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

                                                                     Voting
                                                 Where             Securities
                                                 Incorporated        Owned
                                                 ------------        -----

Marines C.A. (7)                                 Ecuador            100%(1)
Maderas Secas C.A. (Maseca) (3)                  Ecuador            100%(1)
Ecuatoriana de Crustaceos, S.A.(4)               Ecuador            100%(1)
Balmanta S.A. (3)                                Ecuador            100%(1)
Productos del Pacifico, S.A.                     Ecuador            100%(1)
Frabepasa S.A. (8)                               Ecuador            100%(1)
Compania Ecuatoriana de Balsa, S.A.              Ecuador            100%(1)
Servicios Contables, S.A.(6)                     Ecuador            100%(1)
Vanalarva, S.A.(7)                               Ecuador            100%(1)
Tecnicos Del Centro Tedece S.A.(2)               Ecuador            100%(1)
Balsa Ecuador Lumber Corporation                 New Jersey         100%
Balsa Development Corporation                    New Jersey         100%
Sanlam Corporation                               New York           100%
Baltek, S.A.                                     France             100%(1)
Baltek, Ltd.                                     Great Britain      100%(1)
Pacific Timber Ltd.(5)                           Great Britain      100%(1)
Cryogenic Structures Corporation                 Delaware            94%
Baltek GmbH                                      Germany            100%
Plantaciones De Balsa, S.A.                      Ecuador            100%(1)
Baltek Foreign Sales Corporation                 U.S. Virgin
                                                 Islands            100%
Crustacea Corporation                            Delaware           100%
Fomentadora De Balsa, S.A.                       Ecuador            100%(1)
Futuracorp. S.A. (2)                             Ecuador            100%(1)
Baltek Scandinavia Aps (9)                       Denmark            100%

<PAGE>

(1) Includes  qualifying shares in the names of individuals  associated with the
    Company.

(2) Wholly-owned by Maderas Secas C.A., Balmanta,  S.A., Compania Ecuatoriana de
    Balsa, S.A., Productos del Pacifico, S.A. and Servicios Contables, S.A.

(3) Wholly-owned  by Products del  Pacifico,  S.A. and Compania  Ecuatoriana  de
    Balsa, S.A.

(4) Wholly-owned by Maderas Secas, C.A., Balmanta,  S.A., Baltek Corporation and
    Marines C.A.

(5) Wholly-owned by Baltek Ltd.

(6) Wholly-owned by Compania  Ecuatoriana de Balsa,  S..A.,  Maderas Secas C.A.,
    Balmanta, S.A., and Productos del Pacifico, S.A.

(7) Wholly-owned by Ecuatoriana de Crustaceos, S.A., and Baltek Corporation.

(8) Wholly-owned by Servicios Contables, S.A.

(9) Wholly-owned by Baltek, S.A.


         The above  subsidiaries  are  included  in the  Company's  consolidated
financial statements.
Loft 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 14, 2015

No. 04-15-00267-CV

Dolores REYNOSO and Juan Reynoso,

Appellants

v.

LOFT CONCEPTS, INC.,

Appellee

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

Trial Court No. 2015CV00936

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellee filed a motion asking this court to review the sufficiency of appellant Dolores 

Reynoso’s supersedeas bond and of the sureties on the bond. We abated the appeal for the trial 

court to conduct a hearing and make findings of fact on the issues raised. 

A supplemental record containing an agreed order signed by the trial court has been filed. 

The “Agreed Order on Defendant’s Supersedeas Bond” states that Reynoso’s bond complies 

with all legal requirements and has been approved by the Bexar County Clerk, and further states 

that the sureties are solvent and sufficient. 

We reinstate the appeal on the active docket of the court. Because the parties have 

agreed as to the sufficiency of the bond and sureties, we take no further action on appellee’s 

motion.

Appellants have requested a reporter’s record, but the record has not been filed. In 

accordance with our order dated July 7, appellants must file written proof in this court by July 

17, 2015, that they have paid or have made arrangements satisfactory to the reporter to pay the 

reporter’s fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b)(3). If appellants fail to file such proof within the time 

provided, appellants’ brief will be due August 6, 2015, and the court will consider only those 

issues or points raised in the brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 32**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the following certifications arebeing made to accompany the Registrant’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thefiscal quarter ended January 27, 2007:**

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer(1)**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of NeimanMarcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i) the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended January 27, 2007 (theReport) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                       |   |                                        |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
| Dated: March 7,  2007 |   | /s/    BURTON M. TANSKY |
|                  |   | Burton M. Tansky                            |
|                  |   | President and Chief Executive Officer       |

 

** **

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer(1)**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of NeimanMarcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Companyfor the fiscal quarter ended January 27, 2007 (the Report) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
|                      |   |                                              |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: March 7, 2007 |   | /s/    JAMES E. SKINNER       |
|                 |   | James E. Skinner                                  |
|                 |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----

(1)A signedoriginal for this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto Neiman Marcus, Inc. and will be retained by Neiman Marcus, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3473 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.3473

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize advances from Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADVANCES FROM OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND FOR DEEPWATER 
HORIZON OIL SPILL.
    Section 6002(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2752) 
is amended in the second sentence--
        (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Coast Guard''; and
        (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: 
    ``and (2) in the case of the discharge of oil that began in 2010 in 
    connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, the mobile 
    offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, may, without further 
    appropriation, obtain 1 or more advances from the Fund as needed, 
    up to a maximum of $100,000,000 for each advance, with the total 
    amount of all advances not to exceed the amounts available under 
    section 9509(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and within 
    7 days of each advance, shall notify Congress of the amount 
    advanced and the facts and circumstances necessitating the 
    advance''.
SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that 
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
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



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Dreams, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Ross Tannenbaum, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



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



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



|    |  |                            
|--- |  | ---------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Ross Tannenbaum        
|    |  | Ross Tannenbaum            
|    |  | Principal Executive Officer
|    |  | July 14, 2005
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                  |   |                                                      |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |   |                                                      |   |
| Date:  August 14,      2008 | By:    | /s/ Arthur      W. Budich                            |   |
|                                  |   | Arthur      W. Budich                                     |   |
|                                  |   | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                  |   |                                                      |   |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: JUAN CARLOS BERMUDEZ,

 Relator.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00200-CV

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus 

against the Honorable Laura Strathmann, Judge of the 388th District Court of El Paso County, 

Texas, and concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We 

therefore deny the petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2015.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Rodriguez, J., dissenting
[987 NE2d 631, 965 NYS2d 71]

#### Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP, Appellant, v Duane Reade et al., Respondents.

Decided March 26, 2013

*1083APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP,*New York City *(Aaron H. Marks*of counsel), for appellant.

*McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP,*New York City *(Charles E. Dorkey, III,*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs. The courts below did not err as a matter of law in dismissing the complaint *(see Innophos, Inc. v Rhodia, S.A.,*10 NY3d 25, 30 [2008]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera.
@article{1214956,
  author = {Bruce D. Ravel and Trevor Tyson and Han Zhang and Sizhan Liu and SANJIT GHOSE and U.J. Idehenre and Yury Barnakov and S.A. Basun and D.R. Evans},
  title = {Structural Origin of Recovered Ferroelectricity in BaTiO3 Nanoparticles},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-24 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Physical Review B},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936037},
  language = {en},
}
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JAVIER PONCE CASTELLON, a.k.a.

Harvey Castellon,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 14

- 50213

D.C. No. 8:98

- cr

- 00143

- DDP

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017 **

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Javier Ponce Castellon appeals from the district court’s order denying his

pro se motion to reopen , which challenged his conviction and sentence for multiple

drug trafficking offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

vacate and remand.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CL ERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 50213

Caste llon contends that the district court erred by failing to recharacterize his

motion to reopen as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and order ing the government to

respond. The district court’s order denying Castellon’s motion to reopen does not

disclose the basis for its decision. However, the court may have mistakenly

believed, based on a docketing error, that in 2005

, a section 2255 motion had been

filed on Castellon’s behalf and denied on the merits. Because the relief Castellon

sought in his motion to reopen is available only through a section 2255 motion and

he has not filed a first section 2255 motion, we vacate and remand with

instructions that the district court evaluate Castellon’s motion a s one arising under

section 2255

. See United States v. Eatinger

, 902 F.2d 1383, 1385 (9th Cir. 1990). 1

We express no opinion as to the merits of Castel lon’s claims

.

VACATED and REMANDED.

1 Recharacterized as a section 2255 habeas, Castellon’s motion appears to be

untimely. Any such finding, however, cannot be made until the district court

follows the procedures set forth in Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375, 383

(2003).
I^WrOJ

Donald Margraves

TDGJ #1585203

Dalhart Unit

11950 FM 998

Dalhart, Texas 79022

To: Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station Date: 7/2/2015

Austin, Texas 78711

Re: Tr. Ct. No. 007-0405-09-D/WR-73,204-06

Dear Clerk Acosta,

I filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in this Court that was

DISMISSED without written order, on 6/3/2015. I then filed an Appealcdf the Cou

rt's Decision to Dismiss 11.07 Application as Subsequent, and Request for Hear

ing En Banc. I received a 'white card' advising me that that motion was DENIED

on 6/23/2015. No paperwork was supplied by the Court telling me why the motion

was denied; no Order or any explanationijof the reason(s) why the motion was

denied. Would you please send me the Court's Order or opinion why the motion

was denied, if this is possible. I would like to know why the Court made the

decision it made, please. In my motion, I used ONLY case law previously decided

by the Honorable Court; precedent case law still referred to today. I don't

understand why the Court publishes decisions and/opinions about other cases

and then doesn't follow those decisions later, as the case in question.

Thank you for any explanation you can provide, whether an Order of the

Court or opinion of the Court in my case. Your cooperation will be greatly

appreciated as this answer will also help me in filing additional paperwork

on my next level. Again, thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Respectfully,

Donald Margraves #1585203„„.„

jul io m
@misc{105181,
  author = {Bettye Johnson and Howard Yoon and Sally Bruce and Ping-Shine Shaw and E Thompson and S Hooker and R Barnes and R Eplee and S Maritorena and J Mueller},
  title = {The Fifth SeaWiFS Intercalibration Round-Robin Experiment (SIRREX-S), July 1996},
  year = {1999},
  number = {7},
  month = {1999-10-01},
  publisher = {SeaWiFs Postlaunch Technical Report Series},
  language = {en},
}
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-20064

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE AGUIRRE-GALLEGOS, also known as Celso 

Gallegos, also known as Jose Aguirre-Gallego,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CR-477-1

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

March 13, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Aguirre-Gallegos (“Aguirre”) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction of unlawful reentry into the United States following a

prior deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). 

For the first time on appeal, Aguirre contends that the

district court failed to comply with FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(1) at

his rearraignment when it failed to advise him about the

Sentencing Guidelines’ impact on his sentence. Although it is

true that the district court failed to comply with this aspect of
No. 00-20064

-2-

Rule 11(c)(1), any error was harmless because the court did

inform Aguirre of the statutory maximum prison term, and there is

no allegation by Aguirre or indication in the record that the

court’s failure to mention the Guidelines affected Aguirre’s

willingness of plead guilty. See Rule 11(h); United States v.

Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 298, 302 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.1


AMERALIA,
INC.
 
 Certification
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
 Principal
Executive Officer
 
 To my
knowledge: the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2007,
containing financial statements for the period then ended, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and the
information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AmerAlia, Inc.
for the periods presented.
 
 
 July 18,
2008
 
 
 /s/ Bill H
Gunn
 Bill H.
Gunn
 Principal
Executive Officer
 
 
 Certification
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
 Principal
Financial Officer
 
 To my
knowledge: the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2007,
containing financial statements for the period then ended, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and the
information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AmerAlia, Inc.
for the periods presented.
 
 
 July 18,
2008
 
 
  /s/ Robert van
Mourik
 Robert
C.J. van Mourik
 Principal
Financial Officer