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

BALTEK CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
Subsidiaries of Registrant
December 31, 2001
                                                              Voting
                                           Where              Securities
                                           Incorporated       Owned

Balmanta S.A. (2)                          Ecuador            100%
Compania Ecuatoriana de Balsa, S.A.        Ecuador            100%
Maderas Secas C.A. (2)                     Ecuador            100%
Marines C.A.(6)                            Ecuador            100%
Plantaciones De Balsa, S.A. (3)            Ecuador            100%
Productos del Pacifico, S.A.               Ecuador            100%
Recorcholis, S.A. (8)                      Ecuador            100%
Servicios Contables, S.A. (5)              Ecuador            100%
Balsa Ecuador Lumber Corporation           New Jersey         100%
Balsa Development Corporation              New Jersey         100%
Sanlam Corporation                         New York           100%
Baltek Foreign Sales Corporation           U.S. Virgin
                                           Islands            100%
Crustacea Corporation                      Delaware           100%
Cryogenic Structures Corporation           Delaware           94%   (1)
Baltek International Corporation           Delaware           100%
Baltek Mercosur, L.L.C.                    New Jersey         100%
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21
                                   (Continued)

BALTEK CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
Subsidiaries of Registrant
December 31, 2001
                                                           Voting
                                           Where           Securities
                                           Incorporated    Owned
Pacific Timber Ltd. (4)                    Great Britain   100% (1)
Baltek GmbH                                Germany         100% (1)
Baltek, S.A.                               France          100% (1)
Baltek, Ltd.                               Great Britain   100% (1)
Baltek Scandinavia Aps (7)                 Denmark         100% (1)

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

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

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

(4)  Wholly-owned by Baltek Ltd.

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

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

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

(8)  Wholly-owned by Marines C.A.

The above  subsidiaries  are included in the  Company's  consolidated  financial
statements.
July 14, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KEVIN COLE, YOLANDA FELDER AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, 

Appellant

NO. 14-15-00200-CV V.

AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT PROPERTIES ONE LLC, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on February 3, 2015. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Kevin Cole, Yolanda Felder and all other Occupants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 16, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00518-CR

HERBERT LERELLE ELLIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1440999

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance. In 

accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial 

court sentenced appellant to confinement for 15 years in the Institutional Division 

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We dismiss the appeal. 

The trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in 

which the court certified that this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no 
2

right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is 

included in the record on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports 

the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Exhibit
32.2





Certification of Principal
Financial Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Scout Acquisition, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott Baily, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





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





/s/ Scott BailyScott
      BailyPrincipal
      Financial OfficerMay
      13, 2009
Exhibit
32.2





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 BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Randall H. Breitenbach, Co-Chief Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the
general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 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
Partnership.





/s/ RANDALL H.
  BREITENBACHRandall
      H. BreitenbachCo-Chief
      Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLCDated:  May
      8, 2009
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Charles Michel, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the report of Entech Solar, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operation of Entech Solar, Inc.



By:

/s/ Charles MichelName:

Charles MichelTitle:

Principal Financial Officer


Dated: April 28, 2010

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K/A pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.



35
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  By:
    /S/ Joshua G. JamesDate: May 8, 2008
    
    Name:
    Joshua G. JamesTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  By:
    /S/ Michael S. HerringDate: May 8, 2008
    
    Name:
    Michael S. HerringTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) A signed original of each of the written statements above required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Omniture, Inc. and will be retained by Omniture,
Inc. and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 The forgoing certifications are being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an
exhibit to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, and
they shall not be considered filed as part of such report
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06-15-00011-CV

David Eugene Rivard

v.

The State of Texas

(No. 47,493; 47,676 IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF FANNIN COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

CLERK'S RECORD

FILING

$10.00

$0.00

$195.00

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

DAVID E. RIVARD

DAVID E. RIVARD

DAVID E. RIVARD

Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE 

STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct 

copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, 

as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 

witness my hand and the Seal of 

the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Sixth District of Texas, this 

July 17, 2015.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___________________________

Deputy
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 121 (Thursday, June 25, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15014]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 210 and 229

[Release Nos. 33-8934A; 34-58028A; File No. S7-06-03]
RIN 3235-AJ64


Technical Amendment; Internal Control Over Financial Reporting in 
Exchange Act Periodic Reports of Non-Accelerated Filers

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rules; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: We are extending the effectiveness of Sec.  210.2-02T 
published in 71 FR 47059 (August 15, 2006) and Sec.  229.308T published 
in 71 FR 76595 (December 21, 2006) and amended in 73 FR 38099 (July 2, 
2008) through June 30, 2010. The effective dates for the other sections 
of the July 2, 2008 document remain as published.

DATES: Effective Date: The effectiveness of Sec. Sec.  210.2-02T and 
229.308T, which currently terminates on June 30, 2009, is extended 
through June 30, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Harrison, Special Counsel, Office 
of Rulemaking, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3430, U.S. 
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20549-3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This technical amendment does not affect the 
effective date for compliance by a non-accelerated filer with the rules 
implementing Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Under 
the amendments previously adopted in Release No. 33-8934, a non-
accelerated filer is required to file the auditor's attestation report 
on internal control over financial reporting when it files an annual 
report for a fiscal year ending on or after December 15, 2009. The sole 
purpose of this technical amendment is to provide that the amendments 
previously adopted in Release No. 33-8934 that currently are set forth 
in paragraph (b) of Rule 2-02T in Regulation S-X and in paragraph (c) 
of Item 308T of Regulation S-K remain in the CFR.

    Dated: June 22, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15014 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Damien Warren, Respondent.

Submitted May 7, 2012;

decided June 7, 2012

Motion to vacate this Court’s April 25, 2012 preclusion order granted.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00177-CR

RON EASTON D/B/A ACE BAIL BONDS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5518

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Ron Easton d/b/a Ace Bail Bonds appealed the trial court’s entry of a 

default judgment. Appellant now files a motion to dismiss his appeal, stating that the 

appeal is moot because the trial court granted a motion for new trial and amended its 

judgment. 

The motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
Easton v. State of Texas Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted

Opinion delivered and filed July 16, 2015

[CV06]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phoristine Martin, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 107]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered April 19, 2004, convicting her of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s rulings during voir dire violated her constitutional rights is without merit. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in prohibiting the defense counsel from posing improper and repetitive questions to prospective jurors *(see People v Jean,*75 NY2d 744, 745 [1989]; *People v Boulware,*29 NY2d 135 [1971]; *People v Johnson,*272 AD2d 481 [2000]).

The defendant’s contention that the trial court impeded her ability to present a defense by curtailing her cross-examination of the complainant’s description of the perpetrator’s hair is belied by the record. The defense counsel elicited from the complainant that the perpetrator had short hair. Further, the objections to the cross-examination with respect to the perpetrator’s hair that were sustained were objections to form rather than substance *(see People v Marino,*21 AD3d 430, 432 [2005]). The defendant’s remaining contentions regarding cross-examination are unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Angelo,*88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; *People v Lyons, 81*NY2d 753 [1992]; *People v Paixao,*23 AD3d 677 [2005]; *People v Marino, supra; People v Mayo,*17 AD3d 485 [2005]) and, in any event, do not require reversal.

The defendant’s contention that she was deprived of a fair trial by the court’s alleged denigration of the defense counsel is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Prado,*4 NY3d 725 [2004]; *People v Smalls,*293 AD2d 500 [2002]). In any event, the claim is without merit. Although the

*1025trial court may have criticized the defense counsel’s conduct in front of the jury, the court’s actions were justified by the defense counsel’s persistent disregard for the court’s evidentiary rulings *(see People v Man Xing Guo,*271 AD2d 700 [2000]; *People v Bistonath,*216 AD2d 478, 479 [1995]; *People v Cuba,*154 AD2d 703 [1989]). Moreover, any potential prejudice to the defendant was minimized by the trial court’s instructions to the jury that it had no opinion about the case, and that the jury was not to draw any inference from anything it said to the attorneys *(see People v Bembury,*14 AD3d 575 [2005]; *People v Man Xing Guo, supra; People v Cuba, supra*at 704).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Ritter, J.E, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
financial statements of the Company for the six-month period ended June 30, 1997
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,045
<SECURITIES>                                    21,771
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,901
<ALLOWANCES>                                       478
<INVENTORY>                                      6,479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,710
<PP&E>                                           8,692
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,116
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,004
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,105     
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,408
<SALES>                                         33,071
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,071
<CGS>                                           13,672
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,278)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,367
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,331
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,036
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,036
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
        

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HYACINTH REID,

Appellant,

v.

ROSE ACCEPTANCE, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-275

[July 15, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; George A. Shahood, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562011CA000689.

David S. Fabrikant of Law Office of David S. Fabrikant, P.A., Stuart, for 

appellant.

Nicholas R. Cavallaro of Gilbert Garcia Group, P.A., Tampa, for 

appellee.

On Confession of Error

PER CURIAM.

A homeowner appeals an order overruling objections to a foreclosure 

sale and denying the motion to set aside the sale and vacate the Certificate 

of Title issued by the Clerk. The appellee has filed a confession of error. 

We therefore reverse the orders subject to this appeal and remand the case 

to the trial court to vacate the Certificate of Title and the order overruling 

the objections to the sale, and to conduct an evidentiary hearing on those 

objections.

Reversed and remanded.

STEVENSON, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-150]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Forms and Publications Issue Committee of the 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the IRS Forms and Publications Issue 
Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and 
suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue 
Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 4, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marianne Ayala at 1-888-912-1227 or 
954-423-7979.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10 (a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the IRS Forms and Publications Issue Committee 
of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, February 4, 
2009, at Noon, Eastern Time. If you would like to have the TAP consider 
a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7978, or 
write Marianne Ayala, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 
340, Plantation, FL 33324. Ms. Ayala can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 
or 954-423-7979, or you can post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: December 22, 2008.
Roy L. Block,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-150 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9 - 0135 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. JESSIE AARON SCHULZ ,

Defendant and Appellant.

O RDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s appeal in the above matter is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 20 2020

05/20/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0135
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

HENRY DANIELS,

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 739 CAP

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered April 23, 1990 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal

Division at No. CP

- 51

- CR

- 1031751

- 1988. (Nunc Pro Tunc appeal rights reinstated on April 28, 2017)

CONCURRING STATEMENT

JUSTICE DONOHUE DECIDED: October 15, 2020

I join the order as I am constrained to do as a result of this C ourt’s precedential

opinion in Commonwealth v. Reid

, 235 A.3d 1124 (Pa. 2020)

. For the reasons stated in

my dissenting opinion in Reid , I continue to hold the view that Williams v. Pennsylvania

,

___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1899 (2016), mandates that this defendant receive a de novo

appeal to this Court because former Justice Castille, while the District Attorney of

Philadelphia, authorized the pursuit of the death penalty in his case and later participated

in the appeal of the imposition of that sentence. Williams should have been retroactively

applied to this defendant and the t wo other defendants similarly situated. I continue to

believe tha t the preservation of the integrity of this Court demanded no less.