alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

     The following is a list of the active subsidiaries of the Company as of
March 27, 1997, indicating the jurisdiction of incorporation of each and the
names under which such subsidiaries conduct business. In the case of each
subsidiary which is indented, its immediate parent owns beneficially all of the
voting securities, except New Valley Corporation, of which BGLS Inc. and New
Valley Holdings, Inc. collectively own approximately 42% of such voting
securities.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                           JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
   ------------------                                           -----------------------------
     <S>                                                                <C>
     BGLS Inc.                                                            Delaware
       Liggett Group Inc.                                                 Delaware
       Brooke (Overseas) Ltd.                                             Delaware
       New Valley Holdings, Inc.                                          Delaware
          New Valley Corporation                                          Delaware

</TABLE>

     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.
Order entered Decemb er 9 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00695

- CR

JAMES EDWARD ROGERS, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. 28576



### O RDER

The Court has before it appellant’s December 4, 2014 motion to extend time to file his

brief December 8, 2014 motion to substitute counsel. We GRANT the motion to substitute

counsel. We DIRECT the Clerk to substitute John Butler as appellant’s retained counsel in
place of Sharita Blacknall.

We STRIKE the Anders brief filed by Ms. Blacknall on September 23, 2014.

We GRANT Mr. Butler’s December 4, 2014 motion to extend time to file appellant’s

brief. We ORDER appellant to f ile his brief within FORTY

- FIVE DAYS of the date of this

order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Sharita Blacknall, John Butler, and the Hunt County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.3



Liquid Audio, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liquid Audio, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Melvyn Brunt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 14, 2003



/s/ Melvyn BruntMelvyn BruntChief Financial Officer
#### William C. RICKETT, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2010-7093.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 25, 2011.

*968Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

RADER, Chief Judge.

ORDER

The appellant moves without opposition to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand for further proceedings.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Veterans Claims more than 120 days after the Board of Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in his case. That court dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the 120-day appeal period established by 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) for seeking review of Board of Veterans’ Appeals decisions is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. The appellant sought this court’s review.

This court stayed the briefing schedule in this appeal pending the United States Supreme Court’s review of our decision in *Henderson v. Shinseki,*589 F.3d 1201 (Fed.Cir.2009) (en banc) (affirming Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determination that period to appeal to that court is not subject to equitable tolling). In *Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,*- U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011), the Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision and concluded that the 120-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences. Because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in concluding that the appeal deadline established by § 7266(a) is jurisdictional, we vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
Exhibit
23.2





CONSENT
OF WINDES & MCCLAUGHRY ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION


INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form
S-8 No. 333-142545) pertaining to Renhuang Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2007
Non-Qualified Company Stock Grant And Option Plan and (Form S-8 No. 333-104833)
pertaining to the 2003 Omnibus Securities Plan of our report dated January 29,
2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Renhuang
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended October 31, 2009.





Windes
      & McClaughry Accountancy Corporation/s/ Windes & McClaughryJanuary
      29, 2010
1.
    
    6543 Luxembourg S.A. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mymetics Corporation) is a
joint stock company organized under the laws of Luxembourg and does business
under the name 6543 Luxembourg S.A.2.
    
    Mymetics S.A. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mymetics Corporation)is a company
organized under the laws of Switzerland and did business under the names
Mymetics S.A. and Mymetics Management Sàrl during 2009.3.
    
    Bestewil Holding B.V. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mymetics Corporation)
is a company organized under the laws of the Netherlands and did business under
the name Bestewil Holding B.V. during 2009.4.
    
    Mymetics B.V. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mymetics Corporation, via Bestewil
Holding B.V.) is a company organized under the laws of the Netherlands and did
business under the names Mymetics B.V. and Virosome Biologicals B.V.
during 2009.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Indiantown Cogeneration Funding Corporation for the year ended December 31,
2003, I, P. Chrisman Iribe, President Indiantown Cogeneration Funding
Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:  (1)
    
    such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2003 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2003 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Indiantown Cogeneration Funding Corporation March 29, 2004
    
    /s/ P. CHRISMAN IRIBEP. Chrisman IribePresidentIndiantown Cogeneration Funding Corporation
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Indiantown Cogeneration Funding Corporation and will be retained by
Indiantown Cogeneration Funding Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6916

KEVIN ORLANDO SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-99-1544-AM) Submitted: January 5, 2001 Decided: January 18, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Orlando Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Orlando Smith appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Director, Virginia Dep’t. of Corrections , No. CA-99-1544-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 25 & May 30, 2000).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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Charles MCCLINTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7287.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 28, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 23, 2011.

David Charles McClinton, Appellant Pro Se. Anne. Magee Tompkins, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Charles McClinton appeals the district court’s order construing McClin-ton’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and denying it as successive and unauthorized. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. McClinton,*No. 3:89-cr-00098-FDW-l (W.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 2010). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Back to Index





EXHIBIT 32.2





L Q CORPORATION, INC.


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of L Q Corporation, Inc. (the  Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,  Melvyn Brunt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that:





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





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





|Dated:     November 12,
      2004 |                        
|---------------------------------- | -----------------------
|                                   |                        
|                                   | /s/ Melvyn Brunt       
|                                   |                        
|                                   | Melvyn Brunt           
|                                   | Chief Financial Officer




---
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20621]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-566 and 731-TA-1342 (Final)]


Softwood Lumber Products From Canada; Revised Schedule for the 
Subject Investigations

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: September 20, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Ruggles (202-205-3187), Office of 
Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information 
on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-
1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special 
assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the 
Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning 
the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server 
(https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may 
be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 30, 2017, the Commission established 
a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject 
investigations (82 FR 32376, July 13, 2017). Subsequently, the 
Department of Commerce extended the date for its final determinations 
in the investigations from no later than September 6, 2017 to no later 
than November 13, 2017 (82 FR 41609, September 1, 2017). The 
Commission, therefore, is revising its schedule to conform with 
Commerce's new schedule.
    The Commission's new schedule for the investigations is as follows: 
The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is September 25, 2017; the 
Commission will make its final release of information on November 30, 
2017; and final party comments are due on December 4, 2017. Final 
comments shall only concern information disclosed to the parties after 
they have filed their posthearing briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 207.30(b); 
the Commission has extended the page limit for such comments to not 
exceed 25 pages due to the particular circumstances of this proceeding.
    For further information concerning these investigations see the 
Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and 
part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

    Authority: These investigations are being conducted under 
authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is 
published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 21, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-20621 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
H. R. 2972 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 115 West 

Edward Street in Erath, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Conrad DeRouen, Jr. Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CONRAD DEROUEN, JR. POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 115 West Edward Street in Erath, Louisiana, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Conrad DeRouen, Jr. Post 

Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Conrad DeRouen, Jr. Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00352

- CR

EX PARTE Otis T. MCKANE

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR1505

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 27, 2019.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00666-CR

Reynaldo Roberto ESPARZA a/k/a “El Peine,”

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CRN-166-D3

Honorable Elma T. Salinas Ender, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 5, 2012

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On October 12, 2012, appellant filed a notice of appeal in trial court cause number 

2005CRN000166-D3. This court, however, previously affirmed appellant’s conviction in that 

trial court cause number. See Esparza v. State, No. 04-08-00039-CR, 2009 WL 89697 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio Jan. 14, 2009, no pet.). Although the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

granted appellant’s post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus, the relief granted only 

permitted appellant to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of this court’s 

judgment in our cause number 04-08-00039-CR. See Ex parte Esparza, No. AP-76839, 2012 
04-12-00666-CR

- 2 -

WL 3996425 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 12, 2012). The Court did not grant appellant permission to 

file a new appeal. See id. 

On October 24, 2012, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On November 21, 2012, appellant’s 

attorney filed a letter stating appellant does not intend to file a response to this court’s order. 

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

September 20, 2024

SC-2024-0471

Ex parte Samuel Earl Hunter PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Samuel Earl Hunter 

v. State of Alabama) (Jefferson Circuit Court: CC-21-1770; Criminal 

Appeals: CR-2023-0472).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on September 20, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Mendheim, J. -- Parker, C.J., and 

Shaw, Bryan, and Mitchell, JJ.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
NO. 07-04-0092-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 27, 2004

______________________________ MATTHEW ANDRAE, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF HALE C OUNTY; NO. 2003C -942; HON ORABLE B ILL HOLLA RS, JUDG E

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORAND UM OPINION On May 17, 2004, the parties filed an Agreement to Remand wit h th is Court, indicati ng that th is case s hould beremanded to the tri al court for furthe r proceed ings. Itis therefore ordered, that the judgment of the trial court be reversed and thecause remanded to the tri al court for furthe r proceed ings. Phil Johnson Chief Justice Do not pu blish.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexander McCarthy, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 465]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings *467County (Vaughan, J.), rendered March 20, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Insofar as the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is reviewable, we find that the defense attorney’s performance amply met the standard of meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,372
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  242,863
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,265
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          13,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                     218
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 307,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           178
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   307,653
<SALES>                                         36,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,247
<CGS>                                           19,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,360
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,105
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,105
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,105
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17


</TABLE>