*v. *Wilson,*136 Ark. 546, 207 S. W. 45; *Osborne*v. *Lawrence,*123 Ark. 447, 185 S. W. 774; *Robinson*v. *Ark. Loan & Trust Co.,*74 Ark. 292, 85 S. W. 413.

The demurrer to the complaint should therefore have been sustained, and the decree of the court below will be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to sustain the demurrer.
NIST Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical 

Systems Newsletter

March 31, 2015

• Next Week is the Cyber-Physical Systems Public Working Group (CPS PWG) Face-to-Face 

Meeting

• June 1, 2015: Save the Date for the Global City Teams Challenge Summit

Next Week is the Cyber-Physical Systems Public Working 

Group (CPS PWG) Face-to-Face Meeting

The second face-to-meeting of the NIST CPS PWG will be held April 7-8, 2015, at NIST in 

Gaithersburg, Maryland. The workshop will review the integrated CPS Framework being 

developed in phase two of the CPS PWG. The workshop will also serve as the launchpad for phase 

three of the CPS PWG, which will focus on development of CPS Roadmap(s) of opportunities and 

time schedules for coordinated work to address key technical challenges.

The meeting agenda is now available online.

Registration is closing at 12:00 noon (EDT) on Thursday; please click here to register. The event 

will be free and open to the public for in-person attendance. However, the NIST campus is a secure 

facility, so you will need to register online in advance. If you are not registered, you will not be 

allowed on site. Registered attendees will receive security and campus instructions prior to the 

workshop.

Some attendees may want to extend their Washington D.C. visit to take advantage of the nowunderway National Cherry Blossom Festival, billed as “The Nation’s Greatest Springtime 

Celebration.” (See http://www.nationalcherryblossomfestival.org for more details.) Visitor 

information for the NIST campus, including transportation options from local airports and lists of 

local hotels and restaurants, can be found at this website: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/

The CPS Public Working Group (CPS PWG) was established by NIST in 2014 to foster and capture 

inputs from those involved in CPS, both nationally and globally. Realizing the future promise of 

CPS will require interoperability between elements and systems, supported by new reference 

architectures and common definitions and lexicons. Addressing the problems and opportunities of 

CPS requires broad collaboration to develop a consensus around these concepts, and a shared 

understanding of the essential roles of timing and cybersecurity. For more information about the 

PWG and its five subgroups, visit the CPS PWG collaboration website.

June 1, 2015: Save the Date for the Global City Teams 

Challenge Summit

The culminating event of this year’s Global City Teams Challenge (GCTC) is coming on June 1, 

2015, in Washington, D.C. Save the date! More details will be available very soon on the NIST 

CPS website and on the GCTC Summit event page at the US IGNITE website.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Elizabeth H. Davila, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
of VISX, Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004
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 Quarterly Report
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of VISX, Incorporated.

                                                        /s/Elizabeth H. Davila
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Elizabeth H. Davila
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                                        May 6, 2004

I, Derek A. Bertocci, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
of VISX, Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004
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 Quarterly Report
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of VISX, Incorporated.

                                                        /s/Derek A. Bertocci
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Derek A. Bertocci
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                                        May 6, 2004
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Renault Ross 

Thursday, November 29, 2018 3:01 PM

privacyframework

Submission for RFI

Great overview of the program initiative, this is much needed in the industry both public and private sector are creating Chief Privacy Officer roles and 

having more guidance on the privacy outcome 

to help them build programs around would be well-received. 

CSF project was very successful and easy to understand so one piece of feedback is not to reinvent the wheel. So leveraging a similar structure of 

“Functions, Categories, Sub Categories and Informative References” would be 

easy to follow since this structure is well cemented in our mind. 

Informative references would map to other existing privacy framework for more prescriptive execution. 

So your workshop efforts would be what would be the functions, Cat, etc. and continue with workshops on the comprehensive buildout 

1
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IMPROVED SEARCH LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATIO N, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2019

- 1961

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 1:16

- cv

- 00650

- JFB

- SRF, Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

R OBERT Y ORIO , Carr & Ferrell LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

C ONSTANTINE L. T RELA

, J R

. , Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by R ICHARD A LAN C EDEROTH ; S COTT B ORDER

, J OSEPH A.

M ICALLEF , Washington, DC.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is Case: 19-1961 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 07/13/2020O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge

, R EYNA and

H UGHES

, Circuit Judg es ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 13, 2020

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 19-1961 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 07/13/2020
Order filed October 3, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00743-CV

____________

GENESIS PRODUCING COMPANY, LP, Appellant

V.

SMITH BIG OIL CORPORATION, TODD D. SMITH AND JAMES A. 

WHITSON, JR., Appellees

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-30652

O R D E R

This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 19, 2013. The notice of 

appeal was due August 19, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant, however, 

filed his notice of appeal on August 21, 2013, a date within 15 days of the due date 

for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied

when the perfecting instrument is filed within fifteen days of its due date. Verburgt 

v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to 
extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, 

appellant is still obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to 

support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 

S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to 

file the notice of appeal on or before 10 days after the date of this order. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 26.3;10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will 

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 23.1**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-19011, No. 333-71373, No. 333-42276, No. 333-45534, No.333-73652, No. 333-89176, and No. 333-141458), and on Form S-3 (No. 333-138023, No. 333-134666, No. 333-130977,No. 333-130423, No. 333-129141, No. 333-128020, No. 333-128019, No. 333-123902, No. 119645, No. 333-102244,  No.333-76432 No. 333-69652 No. 333-33612, No. 333-89257, No. 333-84587, No. 333-81311, No. 333-79753, No. 333-76395, andNo. 333-141454) of Microvision, Inc. of our report dated March 12, 2008 relating to the financial statements,financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, whichappears in this Form 10-K.
/s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Seattle, Washington