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

MATTSON TECHNOLOGY, INC.
                                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Mattson International, Inc.
                  Mattson Technology Holdings, LLC
                  Mattson Wet Products, Inc.
                  Mattson Thermal Products, Inc.
                  STEAG CVD Systems, Ltd.
                  Mattson Technology Center KK
                  Mattson International Korea Co.
                  Mattson Technology of Singapore Pte. Ltd.
                  Mattson International, Inc. (Taiwan Branch)
                  Mattson Technology Holding, GmbH
                  Mattson International, GmbH
                  Mattson Thermal Products, GmbH
                  Mattson International France SARL
                  Mattson Technology UK Ltd.
                  Mattson Technology Srl
                  STEAG Electronic Systems UK, Ltd.
                  Mattson Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
                  Mattson Technology Cayman Holdings, Ltd.
                  Mattson Technology Canada, Inc.
                  Mattson Technology Israel, Ltd.



---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      22,900,597
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      31,377,612
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                           445,126,208
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                120,409,898
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      37,387,282
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        37,134,106
<LOANS>                                    944,403,283
<ALLOWANCE>                                  6,694,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,774,935,549
<DEPOSITS>                                 820,918,765
<SHORT-TERM>                               764,273,811
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         22,634,712
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    38,477,266
<OTHER-SE>                                 113,645,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           1,774,935,549
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             40,143,964
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           14,928,345
<INTEREST-OTHER>                             2,965,745
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            58,038,054
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          17,429,025
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          37,239,848
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       20,798,206
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                3,000,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           2,052,229
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             22,460,917
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             20,730,293
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  20,730,293
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                15,450,978
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.93
<LOANS-NON>                                 33,428,098
<LOANS-PAST>                                   288,097
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                             36,720,716
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             6,771,698
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                3,211,655
<RECOVERIES>                                   134,882
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            6,694,925
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         6,694,925
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22245]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute Amended; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, November 2, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 
November 2, 2017, 7:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 
9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in 
the Federal Register on September 22, 2017, 82 FR 44429.
    This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting date from 
November 2, 2017 to December 7, 2017. The meeting is closed to the 
public.

    Dated: October 10, 2017.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-22245 Filed 10-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Spencer HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10568

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 30, 2011.

Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Charles M. Bleil, Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*388Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Spencer Howard has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Howard has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          29,118
<SECURITIES>                                     3,148
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,085
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     29,888
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               142,770
<PP&E>                                          11,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,600
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         150
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   156,984
<SALES>                                        169,465
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               169,465
<CGS>                                           95,635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,194
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,873
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,797
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,076
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,076
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 21SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT             State of PercentName of Subsidiary Incorporation Owned1) GlasCraft, Inc. Indiana  100%2) Cohesant Materials Inc. f/n/a Oklahoma  100%Raven Lining Systems, Inc.      3) American Chemical Company Missouri  100%4) CIPAR Services Inc. (1) Delaware  100%  D/B/A CuraFlo PNW        D/B/A CuraFlo Midwest        D/B/A CuraFlo Silicon Valley      5) CIPAR Inc. Delaware  100%  D/B/A Raven Lining Systems        D/B/A CuraFlo      6) CuraFlo of British Columbia Ltd. British Columbia  100%7) Cohesant Infrastructure Protection and Renewal of Canada Ltd. Canada  100%8) CuraFlo Spincast Services Inc.(1) Delaware  100%9) CIPAR Franchising Inc.(1) Delaware  100% (1) A wholly owned subsidiary of CIPAR Inc.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MARCUS JOHNSON, a/k/a Pep, a/k/a Little Marcus , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. M. Hannah Lauck , District Judge. ( 3:01

- cr - 00304

- MHL

- RCY

- 10; 3:16

- cv - 00161

- MHL

- RCY )

Submitted : March 29, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Marcus Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Robert E. Trono, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTOR NEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marcus Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not ap pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDa niel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motio n states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In re: Hironori AOKI.

No. 2008-1192.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 21, 2008.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Hironori Aoki moves to voluntarily dismiss this appeal. Aoki states that the United States Patent and Trademark Office consents.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 
SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Intelligroup,
    Inc, (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
    September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
    date hereof (the Report), I, Vikram Gulati, Chief Executive 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 and to the best of my knowledge
  and belief, that:


|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 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.
|   

|DATE: 
November 9,
2005 |  | By: /s/ Vikram Gulati  
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | Vikram Gulati          
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer



---
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22125]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0150; FRL-9969-54-Region 1]


Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Nonattainment New Source Review 
Permit Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the August 14, 2017, direct 
final rule approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted by the State of Connecticut. The revision addresses the 
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) requirements for the 2008 8-hour 
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This action is 
being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: The direct final rule published on August 14, 2017 (82 FR 
37819), is withdrawn effective October 13, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 
Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post 
Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. 
Mr. Dahl's telephone number is (617) 918-1657; email address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4420252c286a202b2a252820042134256a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83e7e2ebefade7ecede2efe7c3e6f3e2ade4ecf5">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if 
adverse comments were submitted by September 13, 2017, the rule would 
be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received an adverse comment prior 
to the close of the comment period and, therefore, is withdrawing the 
direct final rule. EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final 
action based upon the proposed rule also published on August 14, 2017 
(82 FR 37829). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this 
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 27, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.377 published in the Federal 
Register on August 14, 2017 (82 FR 37819), on page 37822 are withdrawn 
effective October 13, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2017-22125 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                    Washington, D.C. 20549

                        FORM 10-QSB/A/1
                        ---------------
                        Amendment No. 1
                        ---------------
                           Exhibit 27
                           ----------

       QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE 
          SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE 
           QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996

                        BUSINESS ISSUERS

                 Commission File Number 0-20915
                 ------------------------------

                       GEO PETROLEUM, INC.
       ----------------------------------------------
       (Name of Small Business Issuer in its charter)

                           California
                           ----------
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

  25660 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 201   Torrance, California
  -----------------------------------------------------------
            (Address of principal executive offices)

                           33-0328958
                           ----------
              (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

                             90505
                             -----
                           (Zip Code)

                         (310) 539-8191
                         --------------
                  (Issuer's telephone number)

Check whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be 
filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 
12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was 
required to file reports), and (2) has been subject to such 
filing requirements for the past 90 days.

                          Yes    X  No
                               ----



<PAGE>
The issuer became a reporting company when its Form 10-SB 
registration statement was cleared on August 12, 1996.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's 
classes of common stock as of the latest practicable date.

          Class                Outstanding at September 30, 1996
          -----                ---------------------------------
Common stock, no par value                 5,203,787
Exhibit 32.02





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Vincent De Lorenzo, certify that:





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Digital Creative Development Corporation for the quarter ending March 31,  2009 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.





Date:  April 20, 2011




/s/ Vincent De LorenzoVincent De LorenzoChief Financial Officer
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 10, 

2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00295-CR

____________

IN RE TOMMY LYNN HAYES, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

228th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1157419-A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On March 30, 2012, relator, Tommy Lynn Hayes, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. In 

his petition, realtor asks that we direct Chris Daniel, the Harris County District Clerk, to

transmit a copy of his post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus to the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07.

This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas 

Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the 

courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court judge or county court judge in the 
2

court of appeals’ district, and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals' 

jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. 

This court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over a district clerk unless it is 

necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). We have no jurisdiction over 

post-conviction applications for habeas corpus relief from final felony convictions. See 

Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (holding 

that intermediate appellate court improperly granted mandamus relief because court of 

criminal appeals is “the only court with jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony 

proceedings”). Because relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is directed toward the 

Harris County District Clerk and is not necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdiction, we 

lack jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(b)(1).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Jamison and McCally.

Do Not Publish – Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 32.1

                        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 second quarter
ended December 31, 2006 of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (the "Company") as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
E. Gerald Kay, the Chief Executive 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 his 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: February 14, 2007          By: /s/ E. Gerald Kay
                                 ---------------------
                                 E. Gerald Kay,
                                 Chief Executive Officer