alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

The following table lists, as of December 31, 2006, our subsidiaries, all of
which are wholly owned, and indicates the jurisdiction of organization of each subsidiary.



|                                    |  |                   
|----------------------------------- |  | ------------------
|Subsidiary Name                     |  | Where Incorporated
|Sonic Innovations Pty Ltd.          |  | Australia         
|Hearing Aid Specialists Pty Limited |  | Australia         
|ME Management Services Pty Ltd.     |  | Australia         
|Sonic Innovations Canada Ltd.       |  | Canada            
|Sonic Innovations A/S               |  | Denmark           
|Omni Sonic Innovations ApS          |  | Denmark           
|Sonic Innovations GmbH              |  | Austria           
|Sonic Innovations GmbH              |  | Switzerland       
|Wenger Hörgeräte AG                 |  | Switzerland       
|Sonic Innovations Ltd.              |  | England           
|StarMedical B.V.                    |  | Netherlands       
|Hoorcomfort B.V.                    |  | Netherlands       
|Hoertoestelcentrum Sneek B.V.       |  | Netherlands       
|Sonic Innovations GmbH              |  | Germany           
|Tympany, Inc.                       |  | Delaware          
|HEARING Life USA, Inc.              |  | Delaware
#### MILSTEIN v. EDWARD SMALL PRODUCTIONS, Inc.

District Court, S. D. New York.

May 29, 1942.

Samuel Gottlieb, of New York City, for plaintiff.

O’Brien, Driscoll & Raftery, of New York City (Milton M. Rosenbloom, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves to place the above entitled action on the jury calendar of this •court. On the argument of this motion, I indicated that I would deny the motion.

I have studied the affidavits and briefs •submitted by both sides and have resolved to adhere to my original determination.

The court has discretion to permit a jury trial after waiver of same by failure to demand a jury. At bar, after ■plaintiff’s failure to demand a jury trial as ■provided for .in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.GA. following section ,723c, the defendant’s attorney received a notice from the calendar clerk on or about March 6th that the case was on the non-jury calendar. Such notice was also sent to the plaintiff’s attorney. Receipt of such notice is not denied. Since that time, more than two months have elapsed before the instant application was made. During that time, the matter was not dormant since an examination before trial of the plaintiff was in progress.

I feel that in view of the chronology of events, the exercise of the court’s discretion in favor of the plaintiff would be an abuse thereof.

The motion is denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40265 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HUGO CASTILLO-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B:97-CR-480-1

- - - - - - - - - - March 16, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Hugo Castillo-Chavez appeals the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to illegal entry into the United States after having been deported. The record does not support Castillo’s argument that the district court mistakenly believed it could not depart downwardly based on Castillo’s purported assimilation into this country. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to review that issue. See United States v. Palmer , 122 F.3d 215, 222 (5th Cir.No. 98-40265 -2- 1997). Further, Castillo is not entitled to a downward departure

based on the quantity of drugs involved in his prior convictions. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), comment. (n.5); Koon v. United States , 518 U.S. 81, 92 (1996). Lastly, Castillo’s argument that his prior convictions for possession of drugs do not qualify as aggravated felonies for purposes of § 2L1.2 identifies no error, plain or otherwise. See United States v. Rodriguez , 15 F.3d 408, 414 (5th Cir., 1994); United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 1997). AFFIRMED.
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




In
connection with the accompanying report on Form 10–Q for the period ended
March 31, 2009 of EV Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”) and filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Michael E. Mercer, Chief Financial Officer of EV Management, LLC, the general
partner of EV Energy GP, L.P., 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:





·
            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 combined predecessors of the
      Partnership.





Date:
      June 10, 2009
              /s/MICHAEL
      E. MERCERMichael
      E. MercerChief
      Financial Officer of EV Management LLC,general
      partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,general
      partner of EV Energy Partners,
L.P.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Owens-Illinois Group, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertifies that to such officer’s knowledge:

 

(i)    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of theCompany for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
| Dated:  February 29, 2008 | /s/  Edward C. White             |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                           | Edward C. White                  |
|                           | President                        |
|                           | Owens-Illinois  Group, Inc. |

 

----

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit
      23





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**








The
      Board
      of Directors


Medialink
      Worldwide Incorporated:





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
      Forms
      S-8 (Nos. 333-27207,and 333-126213) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-120956) of
      Medialink Worldwide Incorporated of our report dated March 24, 2006, with
      respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Medialink Worldwide Incorporated
      as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of
      operations, cash flows, and stockholders’ equity for each of the years in the
      three-year period ended December 31, 2005, which report appears in the December
      31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Medialink Worldwide
      Incorporated.





(signed)
      KPMG LLP


New
      York,
      New York


March
      31,
      2006
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellant,

v.

JULIAN ANDREW LUNA,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00273-CR

Appeal from

83rd District Court

of Pecos County, Texas

(TC # P-3208-83-CR)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

judgment. We therefore reverse the order of the trial court and remand the cause for further 

proceedings, in accordance with the opinion of this Court, and that this decision be certified below 

for observation.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

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

Palafox, J. (Dissenting)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1523

In re: GWENDOLYN DIANNE WILKES,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:19-cv-00699-LCB-LPA)

Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: October 8, 2020

Before KING, NIEMEYER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gwendolyn Dianne Wilkes, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gwendolyn Dianne Wilkes petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order 

requiring prosecution of numerous third parties, removal of officials from public office, 

injunctions preventing further violations of the law, and damages. We conclude that 

Wilkes is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary 

circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy-Brown, 

LLC, 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when 

the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. Murphy-Brown, 907 F.3d at 795. This 

court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, Gurley v. 

Superior Ct. of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have 

jurisdiction to review final state court orders, D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 

462, 482 (1983). 

The relief sought by Wilkes is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we 

deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-7318 

JOHN L. EDGAR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE JOHNSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:07-cv-00129-RBS)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 28, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John L. Edgar, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John L. Edgar seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Edgar has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

JARMEN M. NELSON AND RAKI D. 

NELSON, 

 Petitioners 

 v. 

LA FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 336 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 27th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 12-0741

IN THE INTEREST OF S.W., K.H,

K.H., K.H., K.H. AND K.V.,

CHILDREN §

§

§

§

§

§ Tarrant County,

2nd District.

November 21, 2012

Petitioner s' petitions for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, are ordered, and hereby are, denied

.

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

The Court, noting that petitioners have filed an affidavit attesting to the inability to pay

costs herein expended, hereby waives payment of costs.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 8th day of April, 2013

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Kathy Sandoval, Deputy Clerk

### The Second Court of Appeals

Fort Worth, Texas

Supreme Court No. 12-0741

Court of Appeals No. 02-11-00200-CV

Please note Rule 18.5 T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P.: If the Supreme Court declines to

grant review, any unpaid Supreme Court costs must be included in the court

of appeals’ mandate. If any fees remain outstanding in the above case, a fee

list will accompany this receipt.

Certified Copy of order in the above case received in the

________ Court of

Appeals on

________________________.

By

_______________________________ Deputy Clerk
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)



In connection with the quarterly report of First Responder Products Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2008  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard Reincke, the Chief Financial Officer of First Responder Products Inc., certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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, as amended; and,



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



Date: March 21, 2008



| |                                        
| | ---------------------------------------
| | /s/ Richard Reincke                    
| | Richard Reincke
Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
i 'l~· tl 1 j 

~' . ,· 

RECEIVED IN 

?h_~t. ~~ \ ~~ \~ . COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

This document contains some APR 2 4 2015 \~ages ~hat are of poor quality 

'i} the t1me of imaging. 

~\-\ h \\ _ \\. \ • ~ (\ \\\,, 

1 _ _ Abel Acosta, Clerk 

~\~ \\~,Dlu.~~i~~~~ ..._._.__ - I 

. :~~. •. ·. ~((:,,~~~ ~~( ~ ~~~- 'M~h ~~ ~1-.hiuf'';; 

~ ~ '~~< -----~~\,;(\\1\S ~~ Q 6t\\~ tx~ ;. : 

---- ----------------------------
I 

.' ~ 

.. w ~~1~ J~, tlnl( l ~\~ ~\t~ ~ _· --
. \ 

).~, ~S ~~ Dll ~\\_~ \ ~~ \\6 .~~~ ~~a.-Qillakc!roJ · 

' ~ \~~ k~~i ' ~ ~' ~\\'\\1' ~~. 
~ . ,. 

~'\;. .. :ll ·:~ ~ Q:\ t 

~{\~ \}( -b~\~'7 

. ·' 

. . . \ ' . -~ ... - '-~· .. _,,_._ 

i. 

a.tJh 

. 

Oi~ffliLf-· . ' 

UunJ vict'l~a rJUt~,-

,-· 

. . . '
2012 10K EX 10.13(ii)


EXHIBIT 10.13(ii)






Amendment Number One to the 
EXECUTIVES’ DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
of 
DUKE REALTY SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
(As Amended and Restated Effective December 5, 2007)


This Amendment Number One to the Executives’ Deferred Compensation Plan of Duke Realty Services Limited Partnership (the “Plan”) is hereby adopted this 20th day of August, 2012 by the Deferred Compensation Committee of Duke Realty Corporation.  Each capitalized term not otherwise defined herein has the same meaning as set forth in the Plan.


The Plan is hereby amended as indicated, effective as of the date hereof, provided, however, that the following amendment applies exclusively to amounts deferred under the Plan on or after January 1, 2010:


By deleting Section 2.29 and replacing it with the following:


2.29   Performance Share Plan.  Performance Share Plan means the Duke Realty Corporation 2000 Performance Share Plan and/or the Duke Realty Corporation 2010 Performance Share Plan, each as amended or restated from time to time.


All other provisions of the Plan shall remain the same.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Duke Realty Services Limited Partnership, by a duly authorized officer, has executed this Amendment Number One to the Executives’ Deferred Compensation Plan of Duke Realty Services Limited Partnership, this 20th day of August, 2012.




DUKE REALTY SERVICE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


                    By: Duke Realty Corporation
        Its general partner
                                                                                                                                                         	
		
	By:
	/s/    Neal A. Lewis

	 
	Neal A. Lewis

	 
	Senior Vice President, Taxation
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Imad Kamel Yassine, Chief Financial Officer, of Bioshaft
Water Technology, Inc. (the Company), 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 the best of my knowledge:

| | (a) | the Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      third quarter ended January 31, 2010, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
| | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                         

|By:    | /s/ Imad
    Kamel Yassine                                           | 
|------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Imad
      Kamel Yassine                                             | 
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer                                              | 
|       | (Principal Financial Officer and
      Principal Accounting Officer) | 
|Date:  | March 22, 2010                                                       | 

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5019 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5019

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pepperoncini prepared or 
          preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 7, 2004

 Mr. Pascrell introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pepperoncini prepared or 
          preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN PEPPERONCINI PREPARED OR PRESERVED OTHERWISE THAN BY 
              VINEGAR OR ACETIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.20.06       Pepperoncini,      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         prepared or                                                        31/2007
                         preserved
                         otherwise than by
                         vinegar or acetic
                         acid (provided
                         for in subheading
                         2005.90.55)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF THE

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Richard Reincke, the CEO and CFO of GWS Technologies, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of GWS Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended July 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of GWS Technologies, Inc.



Date: September 25, 2008

| |     |                                                
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                
| | By: | /s/ RICHARD REINCKE                            
| |     | Richard Reincke                                
| |     | Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer