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





Deer
Consumer Products, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009





Name
                    
                    Jurisdiction of Incorporation
                    
                    Percentage Owned by CompanyDeer
      International Group Ltd.
                    
                    British
      Virgin Islands
                    
                    
                    100
                    %Winder
      Electric Group Ltd.
                    
                    People’s
      Republic of China
                    
                    
                    *
                    (1)Delta
      International Limited
                    
                    People’s
      Republic of China
                    
                    
                    *
                    (2)





(1)
Winder Electric Group Ltd. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deer International
Group Ltd.


(2) Delta
International Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Winder Electric Group
Ltd.
Exhibit 32.1

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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Axesstel, Inc. (the Company), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such report.

Dated: March 25, 2010



/s/    H. CLARK
HICKOCKH. Clark Hickock, Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: March 25, 2010



/s/    PATRICK
GRAYPatrick Gray, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Doyle *et al. v.*Beaupre *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, N. D. New York.*

July 25, 1889.)

Removal op Causes—Time op Application.

Under act Cong. March 3, 1887, (as corrected by act Aug. 13, 1888, 25 St. at Large, 433,) giving a right of removal “at the time or any time before defendant is required by the laws of the state or the rule of the state court” to plead to the complaint, where defendant under the Code of Civil Procedure of New York was compelled to answer by October 10th an application for removal made November 19th, was too late, though under section 542 defendant might have filed an amended answer during that time.

At Law. Application to remand cause.

*John N. Becklay,*for plaintiffs.

*Townsend, Dyett & Einstein,*for defendants.

Coxe, J.

The plaintiffs are citizens of New York; the defendants of Minnesota. The action was commenced in the supreme court of this state to recover $1,250. The complaint was served August 31, 1888. Under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure the time to answer this complaint expired October 10, 1888. An answer containing a counter-claim for $3,000 was served October 7th. The plaintiffs served a reply to this answer October 11th. The cause was removed to this court November 19, 1888. The plaintiffs now move to remand upon the ground, *inter alia,*that the removal was too late. In this position they are right. The provision of the Code (section 542) permitting pleadings to be amended does not aid the defendants. The language of the act of March 3, 1887, (corrected by the act of August 13, 1888, 25 St. at Large, 433,) which provides that the cause may he removed to the circuit court “at the time or any time before the defendant is required by the laws of the state or the rule of the state court in which such suit is brought to answer or plead to the declaration or complaint of the plaintiff, ” is clear and explicit. It cannot be construed to mean that the cause may he removed at any time before the expiration of an indefinite period contingent upon an answer containing a demand for affirmative relief and a reply thereto. The time to answer the complaint expired October 10th. In default of an answer on that day the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment. An answer having been served, the removal, 40 days afterwards, was too late, notwithstanding the fact that during that period the defendants might have served an amended answer *Manley y. Olney,*32 Fed. Rep. 708; *Dwyer*v. *Peshall,*Id. 497; *Railroad Co.*v. *Houston,*Id. 711; *Wedekind*v. *Southern Pac. Co.,*36 Fed. Rep. 279; *Coal Co.*v. *Waller,*37 Fed. Rep. 545; *Hurd*v. *Gere,*38 Fed. Rep. 537; *Lockhart*v. *Railroad Co.,*Id. 274; *Dixon*v. *Telegraph Co.,*Id. 377; *Kaitel*v. *Wylie,*Id. 865. The motion to remand is granted.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30793]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ15-5-000]


City of Anaheim, California; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 15, 2014, City of Anaheim, California 
submits tariff filing per 35.28(e): City of Anaheim 2015 Transmission 
Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment Update to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ec8cbdccdc1e0e2e7e0ebddfbfefee1fcfacee8ebfceda0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="adebe8ffeee2c3c1c4c3c8fed8ddddc2dfd9edcbc8dfce83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 5, 2015.

    Dated: December 24, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30793 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BancTec, Inc, a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, J.Coley Clark, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ J. Coley Clark                     |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |
| J. Coley Clark                         |
| President and Chief Executive  Officer |
|                                   |
| May 15, 2007                           |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by 18 USC Section 1350 has been provided to the Company and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramone Walker, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 869]

— Appeal from a *1424judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), rendered January 4, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]). The waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution *(see People v Thousand,*96 AD3d 1439, 1439-1440 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 1002 [2012]) and, moreover, that challenge is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; *People v Nelson,*105 AD3d 1389, 1390 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1044 [2013]). The waiver of the right to appeal also encompasses defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe *(see generally People v Maracle,*19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Garni and Whalen, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                      PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


I, Raghu Kilambi, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Swiss
Medica, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that:

      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Swiss Medica, Inc.

      Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report.

      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of,
and for, the periods, presented in the report.

      I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company
and have:

     (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me
          by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which the periodic report is being prepared;

     (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'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 quarterly report based on such
          evaluation; and

     (c)  disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Company's
          internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
          Company's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or
          is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

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

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

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



Dated:  November 13, 2003



/s/ Raghu Kilambi
---------------------------
Raghu Kilambi
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

EVANS DEWAYNE SCRUGGS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

vs. ) Civil No. 14-0339-CG-B 

) 

BERG SPIRAL PIPE CORP., ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

FINAL JUDGMENT 

 In accordance with the Order granting in part the Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT is 

entered in favor of Defendant, Berg Spiral Pipe Corp, and against Plaintiff, Evans 

Dewayne Scruggs, with respect to Count II of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. It is, 

therefore, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s claim for race discrimination is hereby 

DISMISSED with prejudice. 

 The parties having filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 

40) on September 9, 2015, it is ORDERED that all remaining claims in this matter 

are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. Each party shall bear his or its own 

costs and fees. 

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of September, 2015. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00339-CG-B Document 41 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                             20,093
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      39,967
<ALLOWANCES>                        2,000
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   63,634
<PP&E>                            120,605
<DEPRECIATION>                     29,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    162,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              58,974
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                              258
<OTHER-SE>                        (15,958)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      162,233
<SALES>                           153,101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  154,105
<CGS>                             119,586
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     195,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 16,163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (57,073)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (57,073)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    (2,430)
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (59,503)
<EPS-BASIC>                       (3.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (3.01)


</TABLE>
#### G & T Terminal Packaging Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, v Western Growers Association et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 22, 2008;

decided February 11, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. NJ15-10-000]

Take notice that on December 22, 2014, City of Azusa, California submits tariff filing per 35.28(e): City of Azusa 2015 Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment and Existing Transmission Contracts Update to be effective 1/1/2015.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

*Comment Date:* 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 12, 2015.

Dated: December 24, 2014.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-30795 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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


The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and may not be relied upon or used
for any other purposes.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Access
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephen B. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge (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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 or other document authenticating, 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 the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Signed at the City of  Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 17th
day of May, 2004.

/s/ Stephen B. Thompson
------------------------
Stephen B. Thompson
Chief Financial Officer
#### WEXCO INDUSTRIES, Appellants v. ADM21 CO. LTD; Pennzoil-Quaker State Co. d/b/a Sopus Products; Shell Lubricants U.S.

Nos. 05-4853, 05-5174.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Dec. 6, 2007.

Filed: Jan. 9, 2008.

Michael S. Kimm, Kimm, Grant & Weinhaus, Hackensack, NJ, for Appellant.

Before: McKEE, CHAGARES and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

McKEE, Circuit Judge.

Michael S. Kimm, counsel for ADM21, appeals the district court’s denial of his application for an order to show cause to obtain certain client papers from Robert I. Choo, prior counsel to ADM21. Because we lack jurisdiction, we will dismiss this appeal.

We have frequently stated, as a rule, “discovery orders are not final orders of the district court for purposes of obtaining appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” *Backer v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*211 F.3d 52, 53 (3d Cir.2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). There is, however, a narrow exception to this rule “when a party appeals a discovery order involving information which the party claims to be privileged or to constitute a trade secret.” *Id.*

Kimm argues that we have jurisdiction “under 28 U.S.C.A. 1291 and the Collateral Order doctrine as construed in *Ba,cher[*].” Appellant’s Br. at 1. We disagree. The mere denial of ADM21’s application does not immediately implicate the disclosure of any documents purportedly protected by attorney-client privilege.

Unfortunately, the sparse record provided to this court has forced us to scour the docket entries from the district court to piece together the history of this dispute.* It appears from the remarkably scanty record before us that Kimm sent a “letter-application” to the district court requesting that the court order Choo to turn over certain client papers. Choo responded with a “declaration” alleging that Kimm already had his client’s papers and denying many of the allegations in Kimm’s letter. *451Choo also alleged that he is still owed legal fees. Those allegations are consistent with a Petition for Lien that Choo filed on January 17, 2006.

Based upon our review of this case, it is clear that this appeal arises out of Kimm’s dispute with Choo, and that questions of disputed fact continue to surround that dispute. Given this posture, there is no final order to appeal from. Accordingly, we can not now address the issue ADM21 attempts to raise.

We therefore must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. However, we will do so without prejudice to Kimm’s right to apply to the district court for whatever relief that court may deem appropriate together with whatever protective orders that court may deem necessary to protect any privilege that may apply to the disputed client papers.

*

 Appellant has not even provided a copy of the order appealed from. Rather, we have had to search the docket entries to see that an order was entered on October 5, 2005, “DENYING ADM21 Co., Ltd's appl. for an OTSC.” We assume from this that the district court interpreted ADM21’s July 26, 2005, letter as a motion for a Rule to Show Cause.