alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

           NU-KOTE HOLDING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES ORGANIZATION CHART

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                  Ownership Level                               Jurisdiction
                  ---------------                               ------------
<S>                                                             <C> 
Nu-kote Holding, Inc. .....................................     Delaware
    Nu-kote Imperial, Ltd. ................................     Delaware
    Nu-kote International, Inc. ...........................     Delaware
        International Communications Materials, Inc. ......     Pennsylvania
        Viro-kote, Inc. ...................................     Delaware
        Nu-kote Imaging International, Inc. ...............     Delaware
        Future Graphics, Inc. .............................     California
        Nu-kote Latin America, Inc. .......................     Delaware
        Nu-kote Internacional de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (1)..     Mexico
        Nu-kote Quality Imaging GmbH.......................     Germany
        Interfas Holding, S.A. (2).........................     France
              Interfas, S.A. (3)...........................     France
        Nu-kote de Colombia, S.A. (4)(5)...................     Colombia
              Mercantiles, S.A. (5)........................     Colombia
              Compania Manufactura Onix, S.A. (5)..........     Colombia
        Greif-Werke GmbH...................................     Germany
              Pelikan Hardcopy Deutschland GmbH............     Germany
        Pelikan Scotland, Ltd. ............................     United Kingdom
              N-K International Holding, Ltd. (6)..........     United Kingdom
                   N-K Interface, Ltd. (7).................     United Kingdom
                   N-K International, Ltd. (7).............     United Kingdom
                   Nu-kote Italia s.r.l. (8)...............     Italy
        Pelikan Produktions AG.............................     Switzerland
              Pelikan Handelsgeschaft mbH..................     Austria
              Pelikan Hardcopy International AG............     Switzerland
                   Pelikan Hardcopy Nordic AB..............     Sweden
</TABLE> 

(1) Nu-kote International, Inc. owns 65%, and Nu-kote Latin America, Inc. owns 
    35% of the stock of Nu-kote Internacional de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

(2) Nu-kote International, Inc. owns 2,494 shares and 6 shares are held by 
    nominee shareholders.

(3) Interfas Holding S.A. owns 2,494 shares and 6 shares are held by nominee
    shareholders.

(4) Nu-kote International, Inc. owns 24,604 shares and 1,296 shares are held by
    nominee shareholders.

(5) Sold April 1, 1998.

(6) Pelikan Scotland, Ltd. owns 99 shares and 1 share is held by a nominee
    shareholder.

(7) N-K International Holding, Ltd. owns 99 shares and 1 share is held by a 
    nominee shareholder.

(8) N-K International Holding, Ltd. owns 51%.
i

X1' x

"^t

*

'"HSJjft*

RECEIVED, IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 22 2015 «.
Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

J. 

704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). We therefore conclude that the district 

court did not err in denying appellant's motion. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge 

Jerrod Gregory Celestor Blackwell 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A 

,Z44
# table100_q12.3_naics
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41383

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOEL TORRES-SALAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-379-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Joel Torres-Salas raises an 

argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 458-

62 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). In Teran-Salas, we 

determined that the appellant was not entitled to relief based merely on the 

existence of a theoretical possibility that the defendant could be convicted 

under Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) for conduct that would not 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41383 Document: 00513080099 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
No. 14-41383

2

qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. See Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d at 458. 

Torres-Salas has not demonstrated “a realistic probability that Texas would 

prosecute under an ‘administering’ theory in a way that does not also 

constitute either ‘dispensing’ or ‘distributing’ under the federal sentencing 

guidelines.” Id. at 461-62.

Torres-Salas also raises an argument that is foreclosed by our holding in 

United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2015), that an 

enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior conviction of a drug 

trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether a conviction for the prior 

offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity.

Accordingly, the Government’s unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file 

a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-41383 Document: 00513080099 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              47,850
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       41,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        932,439
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,336,961
<PP&E>                                             298,218
<DEPRECIATION>                                      97,965
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,323,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,486,633
<BONDS>                                          6,356,331
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            252 
<COMMON>                                             1,835
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,055,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,323,105
<SALES>                                            274,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   274,000
<CGS>                                              158,066
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      158,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,382,599
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42,260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,024,802)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,024,802)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,024,802
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.56)
        


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

J.A.L., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4512

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed March 6, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas

County; James Pierce, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Kevin Briggs, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Having reviewed the record in keeping with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), we affirm the disposition rendered after J.A.L. pleaded guilty to counts of 

grand theft of an automobile and dealing in stolen property, his withhold of adjudication 

after a disposition hearing on a third count for burglary of a dwelling, and his placement 

on juvenile probation for the various counts. We remand only for the trial court to enter 
- 2 -

a written order reflecting that the fourth count—grand theft—was merged with the 

dealing in stolen property count at the time of the plea as stated in the transcript of the 

plea hearing. See generally Lenker v. State, 151 So. 3d 1273 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) 

(affirming but remanding in an Anders proceeding for entry of a written record 

accurately reflecting the resolution of the various counts).

Affirmed; remanded with instructions. 

KELLY and SALARIO, JJ., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, 

Concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Westway Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Peter J.M. HardingName:

Peter J.M. HardingTitle:

Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Director


Dated: May 10, 2010
@misc{1207556,
  author = {Karen Wetzel},
  title = {NICE Framework Competency Areas: Preparing a Job-Ready Cybersecurity Workforce},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-06-21 04:06:00},
  publisher = {NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936729},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8355},
  language = {en},
}
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 778 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 778

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 7, 2020.
    Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, the hour of daily meeting of the 
House shall be 2 p.m. on Mondays; noon on Tuesdays (or 2 p.m. if no legislative 
business was conducted on the preceding Monday); noon on Wednesdays and 
Thursdays; and 9 a.m. on all other days of the week.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31980-31981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15750]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,476]


Rockford Corporation, Walker, MI; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 22, 2009, in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers at Rockford Corporation, Walker, Michigan.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.


[[Page 31981]]


    Signed at Washington, DC this 22nd day of June 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15750 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6675

DELONTE E. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE STATE OF MARYLAND; STUART O. SIMMS,

Esquire, Secretary, Department of Public

Safety and Correctional Services of the State

of Maryland; WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner

of Corrections, State of Maryland; RONALD

HUTCHINSON, Warden, Maryland House of

Corrections, Jessup,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JOHN DOE, I, Correctional Officer, Maryland

House of Corrections, Jessup; JOHN DOE, II,

Correctional Officer, Maryland House of

Corrections, Jessup; JOHN DOE, III,

Correctional Officer, Maryland House of

Corrections, Jessup,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA02-4039-JFM)

Submitted: September 11, 2003 Decided: September 17, 2003
2

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Delonte E. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney

General, Sharon Stanley Street, Assistant Attorney General,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Delonte E. Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Taylor v. Maryland,

No. CA-02-4039-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 25, 2003). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
* 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. 06-41206

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DARREN RAILEY

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-10-ALL

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Darren Railey has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Railey has not filed a response. Our independent review of the

record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 122,053

In the Matter of LAUREL R. KUPKA,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISCHARGE FROM PROBATION

On February 28, 2020, the court suspended Laurel R. Kupka's Kansas law license

for a two-year period. The court ordered that following nine months of suspension, 

Kupka could petition for an early reinstatement and undergo a reinstatement hearing. In 

re Kupka, 311 Kan. 193, 458 P.3d 242 (2020).

On November 8, 2021, the court granted Kupka's petition for reinstatement of her 

law license following a reinstatement hearing. The court stayed the remainer of the twoyear suspension and placed Kupka on two years' probation. In re Kupka, 314 Kan. 290, 

497 P.3d 573 (2021).

On February 20, 2024, Kupka motioned the court to discharge her from probation. 

See Supreme Court Rule 227(g)(1) (2023 Kan. S. Ct. R. at 284) (probation discharge).

The Office of the Disciplinary Administrator (ODA) responded that Kupka has complied

with her probation, confirmed Kupka's eligibility to be discharged from probation, and 

voiced no objection to such discharge. 

This court notes the ODA's response, grants Kupka's motion, and fully discharges 

Kupka from probation. Accordingly, this disciplinary proceeding is closed.
2

The court orders the publication of this order in the Kansas Reports and assesses 

any remaining costs of this proceeding to Kupka.

Dated this 29th day of March 2024.

WILSON, J., not participating.
1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Erin L. Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of

Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1128

___________

Jo Ann Hoffmann, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Keith Ferguson, Sheriff, Benton *

County, Arkansas; Captain Hunter * [UNPUBLISHED]

Petray, Benton County Detention *

Center; Steve Bell, Little Flock *

Police Department, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 6, 2011

Filed: July 15, 2011

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jo Ann Hoffman appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review of the record, see
-2-

McKenney v. Harrison, 635 F.3d 354, 358 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review), we

agree with the district court that defendants were entitled to summary judgment. We

also find no basis for overturning the other orders Hoffman challenges on appeal. The

judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we also deny Hoffman’s motion to

supplement the record. 

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Unsolicited SARS Virus Program 
Project Review.
    Date: July 30, 2009.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Clayton C. Huntley, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, National Institutes of Health/
NIAID, Room 3124, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 
20892-7616. 301-451-2570. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfdcd7cad1cbd3dac6ffd1d6ded6db91d1d6d791d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="56353e2338223a332f16383f373f3278383f3e78313920">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 1, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-16097 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Orlando Coombs, Respondent, v Izzo General Contracting, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[858 NYS2d 3]

Plaintiff, a superintendent of a building that was undergoing demolition and construction, is not within the class of persons entitled to invoke the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). Although an individual need not actually be engaged in physical labor to be entitled to coverage under the Labor Law, plaintiff did not perform work integral or necessary to the *469completion of the construction project, nor was he “a member of a team that undertook an enumerated activity under a construction contract” *(Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*100 NY2d 878, 882 [2003]). As superintendent of the building, plaintiff was responsible for maintaining the building, keeping it clean, supervising the building staff, and watching for unsafe conditions. Although the demolition and construction work made his job more difficult insofar as it affected the portion of the building that was not under construction, plaintiff was not responsible for inspecting the areas of the building under construction. Nor was he responsible for performing any work related to the construction, and his job duties did not change after the project commenced *(Spadola v 260/261 Madison Equities Corp.,*19 AD3d 321, 322-323 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 770 [2006]; *Blandon v Advance Contr. Co.,*264 AD2d 550, 551-552 [1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 754 [1999]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.
# covid_table62_c75_state
#### The Baltimore.1 The Lackawanna. Hoboken Land & Imp. Co. *v.*The Baltimore. Pennsylvania R. Co. *v.*The Lackawanna.

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

July *12,*1888.)

In Admiralty. On appeal from district court, *ante,*618.

*Abbett & Fuller,*for the Lackawanna.

*Biddle & Ward,*for the Baltimore.

1

 Affirming *ante,*613.

Blatchfokd, Justice.

*The views*and conclusions of the district judge in these cases are concurred in by me. Let there be a decree for the libelants in the suit brought against the Baltimore, for $2,194.88, with interest from April 6, 1886, and for $1,200, with interest from the date of the Commissioner’s report, and for their costs in the district court, taxed at $255.85, and for their costs in this court, to be taxed; and let there be a decree dismissing the libel in the suit brought against the Lackawanna, with costs to the claimant in the district court, taxed at $87.85, and with its costs in this court, to be taxed.