alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF WATKINS-JOHNSON COMPANY

                                                            JURISDICTION OR 
                        SUBSIDIARY                          INCORPORATION 
                    ------------------                      --------------- 
Watkins-Johnson FSC ......................................  Guam 
Watkins-Johnson International ............................  California 
Watkins-Johnson International Japan, K.K. ................  Japan 
Watkins-Johnson International Korea, Limited .............  Korea 
Watkins-Johnson International Singapore PTE, Limited  ....  Singapore 
Watkins-Johnson International Taiwan .....................  Taiwan 
Watkins-Johnson Italiana, S.p.A. .........................  Italy 
Watkins-Johnson Europe, Limited ..........................  United Kingdom 

                                       37
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-151149, 333-117395, 333-64256, 333-41247, 33-90972 and 33-43174) of WD-40 Company of our report dated October 16, 2009 relating to theconsolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

San Diego, California 

October 16, 2009
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

 

Nos. 07-1868

07-2005

RÍO MAR ASSOCIATES, LP, SE, ET AL.,

Defendants/Cross-Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

UHS OF PUERTO RICO, INC., D/B/A

HOSPITAL SAN PABLO DEL ESTE,

Cross-Defendant, Appellee, 

__________________

MYRELLA S. FIORENTINO,

Plaintiff, Appellee.

 

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on April 10, 2008, is amended as follows:

On page 7, re-number footnote 2 to footnote 1 and re-number subsequent footnotes

accordingly.
**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C 1350)**

 

  I, **Jane Carten**, certify that:

This certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form N-CSR/A for the period ended November 30, 2018 (the “Report”).

 I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

  Date: May 16, 2019  /s/ *Jane Carten*  President 

**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C 1350)**

  I, **Christopher Fankhauser**, certify that:

This certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form N-CSR/A for the period ended November 30, 2018 (the “Report”).

I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

Date: May 16, 2019

/s/ *Christopher Fankhauser*Treasurer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40998

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOSE JAVIER BANEGAS-GOMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:18-CR-608-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Javier Banegas-Gomez appeals his conviction for illegal reentry 

after removal on the ground that his guilty plea was unknowing and 

involuntary. Banegas-Gomez complains that he was unaware when he pleaded 

guilty that his petition for review of his underlying removal order was still 

pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and that his removal violated

that circuit’s policy against executing a removal order while a motion for a stay 

 

* 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

November 25, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40998 Document: 00515212209 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2019
No. 18-40998

2

of removal is pending. See Efstathiadis v. Holder, 752 F.3d 591, 599 n.5 (2d 

Cir. 2014). 

As Banegas-Gomez concedes, this issue was not raised in the district 

court and is thus reviewed only for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). In considering whether an error is clear or obvious, 

we must decide whether controlling precedent has reached the issue in 

question or whether the legal question would be subject to reasonable dispute. 

United States v. Fields, 777 F.3d 799, 802 (5th Cir. 2015). 

Banegas-Gomez has not identified any controlling Fifth Circuit or 

Supreme Court precedent on the issue whether a defendant pleading guilty to 

illegal reentry must know that his removal violated the Second Circuit’s 

forbearance policy, nor has Banegas-Gomez shown that it is beyond reasonable 

dispute that such knowledge is required. See id. Accordingly, Banegas-Gomez 

has failed to demonstrate that the district court clearly or obviously erred in 

accepting his guilty plea to illegal reentry despite his lack of knowledge that 

his underlying removal had been executed in violation of the Second Circuit’s 

forbearance policy. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-40998 Document: 00515212209 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/25/2019
Exhibit 32(b)



---

Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Wendys International, Inc.



This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the Form 10-K) for the year ended December 28, 2003 of Wendys International, Inc. (the Issuer).



I, Kerrii B. Anderson, the Chief Financial Officer of Issuer certify that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) |  | the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) |  | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                          
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------
|Dated: March 12, 2004 |  |  |  |                          
|                      |  | 
|                      |  |  |  | /s/    KERRII B. ANDERSON
|                      |  |  |  |                          
|                      |  |  |  | Name: Kerrii B. Anderson 



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Wendys International, Inc. and will be retained by Wendys International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

         The following is a list of the active subsidiaries of the Company as of
March 20, 1998, indicating the jurisdiction of incorporation of each and the
names under which such subsidiaries conduct business.

          Name of Subsidiary (% ownership)        Jurisdiction of Incorporation
          --------------------------------        -----------------------------
         Ladenburg, Thalmann Group Inc. (100%)            Delaware

         Ladenburg, Thalmann & Co. Inc. (100%)            Delaware

         Thinking Machines Corporation (72.7%)            Delaware

         BrookeMil Ltd. (99.1%)                           Cayman Islands

         ALKI Corp. (100%)                                Delaware

         PC411, Inc. (50.1%)                              Delaware

         Not included above are other subsidiaries which, if considered in the
aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary,
as such term is defined by Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ PHILLIP A. PEAVY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. LABOR SOURCE, LLC, d/b/a One Source ABM Industrial Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. No. 18-3085 (D.C. No. 2:15-CV -02633-JAR-TJJ) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before BRISCOE , MATHESON , and EID , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ On August 3, 2015 , the district court entered ju dgment dismissing Phillip Peavy’s pro se employment discrimination suit against Labor Source, LLC. On October 27, 2015, we affirmed the dismissal. Peavy v. Labor Source, LLC , 620 F. App’x 676 (10th Cir. 2015). Our mandate issued on December 21, 2015. On December 6, 2016, the district court denied Mr. Peavy’s motion to recall the mandate because it lacked jurisdiction to do so . It also denied his request to proceed

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in 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. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 26, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because there was no basis to do so. On March 8, 2017, we affirmed. Peavy v. Labor Source, LLC , 678 F. App’x 780 (10th Cir. 2017). Our mandate issu ed on March 30, 2017. On March 23, 2018, the district cour t denied Mr. Peavy’s motion captioned “Collateral Attack,” thro ugh which he appeared to challeng e the district court’s August 3, 2015 judgment and our March 8, 2017 order a nd judgment. The district court denied the motion, again saying it lacked jurisdiction to recall our court’s mandate and finding no basis for Rule 60(b) relief. Mr. Peavy appeals from this post-judgment order. We liberally construe a pro se litigant’s filings, see Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Though Mr. Peavy’ s brief is difficult to follow, we have carefully reviewed it. Although it appears to challenge the district court record, the magistrate judge’s role, the district court’ s August 3, 2015 judgment, and the district court’s reliance on this court’s March 8, 2017 order and judgment to deny the “Collateral Attack” motion, these and other references are not sufficiently clear or adequately briefed. Mr. Peavy has not presented an argument grounded in fact or law that would permit us to reverse the district court. Ex ercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we therefore affirm.

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge
H. Res. 1

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 7, 2003.

Resolved, That Jeffrey J. Trandahl of the State of South

Dakota, be, and is hereby, chosen Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Resolved, That Wilson S. Livingood of the Commonwealth of Virginia, be, and is hereby, chosen Sergeant at

Arms of the House of Representatives.

Resolved, That James M. Eagen, III, of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, be, and is hereby, chosen Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives.

Resolved, That Father Daniel P. Coughlin of the State

of Illinois, be, and is hereby, chosen Chaplain of the House

of Representatives.

Attest:

Clerk.
1

The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2989

___________

Joe Thomas; Cheri Thomas, *

*

Appellants, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Ford Motor Company; TRW, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2005

Filed: October 6, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joe and Cheri Thomas (Thomases) appeal the district court’s1

 adverse entry of

judgment following a trial in their diversity products-liability action. The only issue

on appeal is whether the district court properly submitted to the jury the issue of

contributory negligence on the part of a nonparty, the City of Mayflower, Arkansas

(Mayflower). 
-2-

Before trial the Thomases stipulated that the issue of Mayflower’s fault would

be submitted to the jury so the jury could compare Mayflower’s fault to any fault for

which the jury held defendants responsible. During trial the Thomases raised

concerns with the legality of the stipulation agreement, but they ultimately agreed to

submit the issue of Mayflower’s fault to the jury and agreed to the related special

interrogatory, and they thus have waived appellate review. See Starks v. Rent-ACenter, 58 F.3d 358, 361-62 (8th Cir. 1995) (it is fundamental that where party

invited error, there can be no reversible error); cf. Porterco, Inc. v. Igloo Prods. Corp.,

955 F.2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1992) (where no specific objections are made to district

court’s decision to submit issue to jury, party waives appellate review of ruling). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOHN CALVIN MAI, JR.
, Appe llant
,

v. Cas e No

. 5D 21

- 2539 LT Cas e No. 2019-302111

- CFDB

STAT E OF FLORIDA
,

Appellee

. _______________________________/

Decision filed September 20, 2022
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County
, Dennis Craig, J udge.

Os car H ardin Eaton, Jr. an d Lo ri D. Loftis, of Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Casselberry, for Appellant.
Ashley M oody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman
, Assistant Attorney General, Day tona B each, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
LAMBERT, C .J., EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE
, JJ.
, concur.
July 16, 2004
**EXHIBIT 32(i)**
**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 ofChapter 63**
**of Title 18 of the United States Code**
I, William Wrigley, Jr., the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (the “Company”), certify that to the best of my knowledge:   (i) the Annual Report of the Company on the Form 10-K dated February 11, 2005 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and    (ii) the information contained in the said Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.    /s/ WILLIAM WRIGLEY, JR. William Wrigley, Jr. Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
Dated the 11th day of February, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED APRIL 3, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                             180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,941)
<INVENTORY>                                     49,602
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,987
<PP&E>                                         222,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (88,862)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 346,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,438
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   346,125
<SALES>                                        155,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               155,529
<CGS>                                          134,638
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  134,638
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,413
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,624)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,320)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,304)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,304)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.32)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1





OFFICERS’ SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS





The undersigned officer of New Concept Energy, Inc. (Formerly CabelTel International Corporation), a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify that (i) the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, at and for the periods indicated.





Dated:  November 17, 2010






/s/ Gene S. BertcherGene S. Bertcher, Principal Executive Officer,President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
AND BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1996. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             952
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F2>
<PP&E>                                         384,550
<DEPRECIATION>                                  66,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,629
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F2>
<BONDS>                                        143,457
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       242,054
<OTHER-SE>                                    (50,106)<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   339,629
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,001
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,626<F4>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,970<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,289
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,231
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,231
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.72<F6>
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNT INSIGNIFICANT.
<F2>BALANCE SHEET IS NOT CLASSIFIED:
<F3>AMOUNT REPRESENTS ACCUMULATED DIVIDENDS IN EXCESS OF NET INCOME.
<F4>AMOUNT COMPRISED OF PROPERTY OPERATING COSTS ($8,933) AND OTHER OPERATING
EXPENSES ($2,693).
<F5>AMOUNT COMPRISED OF DEPRECIATION EXPENSE ($11,264) AND GENERAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE ($1,706).
<F6>EXERCISE OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OPTIONS WOULD NOT HAVE MATERIAL EFFECT ON
EARNINGS PER SHARE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Chambala J.E. HOLLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION, INC., doing business as Supershuttle International, Inc., doing business as Kansas City Transportation Group, Inc.; Terry O’Toole; Don Rubright; Alan Moldawer; Mark Joseph; Teresa Wolken; Tony Tymony; Cindy Simmons, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-2737.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 1, 2013.

Filed: March 18, 2013.

Chambala J.E. Hollis, I, Kansas City, MO, pro se.

*618James N. Foster, Jr., McMahon & Berger, St. Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appel-lees.

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Chambala Hollis appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing his employment-discrimination action with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. He has also moved to strike some of appellees’ statements and arguments. Upon careful review, *see Smith v. Gold Dust Casino,*526 F.3d 402, 404 (8th Cir.2008) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case, *see id.*at 404-05 (dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with court order is appropriate in cases of willful disobedience of court order). Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Hollis’s pending motion.2*See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

2

. The parties have briefed the issue of the correctness of a post-judgment order granting defendants attorney’s fees and costs, but Hollis failed to file a new or amended notice of appeal designating this order for appeal, and thus it is not properly before us. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii) (party intending to challenge order disposing of post-judgment *619motion must timely file notice of appeal or amended notice of appeal).