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

HAYNES INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Haynes
International, Inc.
    Parent company

Haynes
Wire Company
    (Wholly owned subsidiary in Mountain Home, North Carolina)

Haynes
International, Ltd.
    (Wholly owned subsidiary in Openshaw, England)

Haynes
International, S.A.R.L.
    (Wholly owned subsidiary in Paris, France)

Nickel-Contor
AG
    (Wholly owned subsidiary in Zurich, Switzerland)

Haynes
International, S.r.l.
    (Wholly owned subsidiary of Nickel-Contor in Italy)

Haynes
Pacific Pte Ltd
    (Wholly owned subsidiary in Singapore)

Haynes
International (China) Ltd.
    (Wholly owned subsidiary of Haynes Pacific Pte. Ltd.)

Haynes
International, Inc. India Branch Office
    (Wholly owned Branch Office in India)

Haynes
Sour Gas Tubulars, Inc.
    (Wholly owned subsidiary, Inactive)

Haynes
Specialty Steels Company
    (Wholly owned subsidiary, Inactive)

1

---



QuickLinks
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS 241

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Pay

Plan

Type 

of

Appt.

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - Continued

Region 6-Dallas

Dallas, TX Regional Administrator Gregg A. Cooke ES NA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Regional Administrator Career Incumbent ES CA ...... ...... ......

Region 7-Kansas City

Kansas City, KS Regional Administrator Dennis D. Grams ES NA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Regional Administrator Career Incumbent ES CA ...... ...... ......

Region 8-Denver

Denver, CO Regional Administrator William P. Yellowtail ES NA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Regional Administrator Career Incumbent ES CA ...... ...... ......

Region 9-San Francisco

San Francisco, CA Regional Administrator Felicia A. Marcus ES NA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Regional Administrator Career Incumbent ES CA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Director, Office of Gregory L. Gibbs

Communications and 

Governmental Relations

GS SC 15 ...... ......

Region 10-Seattle

Seattle, WA Regional Administrator Vacant ES ... ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Deputy Regional Administrator Career Incumbent ES CA ...... ...... ......

Location Position Title Name of Incumbent

Pay

Plan

Type 

of

Appt.

Level,

Grade, or

Pay

Tenure Expires

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN

Washington, DC Chairman Ida L. Castro EX PAS III ...... ......

 Do........... Senior Advisor Reginald E. Jones ES TA ...... ...... 02/18/01

 Do........... Special Assistant Patricia Crawford GS SC 14 ...... ......

Office of the General Counsel

 Do........... General Counsel Clifford G. Stewart EX PAS V ...... ......

Office of Legal Counsel

 Do........... Legal Counsel Ellen J. Vargyas ES NA ...... ...... ......

 Do........... Confidential Assistant Benita A. Lucy GS SC 9 ...... ......

Office of Communications and 

Legislative Affairs

 Do........... Director, Office of William J. White

Communications & Legislative 

Affairs

ES EA ...... ...... 09/30/00

MEMBER EEOC

 Do........... Member Paul S. Miller EX PAS IV ...... ......

 Do........... Senior Advisor Paul R. Richard GS SC 15 ...... ......

MEMBER EEOC

 Do........... Member Vacant EX PAS IV ...... ......

VICE CHAIRMAN

 Do........... Vice Chairman Paul M. Igasaki EX PAS IV ...... ......

MEMBER EEOC

 Do........... Member Vacant EX PAS IV ...... ......
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice Victor WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-6459.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 12, 2008.

Decided: June 13, 2008.

Maurice Victor Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Kelli Hamby Ferry, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Victor Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap*220pealability. 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee, 252*F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams 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.*
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 29 

To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American 

Free Trade Agreement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. MCINTYRE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from 

the North American Free Trade Agreement. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM 

4 THE NAFTA. 

5 (a) WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL.—Notwithstanding 

6 any other provision of law, the approval of the NAFTA 

7 by the Congress provided for in section 101(a) of the 

8 North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation 

9 Act shall cease to be effective beginning on the date that 

10 is six months after the date of the enactment of this Act. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 29 IH

1 (b) NOTIFICATION OF WITHDRAWAL.—On the date 

2 of the enactment of this Act, the President shall provide 

3 to the Governments of Canada and Mexico written notice 

4 of withdrawal of the United States from the NAFTA in 

5 accordance with Article 2205 of the NAFTA. 

6 (c) NAFTA DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

7 ‘‘NAFTA’’ means the North American Free Trade Agree8 ment entered into between the United States, Canada, and 

9 Mexico on December 17, 1992. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

AUDREY SALEEM

, Appellant,

v.

CLARENCE C. WALKER, ET AL.,

Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 3083

[ November 17, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Jeffrey R. Levenson , Judge; L.T. Case No. PRC96

-

002078

.

Jean J. Barnett, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jesse H. Diner and S. Carey Villeneuve of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney

PC, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, G ERBER and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3063 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3063

 To amend the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 to provide 
      for an additional allocation of funds to the insular areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 23, 2011

Mr. Sablan (for himself, Mr. Pierluisi, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Bordallo, 
and Mr. Faleomavaega) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
    to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce, 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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 to provide 
      for an additional allocation of funds to the insular areas.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO INSULAR AREAS.

    Section 2604 of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 
(42 U.S.C. 8623) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ``subsection 
        (b)(1)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(A)''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)(1)--
                    (A) by striking ``(b)(1)'' before ``The Secretary 
                shall apportion not less than'' and inserting 
                ``(b)(1)(A)'';
                    (B) by striking ``under this paragraph'' and 
                inserting ``under this subparagraph'', each place it 
                appears; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following new 
                subparagraph:
    ``(B) Beginning in fiscal year 2013, and for each fiscal year 
thereafter, the Secretary shall allocate not less than 30 percent of 
the amount appropriated pursuant to section 2602(d) for such fiscal 
year to the jurisdictions to which subparagraph (A) applies to provide 
supplementary funds to such jurisdictions for carrying out this title 
on the basis of need among such jurisdictions.''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 297 

To require amounts remaining in Members’ representational allowances at 

the end of a fiscal year to be used for deficit reduction or to reduce 

the Federal debt, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2011 

Mr. CAMP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To require amounts remaining in Members’ representational 

allowances at the end of a fiscal year to be used for 

deficit reduction or to reduce the Federal debt, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REQUIRING AMOUNTS REMAINING IN MEM4 BERS’ REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES TO 

5 BE USED FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION OR TO RE6 DUCE THE FEDERAL DEBT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law, any amounts appropriated for the Members’ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 297 IH

1 Representational Allowance of a Member of the House of 

2 Representatives for a fiscal year which remain after all 

3 payments are made under such Allowance for the year 

4 shall be deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit re5 duction, except that in the case of a fiscal year for which 

6 there is no Federal budget deficit, such amounts shall be 

7 used to reduce the Federal debt (in such manner as the 

8 Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate). 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply with 

10 respect to fiscal year 2011 and each succeeding fiscal year. 

11 SEC. 2. PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT. 

12 After each session of Congress or other period for 

13 which the Members’ Representational Allowance is made 

14 available, there shall be published in the Congressional 

15 Record a statement showing, with respect to such session 

16 or period, the amount deposited with respect to each Mem17 ber under section 1 and the total deposited with respect 

18 to all Members. 

19 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

20 The Committee on House Administration of the 

21 House of Representatives shall have authority to prescribe 

22 regulations to carry out this Act. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 297 IH

1 SEC. 4. DEFINITION. 

2 As used in this Act, the term ‘‘Member of the House 

3 of Representatives’’ means a Representative in, or a Dele4 gate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 11

                    HEALTHCOR HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                UNAUDITED NET INCOME PER COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED              SIX MONTHS ENDED
Primary and fully diluted earnings per share                JUNE 30,                       JUNE 30,
                                                  ----------------------------   ----------------------------
                                                      1997            1996           1997            1996
                                                  ------------    ------------   ------------    ------------
<S>                                               <C>             <C>            <C>             <C>         
Net income ....................................   $ (3,336,017)   $  1,175,411   $ (1,527,755)   $  2,146,697
                                                  ============    ============   ============    ============

Shares:
Weighted average common shares issued .........     10,041,104       3,018,983     10,032,309       3,018,983
Assuming exercise of options, reduced by the
  number of common shares which could have been
  purchased with the proceeds from exercise of
  such options ................................           --           233,468           --           233,468
Assuming conversion of Series A preferred stock           --         2,000,000           --         2,000,000
Assuming conversion of Series B preferred stock           --         1,339,298           --         1,339,298
                                                  ------------    ------------   ------------    ------------
Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding, as adjusted ....................     10,041,104       6,591,749     10,032,309       6,591,749
                                                  ============    ============   ============    ============

Net income per common share ...................   $      (0.33)   $       0.18   $      (0.15)   $       0.33
                                                  ============    ============   ============    ============
</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.32

                    The Reader's Digest Association, Inc.
                Executive Financial Counseling Program Summary

Under the Executive Financial Counseling Program, Reader's Digest pays for
financial planning and counseling services for participants (including
executive officers), including review, analysis and counseling with respect
to financial position, employee benefits, income tax planning, capital and
estate planning, and insurance and retirement planning.  Eligible services
are provided by a recognized, national financial counseling firm determined
by Reader's Digest.  Eligible services may range from a maximum of $5,650 to
$16,950 (or such other amounts as may be determined by Reader's Digest's
Compensation and Nominating Committee), depending on the participant's
position and level of responsibility.
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the
incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-116969, 333-71328,
and 333-100233 on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement Nos. 333-111573, 333-109096, 333-80384,
333-21493 and 333-62929 on Form S-3 of I-Flow Corporation of (1) our
report dated March 16, 2005 relating to the financial statements
and financial statement schedule of I-Flow Corporation (which
report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs referring to a
restatement to reflect the November 1, 2003 sale of the Spinal Specialties, Inc. businesses as
discontinued operations and a change in accounting for goodwill and
other intangible assets), and (2) our report on internal control over
financial reporting dated March 16, 2005 (which report expresses an
adverse opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a
material weakness identified) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of I-Flow Corporation for the
year ended December 31, 2004. /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP Costa Mesa, California
March 16, 2005
#### Terry Lee THORNE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Rick JACKSON, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 08-6302.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 19, 2008.

Decided: June 24, 2008.

Terry Lee Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*272PER CURIAM:

Terry Lee Thorne seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § *2254 (2000)*petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. *See*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. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thorne has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, grant Thorne’s motion to amend his brief, 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.*
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 1, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00258

- CV

IN RE January and Robert HOWELL

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Jus tice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On April 25, 2016, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. T he court has

considered relator s ’ petition and is of the opinion that relator s are not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingl y, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on June 1, 2016

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of June, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

, Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015

- PA

- 01619, styled In re M.E.R., R.M.R., M.N.R., J.A.R., E.J.R.,

B.L.R. & B.R., Children , pending in the 150th Judicial District C ourt, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Peter A.

Sakai presiding.
Exhibit 32
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In  connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report of Consortium
Service  Management  Group,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended March 31, 2006 (the  "Report"),  I, Donald S. Robbins,  Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

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

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

Dated:  May 15, 2006

                                             /s/ Donald S. Robbins
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Donald S. Robbins
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


         The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350)  and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 19-1983

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,

v.

RYAN MUMME,
Defendant, Appellant.

**ERRATA SHEET**
The opinion of this Court, issued on January 13, 2021, is amended as follows:

On page 4, line 16, replace "Beyond where the RV was parked was" with "Beyond where the RV was parked were."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1988

DAWIT MENGISTU, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-354-358) Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dawit Mengistu, Petitioner Pro Se. Allen Warren Hausman, Daniel Eric Goldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).PER CURIAM: Dawit Mengistu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and find no abuse of discretion in the refusal to grant the motion to reopen. See Stewart v. INS , 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(1) (2000). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED