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



                                                                      Exhibit 21

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF BHA GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.


BHA Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation; PrecipTech, Ltd., a Canadian
corporation; BHA Group, Ltd., a Canadian corporation; BHA International, Inc., a
U.S. Virgin Islands corporation; BHA Group GmbH, a German corporation; BHA Group
International, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and BHA Technologies, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; BHA Purfilter S.L., a Spanish corporation; BHA Group
International Holdings B.V., a Dutch corporation; and The 63rd Street and Blue
Ridge Redevelopment Corporation, a Missouri Corporation, are the only
subsidiaries of the Company, each of which are wholly-owned. Tool Rental and
Supply Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Midwest Precipitator Corporation,
an Illinois corporation (DBA Midwest Power Corporation); BHA Group AG, a Swiss
corporation; BHA Environmental Technology Company, Ltd., a China corporation;
and BHA Group Philippines, Inc., a Philippine corporation, are wholly-owned
subsidiaries of BHA Group, Inc. BHA Group International Pvt. Ltd., an India
corporation, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BHA Group International, Inc.; BHA
Technologies AG, a Swiss corporation; and BHA Technologies K.K., a Japan
corporation, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of BHA Technologies, Inc.; and BHA
U.K. Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of BHA
Group International Holdings B.V. BHA do Brazil Ltda, a Brazilian corporation
and BHA Group de Mexico S.A. de C.V. are 99% owned by BHA Group International
Holdings B.V. and 1% owned by BHA Group Holdings. Inc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6768

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BERNARD LAMONT WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-97-129, CA-99-2253-6-13)

Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: October 15, 2001

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Lamont Williams, Appellant Pro Se. E. Jean Howard, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Lamont Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-97-129; CA-99-

2253-6-13 (D.S.C. Feb. 13, 2001). 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
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Joaquin F.Blaya, Chief Executive Officer of Radio Unica Communications Corp. (the“Company”), pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, dohereby certify as follows:

 

1.               The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company forthe three and six months ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

2.               The information contained in such Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Ihave executed this Certification this 13th day of August, 2003.

 

 
|   | /s/ Joaquin F. Blaya                 |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   | Joaquin F. Blaya                     |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

**A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Radio Unica Communications Corp. and will beretained by Radio Unica Communications Corp. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

 

----
#### COLUMBUS AND SOUTHERN OHIO ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 13029.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

April 25, 1957.

Joseph S. Platt and Lawrence D. Stanley, Columbus, Ohio, for petitioner.

Charles K. Rice, John Potts Barnes, Claude R. Marshall, Lee A. Jackson, and Melva M. Graney, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before MARTIN, MILLER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We have duly considered the record, the briefs and oral arguments in this case, which comes before us on petition by the utility taxpayer for a review of the decision of the Tax Court of the United States finding a large deficiency in income taxes for the year 1951, the sole question for determination being whether a rate differential refund of more than a million dollars accrued and was deductible by the petitioner for federal income tax purposes in 1950 or in 1951. The petitioner was on an accrual method of accounting.

It appears from the carefully consid-, ered opinion of the tax court that, at the end of the year 1950, the petitioner’s liability to make refunds to consumers had been, for all practical purposes, ascertained; and that the electors had approved a 1950 ordinance of the City of Columbus, Ohio, which had been accepted previously by the petitioner. It appears further that the possibility of a disturbance by the Utility Commission of Ohio of the rate agreement between the petitioner and the City of Columbus in the 1950 ordinance, adopted by the city and confirmed by its voters, was too remote *80to preclude the accrual in 1950 of the resultant refund under the settlement agreement of the parties.

The decision of the tax court accordingly is affirmed upon the basis of the reasoning in that court’s opinion.
Exhibit 32  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 Annual Report of Pacific Alliance Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven Clark, President, CEO and Principal Executive and 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 to the best of my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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:  April 15, 2010  /s/ Steven Clark  Steven Clark President, CEO and Principal Executive and Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAURA ALICIA OROZCO

CASTELLANOS,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 70965

Agency No. A070

- 947

- 349

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 18, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Maura Alicia Orozco

- Castellanos, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 70965

We do not consider Orozco

- Castellanos’s contentions regarding due

diligence, where the BIA did not make a determination regarding diligence. See

Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) ( the court’s review is

limite d to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Orozco

- Castellanos’s unexhausted

contentions regarding her reason for failing to depart pursuant to the immigration

judge’s grant of voluntary departure and what actions her former non

- attorney

counsel failed to take. See Tijani v. Holder

, 628 F.3d 1071

, 1080 (9th Cir. 20 10 )

( “ We lack jurisdiction to review legal c laims not presented in an alien’ s

administrative proceedings before the BIA

. ” ).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
EXHIBIT 21.1
 THE WARNACO GROUP, INC.
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE WARNACO GROUP, INC.
  Company
    
    Country or State of Incorporation4278941 Canada Inc.
    
    CanadaAEB Participacoes Ltda.
    
    BrazilAuthentic Fitness On-Line Inc.
    
    NevadaCalvin Klein Jeanswear Asia, Ltd.
    
    Hong KongCalvin Klein Jeanswear Company
    
    DelawareCCC Acquisition Corp.
    
    DelawareCK Jeanswear Australia Pty Limited
    
    AustraliaCK Jeanswear Europe S.r.l.
    
    ItalyCKJ Fashion (Shanghai) Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaCK Jeanswear Korea Ltd.
    
    KoreaCK Jeanswear NZ Ltd.
    
    New ZealandCKJ Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareCKJ UK Ltd.
    
    United KingdomCKU.com Inc.
    
    DelawareDesigner Holdings Ltd.
    
    DelawareDistribuidor Textil Warnaco Chile Limitada
    
    ChileDistribuidor Textil Warnaco Peru S.A.
    
    PeruEratex Gmbh
    
    GermanyEuro Retail S.r.l.
    
    ItalyFA France Sarl
    
    FranceGold Lightening Ltd.
    
    Hong KongJeanswear Services Ltd.
    
    United KingdomLenitex-Warnaco Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H.
    
    AustriaLintex-Warnaco S.a.r.l.
    
    SwitzerlandMullion International Limited
    
    British Virgin IslandsWarnaco Brasil Participacoes Ltda.
    
    BrazilOcean Pacific Apparel Corp.
    
    DelawareVista de Yucatan S.A. de C.V.
    
    MexicoWarnaco (HK) Ltd.
    
    BarbadosWarnaco (Macao) Company Limited
    
    MacaoWarnaco Apparel SA (Proprietary) Limited
    
    South AfricaWarnaco Argentina S.r.l.
    
    ArgentinaWarnaco Asia Limited
    
    Hong KongWarnaco Belgium Sprl
    
    BelgiumWarnaco B.V.
    
    NetherlandsWarnaco Commerce (Shanghai) Company Limited
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaWarnaco Denmark A/S
    
    DenmarkWarnaco France S.A.R.L.
    
    FranceWarnaco Germany GmbH
    
    Germany




---



##### 



THE WARNACO GROUP, INC.
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE WARNACO GROUP, INC.
 Company
    
    Country or State of IncorporationWarnaco Global Sourcing Limited
    
    Hong KongWarnaco Inc.
    
    DelawareWarnaco International Trading (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaWarnaco Intimo, S.A.
    
    SpainWarnaco Italy S.r.l.
    
    ItalyWarnaco Logistics B.V.
    
    NetherlandsWarnaco Netherlands B.V.
    
    NetherlandsWarnaco of Canada Company
    
    CanadaWarnaco Portugal-Vestuario e Acessorios, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda.
    
    PortugalWarnaco Poland Sp. z.o.o.
    
    PolandWarnaco Puerto Rico, Inc.
    
    DelawareWarnaco Retail Inc.
    
    DelawareWarnaco Shanghai Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaWarnaco Singapore Private Ltd.
    
    SingaporeWarnaco Swimwear Inc.
    
    DelawareWarnaco Swimwear Products Inc.
    
    DelawareWarnaco Taiwan Co. Ltd.
    
    TaiwanWarnaco UK Limited
    
    Northern IrelandWarnaco U.S. Inc.
    
    DelawareWarners (EIRE) Teoranta
    
    IrelandWarners Aiglon, S.A.
    
    FranceWarners de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
    
    MexicoWBR Industria e Comercio de Vestuario S.A.
    
    BrazilWF Overseas Fashion C.V.
    
    Netherlands
EXHIBIT 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of KANA Software, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael S. Fields, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report, to which this certification
is attached as Exhibit 32.01, 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 Registrant.



|                    |  |                              
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: May 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Michael S. Fields        
|                    |  | Michael S. Fields            
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                    |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
Second
Amended License Consent Agreement





This
Second Amended License Consent Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into between
the following “Parties:” (i) BCGU, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(“BCGU”); and (ii) AudioStocks, Inc. a Delaware corporation
(“AUIO”).





1.           BCGU
is a significant shareholder in AUIO, and has from time-to-time, allowed AUIO to
use, for general corporate purposes, monies and other valuable instruments which
were due and payable to BCGU by AUIO.  Presently, AUIO is indebted to
BCGU in an amount which exceeds $242,000 (the “Claim”).  The purpose,
desire and intention of this Agreement is to fully settle and forever resolve
the Claim.





2.           SETTLEMENT. 
In consideration of the Agreement, AUIO agrees to pay to BCGU a total of $1,000,
in addition to previous good and valuable consideration in the form of preferred
equity.





3.           RELEASE.  In
consideration of the promises, covenants, representations and warranties set
forth in this Agreement, BCGU hereby releases and forever discharges AUIO from
the amount of money described above as the Claim.





4.           WAIVER
OF SECTION 1542.  In signing this Agreement, the BCGU has been advised
of, understand and knowingly waive his rights under California Civil Code
Section 1542 which provides as follows: A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO
CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE
TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY
AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.





5.           BINDING
EFFECT.  This Agreement shall be binding upon each Party’s past and
present heirs, beneficiaries, successors, successors in interest, assigns, and
agents.





6.           GOVERNING
LAW.  This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with and
governed in all respects by the law of the State of California.  Venue
for any legal action or arbitration shall be San Diego County, State of
California.





7.           ENTIRE
AGREEMENT.  This Agreement and Release contains the entire
understanding between the PARTIES with regard to the matters herein set
forth.











__________________________________                                                                                                ___________________________________


Luis
Leung                                                                                                                                                     
     James B. Panther II


AudioStocks,
Inc.                                                                                                                                             
 BCGU LLC








Dated:  November
30, 2008
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-5 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Angel ALFARO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50199

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*916Philip J. Lynch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Angel Alfaro-Hernandez presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by *United States v. Brown,*920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991), *abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Candia,*454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.2006), which held that a district court may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively with an unimposed state sentence. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0016

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DONALD GARZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 27, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 24 2021

11/24/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0016
Exhibit 5.5

CONSENT OF KENNETH MAJOR, P. Eng.

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year
ended December 31, 2006 (the Annual Report) of New Gold Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

I hereby consent to the reference to my name under the heading Interest of Experts in the Companys Annual Information Form and to all other references to my name included or incorporated by reference
in the Annual Report.



|                     |  |                       |  | 
|-------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | 
|/s/    Kenneth Major |  |                      
|Kenneth Major        |  |                      
|Title:               |  | Professional Engineer |  | 

April 2, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         8351582
<SECURITIES>                                    346970
<RECEIVABLES>                                 14092033
<ALLOWANCES>                                    267405
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              35293877
<PP&E>                                        79530272
<DEPRECIATION>                                24460235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               103889168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         21573834
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         32654
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 103889168
<SALES>                                       91778766
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              91778766
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 90064585
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3838907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1754499)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (2275000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    520501
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth Earl WINES, also known as Crazy, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30461

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Kenneth Earl Wines, El Reno, OK, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kenneth Earl Wines 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). Wines has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no non-frivolous issue for appeal. 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.