alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     STATE OF
                                                   INCORPORATION
                                                        OR
SUBSIDIARY                                         ORGANIZATION
----------                                         -------------
<S>                                                <C>
AEW Capital Management, Inc.                       Massachusetts
AEW Capital Management, L.P.                       Delaware
AEW Securities Limited Partnership                 Massachusetts
AEW Hotel Investment Corporation                   Massachusetts
AEW II Corporation                                 Massachusetts
AEW Investment Group, Inc.                         Massachusetts
(includes 23 real estate investment subsidiaries,
 all of which operate in the United States)
Back Bay Advisors, Inc.                            Massachusetts
Back Bay Advisors, L.P.                            Delaware
Graystone Partners, Inc.                           Massachusetts
Graystone Partners, L.P.                           Delaware
Harris Associates, Inc.                            Delaware
Harris Associates L.P.                             Delaware
Harris Partners L.L.C.                             Delaware
Harris Partners, Inc.                              Delaware
Harris Associates Securities L.P.                  Delaware
Jurika & Voyles, Inc.                              Delaware
Jurika & Voyles, L.P.                              Delaware
Loomis, Sayles & Company, Inc.                     Massachusetts
Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.                     Delaware
Loomis, Sayles Distributors, L.P.                  Delaware
Loomis, Sayles Distributors, Inc.                  Massachusetts
MC Management, Inc.                                Massachusetts
MC Management, L.P.                                Delaware
NEF Corporation                                    Massachusetts
New England Funds, L.P.                            Delaware
New England Funds Management, L.P.                 Delaware
New England Investment Associates, Inc.            Delaware
NEIC Holdings, Inc.                                Massachusetts
Reich & Tang Distributors, L.P.                    Delaware
Reich & Tang Services, L.P.                        Delaware
Reich & Tang Asset Management, Inc.                Massachusetts
Reich & Tang Asset Management, L.P.                Delaware
Vaughan, Nelson, Scarborough & McConnell, Inc.     Delaware
Vaughan, Nelson, Scarborough & McConnell, L.P.     Delaware
Westpeak Investment Advisors, Inc.                 Massachusetts
Westpeak Investment Advisors, L.P.                 Delaware
</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Robin Young
                                 ----------------------
                                 Robin Young
                                 Chief Executive Officer

May 19, 2010

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

The undersigned officer of Globalink, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Ben Choi
                                 ----------------------
                                 Ben Choi
                                 Chief Executive Officer

May 19, 2010
@conference{1207026,
  author = {Mark R. Stoudt and James Zuback and Carelyn E. Campbell and Maureen E. Williams and Kil-Won Moon and Carlos R. Beauchamp and Mark Yunovich},
  title = {Developing an Appropriate Heat Treatment Protocol for Additively Manufactured Alloy 718 for Oil and Gas Applications},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-03-23 04:03:00},
  publisher = {Proceedings of the AMPP Annual Conference + Expo 2023, Denver, CO, US},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936024},
  language = {en},
}
null

2015-07-14

527.0188

eng - Argued: 2015-07-14. Docket number: 5-15-0062
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15797]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-1012 (Review)]


Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From Vietnam; Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) 
determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on 
certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the 
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2008 (73 FR 37487) 
and determined on October 6, 2008 that it would conduct a full review 
(73 FR 62318, October 20, 2008). Notice of the scheduling of the 
Commission's review and of a public hearing to be held in connection 
therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and 
by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on January 15, 2009 
(74 FR 2616). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2009, 
and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear 
in person or by counsel.
    The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the 
Secretary of Commerce on June 26, 2009. The views of the Commission are 
contained in USITC Publication 4083 (June 2009), entitled Certain 
Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam: Investigation No. 731-TA-1012 
(Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 26, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-15797 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
July 16, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PAMELA Y. KELLEY, ARTHUR LEE KELLEY, CLARA BROOKS, AND 

GARY L. LEONARD, Appellants

NO. 14-14-00686-CV V.

LAVEARN IVEY, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Application for 

Temporary Injunction,” signed August 18, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the 

record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the order. We order the 

“Order Granting Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Injunction” of the court 

below AFFIRMED.

We order appellants, Pamela Y. Kelley, Arthur Lee Kelley, Clara Brooks,

and Gary L. Leonard, jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000870

21-JUL-2015

07:53 AM
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 57TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on March 11, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of R.G. II, Appellant

V.

No. 04-14-00689-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2013-PA-01552

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court order

of termination is AFFIRMED.

We order that no costs be assessed against appellant Mother because she

is indigent.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on July 21, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-14-00689-CV

In the Interest of R.G. II

v.

(NO. 2013-PA-01552 IN 57TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

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

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH 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 FOURTH 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 Fourth District of Texas, this July 21, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
EXHIBIT 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-85866, 333-63855, 333-34197 and 333-34050) pertaining to the Atlantis Plastics, Inc. 2001Stock Option Plan, the Atlantis Plastics, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan, the Atlantis Plastics, Inc.1997 Stock Option Plan and the Atlantis Plastics, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan, respectively,of our report dated March 29, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of Atlantis Plastics, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2005.     /s/ Ernst & Young LLPAtlanta, Georgia
# Result 17.1
as/ae ' 

Douglas, 

Hardesty 

J. 

Parraguirre 

Gibbons 

Saitta 

gekutiA, ' J. 

Pickering 

J. 

We conclude that the district court did not err in finding that 

SCR 48.1 prohibited Berquist's peremptory challenge. SCR 48.1(5) states 

that "[a] notice of peremptory challenge may not be filed against any judge 

who has made any ruling on a contested matter . . in the action." We 

conclude that Judge Hoskin made rulings on contested matters in this 

case when •he signed several orders approving the Guardianship 

Commissioner's recommendations. Berquist filed her peremptory 

challenge after Judge Hoskin signed these orders, and thus, her challenge 

was prohibited.' SCR 48.1(5). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

'Based on our review of the record, we are unpersuaded by 

Berquist's argument that these orders only involved uncontested matters. 

We have considered the parties remaining arguments and conclude that 

they are without merit. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e 
cc: Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division 

Cary Colt Payne 

Goldsmith & Guymon, P.C. 

Lee A. Drizin, Chtd. 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A (91e0
4^0-/5"

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 10-14-00247-CR OFFENSE: Habeas Corpus - Bail

STYLE: Ex parte Alejandro Chavez Ramirezv. COUNTY: Johnson

TRIAL COURT: 18th District Court Appellant's MOTION

TRIAL COURTS: 47308-A FOR REHEARING IS: Denied

TRIAL COURTJUDGE: Hon. John Edward Neill DATE: April 23, 2015

DISPOSITION: Affirmed JUDGE: Chief Justice Gray

DATE: April 23, 2015

JUSTICE: Chief Justice Gray PC S; X

PUBLISH: DNP: X

CLK RECORD: August 21, 2014 SUPP CLK RECORD: October 9, 2014

RPT RECORD: September 9, 2014 SUPP RPT RECORD:

STATE BR: November 14, 2014 SUPP BR: March 17, 2015

APP BR: October 17, 2014 PROSE BR: March 19, 2015

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

AfPBLLANT^ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

RgF^Sfft /

DATE: 06jp.tfl&>/T

JUDGE: A/^Ct*^.

CCA#

Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:,

PUBLISH:

<£> 2Q-/5"

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR REHEARING IN MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS:

CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ON ON

JUDGE:
#### PHILIP MASTRANDUONO, PLAINTIFF, v. JACOB RESNICK AND TRAVIS G. SLATER, JOINTLY, SEVERALLY AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division

Decided October 30, 1953.

*143
      *Mr. Lynwood Lord,*attorney for the defendants, for the motion.

*Mr. Horace G. Brown (Messrs. Brown, Connery, Kulp and W-ille,*attorneys for the plaintiff), *contra.*

Woods, J. S. C.

This matter was heard before the court and a jury, and on September 23, 1953 the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Philip Mastranduono for the sum of $50,000 and costs against the defendants Jacob Resnick and Travis Q. Slater, jointly, severally and in the alternative. On October 5, 1953 the defendants served notice of motion for a new trial on the attorneys for the plaintiffs, which notice set forth as grounds for the motion excessive verdict, verdict against the weight of the evidence, refusal of the court to charge two requests made by the defendants, and abusive manner of plaintiff’s attorney in his closing address.

It is not necessary to consider the merits because we must dismiss the motion for want of jurisdiction. *R. R.*4:61-2, effective September 9, 1953, provides that “a motion for a new trial shall be served not later than 10 days after * * * the entry of the verdict of the jury.” Here we find the verdict of the jury was entered September 23, 1953 and the notice of motion was served October 5, 1953 — 12 days after the entry of the verdict. And, by *R. R.*1 :l-9 “Neither the court nor the parties may enlarge the period for taking any action under Rules * * * 4:61-2; 4:61-4 * * To this rule there is no exception and the court has no power to exercise its discretion. See *In re Horton’s Estate,*1 *N. J.*571 (1949); *Jenkins v. Devine Foods, Inc.,*3 *N. J.*450, at *page*458 (1950); *Korfin v. Continental Casualty Co., 5 N. J.*154, at *page*156 (1950); *Winberry v. Salisbury,*5 *N. J.*240, 241, at *pages*255 and 265 (1950); *In re Pfizer’s*Estate, 6 *N. J.*233, at *page*238 *et seq.*(1951).

The motion is dismissed.
#### In the Matter of Luis Eugenio, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 316]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

After allegedly fomenting a boycott of the nominating and voting process for the inmate liaison committee, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating rules 100.15 (disorderly conduct), 102.10 (making threats), 104.11 (conduct involving the threat of violence), and 104.12 (leading, organizing, participating or urging others in a work stoppage) (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [1] [vi]; [3] [i]; [5] [ii], [iii]). He was found guilty of all of the charges except disorderly conduct following a tier III disciplinary hearing and, on administrative appeal, the determination was upheld with a reduction in the penalty assessed. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Initially, we find that, contrary to petitioner’s contention, the misbehavior report contained sufficient information to apprise petitioner of the charges against him and enable him to prepare a defense *(see Matter of Meachem v Fischer,*108 AD3d 973, 974 [2013]; *Matter of Hayward v Fischer,*101 AD3d 1308, 1309 [2012]). We also find that the misbehavior report, testimony from the deputy superintendent who conducted the investigation and authored the report, and the confidential information in the record provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt as to the violation of rule 104.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [iii]).

However, there is merit in petitioner’s assertion that substantial evidence did not support the charges based on threats. These charges arose out of the same conduct and involved essentially the same proof at the hearing as we found insufficient in *Matter of Rosa v Fischer*(112 AD3d 1009 [2013] [decided herewith]). As in *Rosa,*there was no direct proof in the record of threats by petitioner and the hearsay evidence in the confidential record was not “sufficiently detailed to allow the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment to determine its reliability and credibility” *(Matter of Torres v Fischer,*101 AD3d 1281, 1282 [2012]; *see Matter of Carrasquillo v Rabsatt,*109 AD3d *10181036, 1037 [2013]). The remaining arguments are without merit.

Lahtinen, J.E, Stein, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of making threats and conduct involving the threat of violence and imposed a penalty; petition granted to that extent, respondent is directed to expunge all references thereto from petitioner’s institutional record and matter remitted to respondent for an administrative redetermination of the penalty on the remaining violation; and, as so modified, confirmed.
# table105_q12.4_size
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.3    
  


    
[FEDEX EXPRESS LETTERHEAD] 


VIA FEDEX ENVELOPE  


September 26, 2001 


Mr. Dwight
Young

Manager

National Mail Transportation Purchasing

United States Postal Service

475 L'Enfant Plaza S.W.

Room 4900

Washington, D.C. 20260-6210 


Dear
Dwight: 


In
our meetings earlier this week, the parties agreed to make certain changes to the volume commitments for the November Schedule Block and a ten day period in December. Originally, the United States
Postal Service ("USPS") committed to tender and Federal Express Corporation ("FedEx") agreed to transport volumes of [*] for the Day-turn Operations and
[*] for the Night-turn Operations during the November Schedule Block. However, the USPS and FedEx have mutually agreed to revise the volumes so that USPS will now
provide [*] for the Day-turn Operations and [*] for the Night-turn Operations. 


In
order to accommodate the expected increase in volume which occurs each holiday season, USPS has requested that FedEx allow for an increase in its volume commitment for the Night-turn
Operations occurring during the period commencing December 10 and ending December 23, 2001 ("Peak Period"). FedEx and USPS have agreed that the Committed Volume will increase by
[*] for each day of the Peak Period. 


If
the matters reflected above accurately reflect our discussions, please acknowledge this by signing where indicated below and kindly return a fully executed original to me. 



	Sincerely,

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION	 	 	 
	

/s/ PAUL J. HERRON   	

 	
 	

 
	

Paul J. Herron

Vice President

Postal Transportation Management	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

Acknowledged and agreed to this 12th

day of December, 2001.
	

 	

By:	
 	

/s/ J. DWIGHT YOUNG   

	 	Title:	 	Manager,

National Mail Transportation Purchasing





cc: Paul Vogel 


	*
	BLANK
SPACES CONTAINED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 24b-2 UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED. 









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.3
Exhibit 32.1

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, Dr. Barry W. Karlin, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of CRC Health Corporation (the Company), do 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:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 21, 2006

|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|/s/    DR. BARRY W.
KARLIN                                                                       
|Dr. Barry W. Karlin Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive
Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CRC
Health Corporation and will be retained by CRC Health Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.