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


                              Polymer Group, Inc.

               Subsidiaries of Polymer Group, Inc., as of 1/29/98


Subsidiary                                  Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----------                                  -----------------------------

PGI Polymer, Inc.                                    Delaware
Chicopee Holdings, Inc.                              Delaware
Chicopee, Inc.                                       Delaware
Chicopee Holdings B.V.                               The Netherlands, Delaware*
Chicopee, B.V.                                       The Netherlands
FiberTech Group, Inc.                                Delaware
Technetics Group, Inc.                               Delaware
Fibergol Corporation                                 Delaware
Bonlam S.A. de C.V.                                  Mexico  
Fabrene Group, Inc.                                  Canada  
Fabrene Inc.                                         Canada
Fabrene Corp.                                        Delaware
Fabrene L.L.C.                                       Delaware
PNA Corp.                                            Delaware
FNA Polymer Corp.                                    Delaware
DT Acquisition Inc.                                  Canada
Loretex Corporation                                  New York
Dominion Textile (USA) Inc.                          Delaware
Dominion Textile Mauritius                           Mauritius
Dominion Textile France S.a.r.l.                     France  
Nordlys S.A.                                         France
Nordlys UK Ltd.                                      United Kingdom
Geca Tapes B.V.                                      The Netherlands
Albuma S.A.                                          France
DomTex Industries Inc.                               New York
Poly-Bond Inc.                                       Delaware
3427790 Canada Limited                               Canada




* Pursuant to a certificate of domestication filed with the Secretary of State 
of Delaware on September 19, 1996, this subsidiary was incorporated in the State
of Delaware under the name Chicopee Holdings (Netherlands) B.V. Corporation.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

s0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138133 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138133 

 COA: 287709 

Alcona CC: 02-011054-FC 

DARYL D. JUSTICE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 5, 2009 order 

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

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Exhibit
32.2



CERTIFICATION
OF PERIODIC REPORT

As
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter ended September 30, 2007 of Integrated
BioPharma, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), Dina L. Masi, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Integrated
BioPharma, Inc. certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to her 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 or 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except
to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement
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.

|Date: November 15, 2007 |  | By: /s/Dina L. Masi                                    
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | Name: Dina L. Masi                                     
|                        |  | Title:  Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<LEGEND>
     UNAUDITED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT 9/30/98
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                     0001016275
<NAME>                                    GEO PETROLEUM, INC.
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                    133,712
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                             101,559
<ALLOWANCES>                              633,126
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          352,166
<PP&E>                                  6,584,777
<DEPRECIATION>                         (1,253,001)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          6,200,173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,744,131
<BONDS>                                         0
<COMMON>                                7,065,899
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                             (2,609,857)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            6,200,173
<SALES>                                   210,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          213,200
<CGS>                                      85,756
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              88,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        (40,336)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            78,809
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               78,809
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0.01
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 June 30, 2006, 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; and

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

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.

Dated: August __, 2006


                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Melvyn Brunt
                                        Chief Financial Officer


                                       24
#### Frank REAVES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. General Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, et al., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-7606.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Frank Reaves, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Frank Reaves appeals the district court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Reaves v. Shinseki,*No. 2:10-cv-00495-HCM-TEM (E.D.Va. Oct. 8, 2010). We deny Reaves’ motion for appointment of counsel and 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Alberto INDA-LARES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50156.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

*692Matthew John Gardner, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert L. Swain, Esquire, Law Offices of Robert L. Swain, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Edgar Alberto Inda-Lares appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to import cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 952(a), and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Inda-Lares first contends that the district court erred in denying him a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). Contrary to Inda-Lares’ assertion, the district court did not assert that a drug courier is never entitled to a minor role adjustment. Rather, it concluded that an adjustment was not warranted in this case. The court’s determination was not clearly erroneous. *See United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1282-83 (9th Cir.2006) (stating standard of review and holding that denial of minor role adjustment was not clear error where evidence showed that the defendant engaged in several drug pick-ups); *United States v. Hursh,*217 F.3d 761, 770 (9th Cir.2000) (denial of minor role adjustment not clear error where the defendant was the sole driver and occupant of a car in which a substantial amount of drugs were hidden).

Inda-Lares next contends that the government breached the plea agreement by arguing on appeal that the district court did not err in refusing to grant him a minor role adjustment, and that the government is estopped from taking this position on appeal. A plain reading of the plea agreement demonstrates that on appeal the government is free to support the sentence imposed, and is not bound to any position regarding a minor role adjustment. See *United States v. Schuman,*127 F.3d 815, 817-18 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam). Furthermore, the government’s position on appeal is not inconsistent with its recommendation of the minor role adjustment below. Inda-Lares’ estoppel arguments therefore fail. *See Russell v. Rolfs,*893 F.2d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir.1990) (estoppel applies where party makes an assertion in a legal proceeding that “directly contradicts” an earlier assertion).

Finally, Inda-Lares contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EX10-48AmendtoWPSEmploymentAgreement




Exhibit 10.48


AMENDMENT TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT TWO TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into between Post Holding, Inc., a Missouri corporation, (“Post”) and William P. Stiritz (the “Executive”) dated as of October 9, 2014 (the “Effective Date”).


RECITALS


A.    Post and Executive previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated May 29, 2012, as amended by that Amendment One to Employment Agreement dated October 15, 2013 (together, “Employment Agreement”).


B.    Post and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement in certain respects pursuant to Section 8 of the Employment Agreement.


AGREEMENT


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties agree to the provisions set forth below.


1.     Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


1.    Employment Term.  Subject to the remaining provisions of this Agreement, Executive shall continue employment with Post until October 9, 2017 (the “Employment Term”) on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, commencing on October 9, 2017 and on each October 9 thereafter (each, an “Extension Date”), the Employment Term shall be automatically extended for an additional one year period, unless Post or Executive provides the other party hereto at least sixty (60) days’ prior written notice before the relevant Extension Date that the Employment Term shall not be so extended.  For the avoidance of doubt, the term “Employment Term” shall include any extension that becomes applicable pursuant to the preceding sentence.


2.     Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


(a)    Position.  Executive shall serve as the Executive Chairman of Post.  Subject to the oversight and direction of the Board of Post, Executive shall (i) be actively engaged in, and have responsibility for, the overall leadership and strategic direction of the Company, working with the Board and the Chief Executive Officer, (ii) provide the Board and the executive management team with advice on the financial performance of the Company, and (iii) coordinate the activities of the Board.  Executive shall report exclusively and directly to the Board of Post.   During the Employment Term, the Company will cause the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) to nominate Executive for re-election to the Board when his term as director expires.











3.     Except as specifically amended herein, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.




	
			
	POST HOLDINGS, INC.
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Diedre J. Gray
	 

	Name:
	Diedre J. Gray
	 

	Title:
	SVP, General Counsel and Secretary

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	EXECUTIVE
	 

	 
	 

	/s/ William P. Stiritz
	 

	William P. Stiritz
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM CORNELL CORRECTIONS 10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             261
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,921
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,826
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,381
<PP&E>                                         196,058
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,391)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 274,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,009
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      99,291
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   274,164
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,468
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,987
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   174
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,335
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,364
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,971
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,971
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Adolphus Zimmerman, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 446]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated February 27, 1995 *(People v Zimmerman,*212 AD2d 821), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 14, 1992.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
----

Exhibit 15.6 

[Letterhead of Golder Associates] 

CONSENT OF GOLDER ASSOCIATES

The undersigned,Golder Associates, hereby states as follows: 

Our firm, acting asan independent third party for Xstrata Copper, a business unit of Xstrata plc,assisted in the preparation of estimates of mineral resources, as updated in2006 (the "2006 Study"), for the La Fortuna deposit of the El Morro copper-goldproject, portions of which are summarized under the caption "Item 4. Informationon the Company – D. Property, Plant and Equipment – The El Morro Project, Chile"in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Metallica Resources Inc. (the "Company")for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Form 20-F"), to be filed with theUnited States Securities and Exchange Commission. 

We hereby consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.333-36154 (as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 thereto) and No.333-148255) of the Company of the summary information concerning the TechnicalReports, including the references to our firm included with such information, asset forth above in the Form 20-F. 

Golder Associates

By:   /s/ Dr.Marcelo Godoy                                 Name:  Dr. Marcelo GodoyTitle:  Senior Ore Reserve Alanalyst 

Date: March 28, 2008 

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Lillo, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 151]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered on or about September 11, 2012, unanimously affirmed.

*520Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Acosta, J.P, DeGrasse, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00514-CR

Kelvin Houston a/k/a Kevin Houston

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 362nd District Court

of Denton County (F-2009-2858-D)

August 22, 2013

Opinion by Justice Walker

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to delete 

the requirement that appellant reimburse compensation paid by Denton County 

to any appointed counsel on this cause. It is ordered that the judgment of the 

trial court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Justice Sue Walker
# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

September 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 137173(64)(65) Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y CHRISTOPHER P. MARTIN, ANNA McCOY, RICHARD M. HARRIS, and J. RICHARD ERNST, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices

v SC: 137173 COA: 286015

SECRETARY OF STATE, DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS, and BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS, Defendants, Ingham CC: 08-000752-PZ

and

WILLIAM F. MYLES, Proposed Intervenor,

and

RONALD M. BERGERON, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The motion for reconsideration of this Court’ s September 4, 2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. While under ordinary circumstances, this Cour t might have ordered the trial court to allow the proposed intervenor-appellant to intervene and then remanded for further proceedings, after which the in tervenor-appellant would have been able to appeal an adverse trial court ruling on the merits, under the instant emergency circumstances, we believe that it was necessary to address both of these matters in the same order.

C AVANAGH and W EAVER , JJ., would grant reconsider ation for the reasons set forth in Justice Cavanagh’s September 4, 2 008 concurring and di ssenting statement in this case._______________________________________ __ 2

K ELLY , J., would grant reconsideration for th e reasons set forth in her September 4, 2008 dissenting stat ement in this case.

d0908 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 8, 2008

Clerk