alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                                  SUBSIDIARIES
 
    The following are the subsidiaries of Rexel, Inc.
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Cable & Connector Warehouse, Inc.................................  Texas
<S>                                                                <C>
Calcon Electric Supply, Inc......................................  California
C.E.S. Industries, Inc...........................................  Delaware
Clark Consolidated Industries, Inc...............................  Ohio
Consolidated Electric Supply, Inc................................  Delaware
Consolidated Electric Supply (Bahamas) Ltd.......................  Bahamas
Duellman Electric Supply Company.................................  Ohio
Elgee Electric Supply Co.........................................  Ohio
Engineered Apparel Concepts, Inc.................................  Delaware
Rawlinson Electric Company.......................................  Texas
Rogers Lighting Company..........................................  Texas
Robin Service Corporation........................................  New York
Seaco Electrical Supplies, Inc...................................  Florida
Southern Electric Supply Company, Inc............................  Delaware
Spindletop Electrical Distributing Company.......................  Texas
Summers Electric Company.........................................  Texas
Summers Group, Inc...............................................  Delaware
The Sacks Electrical Supply Co...................................  Ohio
Rexel DN, Inc....................................................  Delaware
Rexel DS, Inc....................................................  Delaware
Utility Products Supply Co.......................................  Colorado
</TABLE>
#### Jacob Tuck, Appellant, *v.*Magdalena Rottkowsky, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

May, 1905.)

Account stated — Judgment as bar — Goods sold and delivered.

A judgment against plaintiff, upon an account stated, is not a bar to an action by him for goods sold and delivered, although such sale anil delivery was the subject in reference to which it is claimed there was an account stated.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew1 York, eighth district, borough of Manhattan.

Herbert J. Hindes, for appellant.

Otto Kempner, for respondent.

Truax, J.

The compláint should not have been dismissed. The action in the Municipal Court of the borough of Brooklyn was not an adjudication of the' question at issue in this action. That action was brought on an account stated. It is well settled that in such an action the only question to be determined is whether there has or has not been an acoount *387stated. Volkening v. DeGraaf, 81 N. Y. 268, and Derleth v. DeGraaf, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 369.

It was held in the case last above cited that a judgment against the plaintiff upon a cause of action founded on an account stated is not a bar to an action for goods sold and delivered, although such sale and delivery was the subject in reference to which it was claimed there was an account stated.

In reaching this conclusion we have taken it for granted that there was competent evidence in the case showing that the plaintiff had brought an action on an account stated in the Municipal Court of the borough of Brooklyn,,, and that the action related to the services mentioned in the complaint in this action, although neither the complaint nor the judgment roll in the action in the Municipal Court in the borough of Brooklyn was offered in evidence. If the objections to the questions on cross examination in reference to the action in the Municipal Court in the borough of Brooklyn had been that those questions did not call for the best evidence they would have been well taken.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, with costs to the appellant, to abide the event.

Scott and Dowling, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, with costs to appellant, to abide event.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Nicholas Padron, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered March 11, 2010, after a jury trial, convicting him of assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered March 11, 2010, reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. </p><p>Criminal Court failed to meet its core responsibilities under <i>People v O'Rama</i>, 78 NY2d 270, 277 (1991), to read the substantive jury note into the record and allow defense counsel a full opportunity to suggest an appropriate response. As the People concede, this failure constituted a mode of proceedings error that is exempt from the preservation requirements and requires reversal (<i>see People v Kisoon</i>, 8 NY3d 129 [2007]; <a href="../2013/2013_03342.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Howell</i>, 106 AD3d 835</a> [2013], <i>lv denied </i>21 NY3d 1042 [2013]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT</p><br>I concurI concur I concur<br>Decision Date: December 12, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 32

PUBLIC MEDIA WORKS, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Public Media Works, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending February 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Corbin Bernsen, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                    |  |                                                        
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 12, 2006 |  | /s/ Corbin Bernsen                                     
|                    |  | Corbin Bernsen                                         
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.2







Exhibit 10.2




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AND NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENT




THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AND NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENT (“First Amendment”), between RSC
Equipment Rental, Inc., f/k/a Rental Service Corporation (the “Company”) and      (“Executive”), is entered
into on February      , 2009.



RECITALS:




WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Executive Employment and Noncompetition Agreement on      , 200     (the
“Employment Agreement”);



WHEREAS, Executive and the Company have agreed to a temporary reduction of Executive’s Base Salary (as defined in
the Employment Agreement, and which shall be referred to as the Pre-Reduction Rate set forth below) through December
31, 2009, with the understanding that all other provisions, other than that provided herein, of the Employment
Agreement shall remain unchanged.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the adequacy and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Executive agree as follows:



1. Commencing on March 2, 2009, Executive’s Base Salary shall be reduced by ten percent (10%) (the “Reduction”)
for the remainder of calendar year 2009. The amount paid from January 1, 2009 through March 1, 2009 was based on an
annual rate of $     (the “Pre-Reduction Rate”). Commencing on January 1, 2010, Executive’s Base Salary shall revert
to the Pre-Reduction Rate. Any merit increases in 2010 shall be based upon the Pre-Reduction Rate.



2. Executive agrees that the Reduction shall not constitute Good Reason to resign, as defined under Section 2.5(a)
of the Employment Agreement.



3. For all purposes under the Employment Agreement other than payment of monthly Base Salary under Section 2.1 of
the Employment Agreement and the calculation of eligible earnings for Variable Compensation, Base Salary shall be the
Pre-Reduction Rate. For example, for the avoidance of doubt, Severance Benefits (under Section 2.5), if any, shall be
calculated based on the Pre-Reduction Rate.



Except as modified herein, the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full
force and effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this First Amendment, or caused this First Amendment to
be duly executed on their respective behalf by their respective duly authorized officers, all effective as of the date
and year first written above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	RSC EQUIPMENT RENTAL, INC.	 	EXECUTIVE
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 	
	By:

	 	 
	 	By:
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 234 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       October 7, 2003.
Whereas all Americans are united in supporting American men and women who 
        protect our Nation abroad and at home;
Whereas thousands of Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, South Asian-Americans, 
        and Sikh-Americans serve in the military and in law enforcement, working 
        to protect all Americans;
Whereas the Arab-American, Muslim-American, South Asian-American, and Sikh-
        American communities are vibrant, peaceful, and law-abiding, and have 
        greatly contributed to American society; and
Whereas all Americans, including Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, South Asian-
        Americans, and Sikh-Americans, condemn acts of violence and prejudice: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) is concerned by the number of bias-motivated crimes against 
        Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, South Asian-Americans, and Sikh-
        Americans, and other Americans in recent months;
            (2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all 
        Americans, including Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, South Asian-
        Americans, and Sikh-Americans, should be protected;
            (3) condemns bigotry and acts of violence against any American, 
        including Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, South Asian-Americans, and 
        Sikh-Americans;
            (4) calls upon local, State, and Federal law enforcement authorities 
        to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes against all Americans, 
        including Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, South Asian-Americans, and 
        Sikh-Americans; and
            (5) calls upon local, State, and Federal law enforcement authorities 
        to investigate and prosecute vigorously all such crimes committed 
        against Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans, South Asian-Americans, and 
        Sikh-Americans.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-20433 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jorge Luis Batalla, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:21-CR-32-1 

______________________________ 

Before Willett, Duncan, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Luis 

Batalla has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and a 

supplemental brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Batalla has 

not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

May 30, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-20433 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/30/2024
No. 23-20433 

2 

portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. 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. 

Case: 23-20433 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/30/2024
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>9
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
<PERIOD-START>JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>SEP-30-1996
<CASH)2,876
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>65,183
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>3,620
<TRADING-ASSETS>0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>15,076
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>2,886
<LOANS>62,990
<ALLOWANCE>707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>89,732
<DEPOSITS>76,560
<SHORT-TERM>3,828
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>744
<LONG-TERM>490
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>0
<PREFERRED>0
<COMMON>2537
<OTHER-SE>5,573
<INTEREST-LOAN>4,287
<INTEREST-INVEST>991
<INTEREST-OTHER>0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>5,279
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>2,180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>2,318
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>2,961
<LOAN-LOSSES>150
<SECURITIES-GAINS>(2)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>2,051
<INCOME-PRETAX>1,195
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>1,195
<EXTRAORDINARY>(389)
<CHANGES>0
<NET-INCOME>806
<EPS-PRIMARY>1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>1.04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>4.52
<LOANS-NON>272
<LOANS-PAST>73
<LOANS-TROUBLED>0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>670
<CHARGE-OFFS>156
<RECOVERIES>23
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>707
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>0
        

</TABLE>
IC 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3395 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2016 

Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee 

on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

AN ACT 

To require limitations on prescribed burns. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 3395 RFH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prescribed Burn Ap3 proval Act of 2016’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

5 In this Act: 

6 (1) NATIONAL FIRE DANGER RATING SYS7 TEM.—The term ‘‘national fire danger rating sys8 tem’’ means the national system used to provide a 

9 measure of fire danger according to a range of low 

10 to moderate to high to very high to extreme. 

11 (2) PRESCRIBED BURN.—The term ‘‘prescribed 

12 burn’’ means a planned fire intentionally ignited. 

13 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

14 the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the 

15 Chief of the Forest Service. 

16 SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON PRESCRIBED BURNS. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

18 (b), the Secretary shall not authorize a prescribed burn 

19 on Forest Service land if, for the county or contiguous 

20 county in which the land is located, the national fire dan21 ger rating system indicates an extreme fire danger level. 

22 (b) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary may authorize a 

23 prescribed burn under a condition described in subsection 

24 (a) if the Secretary coordinates with the applicable State 

25 government and local fire officials. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

S 3395 RFH

1 (c) REPORT.—At the end of each fiscal year, the Sec2 retary shall submit to Congress a report describing— 

3 (1) the number and locations of prescribed 

4 burns during that fiscal year; and 

5 (2) each prescribed burn during that fiscal year 

6 that was authorized by the Secretary pursuant to 

7 subsection (b). 

Passed the Senate November 17, 2016. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
10.22




AMENDMENT
OF BONUS AGREEMENT




THIS
AMENDMENT OF BONUS AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into by and between WHX
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Company”), and Glen Kassan (“Executive”),
effective as of January 1, 2009.




Background




A.           The
Company and the Executive previously entered into a Bonus Agreement, dated as of
July 6, 2007 (“Agreement”).




B.           The
Company and the Executive wish to amend the Agreement, effective as of January
1, 2009, to comply with the final regulations under Code Section
409A.




In
consideration of the premises, the parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement
as follows, effective January 1, 2009.




Amendment




1.           A
new Section 15 is added to the Agreement, to read as follows:




“Section
15. Code Section 409A.




(a)           The
parties hereto intend that all benefits and payments to be made to the Executive
hereunder will be provided or paid to him in compliance with, or an exemption or
exception from the applicable provisions of, section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 as amended (“Code”) and the regulations issued thereunder,
and the rulings, notices and other guidance issued by the Internal Revenue
Services interpreting the same, and this Agreement shall be construed and
administered in accordance with such intent. The parties also agree that this
Agreement may be modified, as reasonably requested by either party, to the
extent necessary to comply with all applicable requirements of, and to avoid the
imposition of any additional tax, interest and penalties under, the section 409A
of the Code in connection with, the benefits and payments to be provided or paid
to the Executive hereunder. Any such modification shall maintain the original
intent and benefit to the Company and the Executive of the applicable provision
of this Agreement, to the maximum extent possible without violating section 409A
of the Code.




(b)           Any
payments hereunder that qualify for an exception under section 409A of the Code
shall be paid under the applicable exception.




(c)           The
discretion of the Committee under Subsection 3(b)-(e) hereof shall not extend
the time for delivery of the Notice beyond the Termination Date.




(d)           No
Bonus Replacement under Section 5 shall cause the Agreement to become subject to
Section 409A of the Code.”









2.           In
all other respects the Agreement shall be and remain unchanged.




The
Company, by its duly authorized officer, and the Executive have executed this
Amendment, effective as of January 1, 2009, on the dates set out
below.




COMPANY
              
              EXECUTIVEBy:
              /s/
      Peter T. Gelfman
              
              /s/
      Glenn Kassan12/31/08














2
Order entered August 3, 2015 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00245-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 13-00345W 

ORDER 

Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the April 24, 2015 motion of 

Frank Adler to withdraw as Father’s appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk of the 

Court to remove Frank Adler as counsel of record for Father. We further DIRECT the Clerk of 

the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Jorge Alberto 

Campuzano, 409 West Brown St., Apt. A, Ennis, Texas 75119. 

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS 

 JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6403

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEVIN BROWN, a/k/a Deno Badazz,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00123-RMG-5; 2:19-cv02205-RMG)

Submitted: October 29, 2021 Decided: January 14, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Devin Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Devin Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to amend 

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 

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). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find 

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

v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made 

the requisite showing. We deny Brown’s motions to supplement the record, motions for 

transcripts, and motion for production of documents. We further deny Brown’s motion for 

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 this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers of C&F Financial Corporation



 Exhibit 10.16 
 BASE SALARIES FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
 OF 
 C&F FINANCIAL CORPORATION 
 The
following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) in effect as of January 1, 2009 of the named executive officers of C&F Financial Corporation: 
  

				
	 Larry G. Dillon
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	248,000
		
	 Thomas F. Cherry
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
	  	$	200,000
		
	 Bryan E. McKernon
President and Chief Executive Officer of C&F Mortgage Corporation
	  	$	195,000
# Multiple fatality, 2011-18

Fatal occupational injuries from multiple fatality incidents, 2011-18 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries from multiple fatality incidents, 2011-18		

Fatal occupational injuries from multiple fatality incidents, 2011-18 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries from multiple fatality incidents, 2011-18		

Page &P