alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 
     Included in the financial statements of the Corporation are consolidated
subsidiaries owned, directly or indirectly, more than 50% by the Corporation.
Equity in undistributed earnings of nonconsolidated subsidiaries and affiliated
companies 20% to 50% owned is also included in the results of operations of the
Corporation. Listed below are certain of these subsidiaries of the Corporation.
The remaining subsidiaries and affiliated companies not listed below, when
considered in the aggregate, would not constitute a significant subsidiary.
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 INCORPORATED     VOTING POWER
                                                                  UNDER LAWS        OWNED BY
                             NAME                                     OF        IMMEDIATE PARENT
--------------------------------------------------------------   ------------   ----------------
<S>                                                              <C>            <C>
Infinity Broadcasting Corporation                                Delaware             100%
Safe Sites of Colorado L.L.C.                                    Delaware             65%
Thermo King Corporation                                          Delaware             100%
Westinghouse Canada, Inc.                                        Canada               100%
Westinghouse CBS Holding Company, Inc.                           Delaware             100%
     CBS Inc.                                                    New York             100%
Westinghouse Holdings Corporation                                Delaware             100%
     Westinghouse de Puerto Rico, Inc.                           Delaware             100%
     Westinghouse Electric S.A.                                  Switzerland          100%
     Westinghouse International Technology Corporation           Delaware             100%
     Westinghouse World Investment Corporation                   Delaware             100%
       Westinghouse Foreign Sales Corporation                    Barbados             100%
Westinghouse Industry Products International Company             Delaware             100%
Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Inc.                        Delaware             100%
West Valley Nuclear Service Company                              Delaware             100%
</TABLE>
#### Bogart *v.*Electrical Supply Co.

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

1886.)

Attorney and Counselor— Substitution—Reference—Costs—Attachment. In an application by a party for leave to substitute a new attorney, which, has resulted in a reference to a master, and a decision that the attorney was not entitled to further compensation than he had already received, the court has power to enforce obedience to the order requiring the attorney to pay the ’ costs of the reference by attachment.

Application for Leave to Substitute JNew Attorney.

*Walter D. Edmonds,*for plaintiff.

*A. H. H. Dawson,*for defendant.

Wallace, J.

Upon further consideration, the doubt suggested upon the argument of this motion, as to the power of the court to enforce obedience to the order requiring the attorney to pay the costs of the reference to the master by attachment, has been wholly removed. The attorney was required by the order to pay the costs to which his client had been unjustly subjected upon his application for leave to substitute a new attorney, which resulted in a reference to a master, and a decision that the attorney was not entitled to further compen*723sation than he had already received. He has not paid the costs. Treating the present application as though it were made by the client, the plaintiff in the suit, instead of the master, in whose behalf it is really made, it is one for the exercise of the summary jurisdiction possessed by courts over attorneys as their officers by attachment, when the professional conduct of the attorney in a cause pending before the court is involved. The statute (section 725, Rev. St.) has not restricted the power of the court to punish for contempt any officer of the court in his official transactions, or his disobedience of any lawful order. It was entirely proper to order the attorney to pay the costs which he had unnecessarily imposed upon his client, and a decent regard for the dignity of the court requires that obedience to the order be compelled. If the respondent had alleged his inability to comply with the terms of the order, such an excuse would be considered; but, in the absence of such an excuse, the ease is one where the remedy by attachment should be allowed. The statutes prohibiting imprisonment for debt have no application to such a case. The courts have always allowed the summary remedy of an attachment to compel an attorney to observe the duties incident to his professional relations towards his clients, and towards the other officers of the court, and in this state it is even held that it is not essential to the exercise of this summary remedy that the transaction should arise out of a suit in the court, or in reference to any legal proceedings. *In re Dakin,*4 Hill, 42. *Bowling Green Sav. Bank*v. *Todd,*52 N. Y. 489; *In re H., 87 N.*Y. 521. The affidavits on the part of the respondent indicate that he has not been guilty of any intentional disobedience of the order, but rather that he has acted upon a misconception of his rights and duties. An attachment will be issued, unless within 15 days he pays the sum heretofore ordered to be paid, as taxed by the court.
Economics Made Easy 

What is productivity? 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

calculates productivity to help provide 

information on the status of the economy. 

Productivity measures how efficiently inputs 

are converted into output. An input can 

include materials, machinery, electricity, 

business services, and the time people spend 

working. Output is the amount of goods or 

services made. 

For example, to make a car, you need 

parts, machines, electricity, and workers. 

These are the inputs. The finished cars are 

the output. Productivity can increase if more 

cars are made without increasing the inputs 

or if the same number of cars are made with 

fewer inputs. 

Glossary 

Inputs — any resource used 

to make goods and services. 

Output — the amount of 

goods or services made. 

Productivity — measure of 

how efficiently inputs are 

converted into output. 

Did you know? 

BLS creates productivity 

measures for the U.S. 

economy, individual 

industries, and states. 

Increases in productivity could allow companies to produce more output. It can 

also lead to higher wages for workers, investment into the business to improve 

their product or service, increased profits, or lower prices for consumers.
2018                              www.bls.gov/mxp 

China: Price Movements of Top Imports and Other        Highlights 

 Mexico was the second ranked U.S. importer in 2017 with $314 billion, accounƟng for 13.4 percent of total trade value.  

 Canada, the largest U.S. import trade partner before 2009, ranked third in 2017. The trade value of imports from Canada declined 11.6 percent over the past 9 years from $339.5 billion in 2008 to $300 billion in 2017.  

 Over the past 9 years, the dollar value of imports from China      increased approximately 49.7       percent. 

U.S. Import Price Indexes: China 

 Prices for imports from China          decreased 0.1 percent for the year     ended in December 2017 while prices for all U.S. imports excluding fuels increased 1.3 percent during the same period.  

 The price index for imports from    China rose 0.3 percent during the last quarter of 2017.  

 The last Ɵme import prices from China increased for a calendar‐year was 2011, when prices rose 3.6 percent. 

 Top Five U.S. Import Trade Partners by Trade Dollar‐Value, 2017 

Imports from China were valued at $505.6 billion in 2017, ranking China as first among U.S. import trade partners. Chinese imports accounted for 21.6 percent of total U.S. imports in 2017.  The price index for imports from China declined  0.1 percent between December 2016 and December 2017. 

Import/Export Price Indexes (MXP) and China Highlights                                               www.bls.gov/mxp 

 Import electrical equipment, appliances, 

and components manufacturing prices 

from China rose 0.5 percent during the 

final quarter of 2017, while overall    

electrical equipment import prices    

recorded no change. 

 In 2017, import prices from China      

advanced 0.4 percent.  

 The calendar‐year increase was largely 

driven by a 0.6‐percent rise in             

November. 

Top Six Imports from China by Trade Dollar‐Value, 2017 

 Computer and electronic product            manufacturing was the largest import industry from China in 2017, accounƟng for  36.5 percent of all imports from    China. 

 Electrical equipment, appliances, and components manufacturing imports, the second largest industry from China, only accounted for 8.6 percent of all Chinese imports.  

 Import miscellaneous manufacturing  made up approximately 8.3 percent of imports from China, ranking third.  

 Import prices from China for         computer and electronic product     manufacturing declined 0.5 percent for the final quarter of 2017, and  prices for overall U.S. computer and electronic imports decreased 0.1   percent for the same period. 

 For the year ended in December 2017, import prices from China for this industry fell 2.9 percent.  

 The overall downward trend was   largely because of intense              compeƟƟon and rapid innovaƟon within the industry.  

U.S. Import Price Indexes: Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing from China 

U.S. Import Price Indexes: Electrical Equipment, Appliances, and Components Manufacturing from China 

Import/Export Price Indexes (MXP) • mxpinfo@bls.gov • www.bls.gov/mxp • (202) 691 7101
Exhibit 10.51

LOGO

February 22,
2008

John
J. Peterman
c/o iPCS, Inc.
1901 N. Roselle Road
Schaumburg, IL 60195

Dear
Mr. Peterman:

Reference
is made to the Employment Agreement, dated as of March 7, 2007 (the "Employment Agreement"), between you and iPCS Wireless, Inc. Capitalized terms used herein but
not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Employment Agreement.

I
am pleased to inform you that the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors took the following actions effective January 1, 2008:





This
constitutes an amendment of your Employment Agreement. Please acknowledge this amendment by countersigning below.

|                                                        |                      | Very truly yours,                           
|------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------- | --------------------------------------------
|                                                        |                      | iPCS, Inc.                                  
|                                                        |                      | By:                                         
|                                                        |                      | Name:  Edmund L. Quatmann, Jr.              
|                                                        |                      | Title:    Vice President and General Counsel
|AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED
this 22nd day of February, 2008 |                      |                                             
|By:                                                     | /s/ John J. Peterman |                                             

---



QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel, Review of R03 and ARRA Revision Applications.                    

*Date:*                         July 31, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 2 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Jonathan Horsford, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Natl Inst of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 664, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4859,                         *horsforj@mail.nih.gov*.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 16, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-17435 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
73

Table 28. Percent distribution of employed persons by age, sex, and contingent and 

noncontingent status, February 2005

Total, 16 years and over......... 138,952 1.8 2.3 4.1 95.9

 16 to 19 years................... 5,510 5.6 6.1 8.6 91.4

 20 to 24 years................... 13,114 4.6 5.2 8.2 91.8

 25 to 34 years..................... 30,103 2.3 2.9 4.8 95.2

 35 to 44 years..................... 34,481 1.2 1.7 3.0 97.0

 45 to 54 years................... 32,947 .8 1.2 2.7 97.3

 55 to 64 years..................... 17,980 .8 1.1 3.0 97.0

 65 years and over............... 4,817 1.6 2.3 5.2 94.8

Women, 16 years and over... 65,006 1.8 2.4 4.3 95.7

 16 to 19 years..................... 2,931 5.6 6.2 8.4 91.6

 20 to 24 years..................... 6,186 4.0 4.8 7.8 92.2

 25 to 34 years..................... 13,480 2.2 2.7 4.6 95.4

 35 to 44 years..................... 15,958 1.1 1.7 3.2 96.8

 45 to 54 years................... 15,754 1.1 1.6 3.2 96.8

 55 to 64 years................... 8,495 .9 1.1 3.2 96.8

 65 years and over.............. 2,202 2.6 3.5 7.2 92.8

Men, 16 years and over......... 73,946 1.8 2.2 3.9 96.1

 16 to 19 years..................... 2,579 5.6 6.1 8.9 91.2

 20 to 24 years..................... 6,928 5.2 5.7 8.6 91.4

 25 to 34 years..................... 16,624 2.4 3.1 5.0 95.0

 35 to 44 years..................... 18,523 1.3 1.6 2.9 97.1

 45 to 54 years..................... 17,193 .6 .8 2.1 97.9

 55 to 64 years..................... 9,485 .7 1.1 2.8 97.2

 65 years and over............... 2,615 .7 1.3 3.5 96.5

Estimate 1 Estimate 2 Estimate 3

Age and sex

Total

employed

(in

thousands)

Contingent workers1

Noncontingent

workers1

1 Contingent workers are those who do not have

an implicit or explicit contract for ongoing

employment. Persons who do not expect to continue

in their jobs for personal reasons, such as retirement

or returning to school, are not considered contingent

workers, provided that they would have the option of

continuing in the job were it not for these personal

reasons. Estimate 1 includes wage and salary

workers who expect their jobs will last for an

additional year or less and who had worked at their

jobs for 1 year or less. Estimate 2 includes wage

and salary workers, the self-employed, and

independent contractors who expect their

employment to last for an additional year or less and

who had worked at their jobs (or been selfemployed) for 1 year or less. Estimate 3 includes

all workers who do not expect their jobs to last.

This is the broadest definition of contingency and

estimates 1 and 2 of contingency are included in

estimate 3. Noncontingent workers are those

workers who do not fall into any of the three

definitions of contingency.

SOURCE: Contingent and alternative work

arrangements supplement to the Current

Population Survey, February 2005, U.S.

Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics

73
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         677,936
<SECURITIES>                                 1,000,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,879,527
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (183,228)
<INVENTORY>                                  4,400,896
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,469,964
<PP&E>                                       2,725,329
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,316,600)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,310,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,278,816
<BONDS>                                        659,090
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           375
<OTHER-SE>                                 (10,753,807)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,310,362
<SALES>                                     30,943,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,943,391
<CGS>                                       24,645,207
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,027,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (492,883)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (209,434)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (283,449)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (492,883)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0




</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132262 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132262 

 COA: 268969 

Oakland CC: 1994-134620-FC;

1994-134435-FC 

GARY O. SIRBAUGH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 28, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 29, 2006 

 Clerk
* This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 18, 2009

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ROLAND RUDD, also known as

Farrakhan Israel Aziz,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

ROGER WERHOLTZ, Secretary of

Corrections, State of Kansas;

STEPHEN N. SIX, Attorney General

of the State of Kansas,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 08-3268

(D.C. No. 5:07-CV-03097-JTM)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before McCONNELL, McKAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.**

Roland Rudd, a Kansas state prisoner, was convicted of sexual assault and

sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 272 months. Following the denial of his

direct appeals and collateral proceedings in state court, he filed a challenge to his

confinement in federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he
-2-

raised some eighteen separate claims. In a thorough opinion, the district court

discussed each claim and denied the petition. Because the district court did not

rule on his subsequent request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”), it was

deemed denied. See 10th Cir. R. 22.1(C).

Mr. Rudd now seeks a COA from this court to permit an appeal of the

district court’s denial of his § 2254 petition. In order to obtain a COA, a

petitioner must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), such that “reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (quotation omitted).

Mindful of the solicitous construction to be afforded Mr. Rudd’s pro se

filings, Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007), we

nonetheless conclude that no reasonable jurist could doubt the correctness of the

district court’s disposition. As such, and for substantially the same reasons given

by the district court, we deny Mr. Rudd’s application for a COA and we dismiss

this appeal. 

Entered for the Court

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
JESSE DARNELL PELLOW, : No. 12 WM 2024 Petitioner

V.
BLAIR COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, BLAIR COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF NURSING, PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, Respondents
ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 4t" day ofJune, 2024, to the extent Petitionerseeks reliefasto his criminal matter, the "Application for Exercise ofExtraordinaryJurisdiction or King's Bench Power," the Motion for Clarification, the Application for Leave to File Response, and the "Requestto Inform" are DISMISSED. See Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282 (Pa. 2010) (barring hybrid representation). The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to forward those filings to counsel of record. In all other respects, the "Application for Exercise of Extraordinary Jurisdiction or King's Bench Power," the Motion for Clarification, the Application for Leave to File Response, and the "Request to Inform" are DENIED.