alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
rom 1122

(Rev. Nov. 1981)

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Authorization and Consent of Subsidiary
Corporation to be Included ina

Consolidated Income Tax Return
(Please type or print)

‘OMB No. 1545-0133

Expires 11-30-84

b> For the first year a consolidated return is filed, this form must be attached for each subsidiary.

For the calendar year 19 or other tax year beginning

119 and ending 19

Name

Number and street

City or town, State, and ZIP code

1 Date incorporated

Employer identification number

2 Place incorporated

3 Capital stock outstanding at beginning of tax year:

(a) Common $
(b) Preferred $
4 Kind of business
CO Active
(1 inactive

5 Name of common parent corporation

Employer identification number

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice.—The Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 says we must tell you why we are
collecting this information, how we will use it, and
whether you have to give it to us. We ask for the informa-
tion to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United
States. We need it to ensure that you are complying with
these laws and to allow us to figure and collect the right
amount of tax. You are required to give us this informa-
tion.

The subsidiary corporation named above authorizes
its common parent corporation to include it in a consoli-
dated return for the tax year indicated and for each later
year the group must make a consolidated return under
the regulations. If the parent corporation does not make
a consolidated return on behalf of the subsidiary, the
subsidiary authorizes the Commissioner or District Di-
rector of Internal Revenue to do so.

The subsidiary consents to be bound by the provisions
of the consolidated return regulations.

Signature

Under penalties of perjury, | declare that the subsidiary named above has authorized me to sign this form on its behalf, that | have
examined this form, and the information contained herein, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and com-

plete.

> Signature of officer

Date > Title

#U.S. Government Printing Office: 1982—381-108/11
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM QUIKSILVER,
INC'S OCTOBER 31, 1998 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,029,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               82,128,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,738,000
<INVENTORY>                                 70,575,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           160,064,000
<PP&E>                                      46,553,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,557,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             213,071,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       67,743,000
<BONDS>                                     27,669,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       146,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 117,513,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               213,071,000
<SALES>                                    316,115,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           316,115,000
<CGS>                                      189,399,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              189,399,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,337,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,886,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,734,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             30,768,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                12,805,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         17,963,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                17,963,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.23
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of This Exhibit, Primary means Basic
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Non-Discrimination              

#   Non-Discrimination

The Commission is currently updating its EEO regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 2706). The Commission's current EEO Policies and Procedures can be found at its website: www.fmshrc.gov/eeo-policies.

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-14-00038- CV In re Dynam ic System s, Inc. ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Relator Dy

namic Sy stems, I nc. h as n o tified this Court that it no longe r wishes to pursue this orig inal proce eding and has filed an ag ree d motion to dismiss it with prejudice . We g rant the motion and dismiss this original pr ocee ding w ith prejudice.

__________________________________________ J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Filed: Mar ch 19, 2014
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
      ( print page 10030)    
*Name of Committee:*                         NIDCR Special Grants Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         February 21-23, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         The Hyatt Regency Hotel, 100 Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Yujing Liu, PhD, MD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Res. 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Rm. 4AN44F, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2372.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 6, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-3594  Filed 2-12-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
* 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20456

In The Matter Of: SUN TOOL COMPANY

Debtor

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

ESTATE OF SUN TOOL COMPANY INC, by and through Joseph M Hill,

Trustee for the Estate of Sun Tool Company, Debtor

Appellant

v.

STEPHEN L BAKER; ROSS, BANKS, MAY, CRON & CAVIN; ESTATE OF

KHOI TRUONG; HOA TRUONG, Individually

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

USDC No. 4:05-CV-1787

Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 9, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20456

2

We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record, and we have had the

benefit of oral argument. We have concluded that the record establishes that

attorney Stephen L. Baker made it clear, both before the meeting of June 1,

2003, and during the meeting, that he represented Hoa Truong. Sun Tool

Company, Inc. could not have justifiably relied on statements made by Baker

during the meeting because the record further establishes that an adversarial

relationship existed between Baker and Sun Tool, and that Sun Tool did not

believe the alleged representations of Baker and could notjustifiably have relied

on those statements. Further, lacking any evidence, expert testimony or

otherwise, supporting the essential elements on Sun Tool’s breach of fiduciary

duty claim, the district court correctly held that Baker did not breach any

fiduciary duty to Sun Tool after the June 1, 2003 meeting.

The district court’s Order Adopting Memorandum, Recommendation and

Order entered June 8, 2006 is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons set forth

therein; the district court’s Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum,

Recommendation, and Order entered February 26, 2007 is AFFIRMED for

essentially the reasons set forth therein; and the district court’s Order of

Dismissal entered April 9, 2007 is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED. Costs shall be borne by Appellants.
*

 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 13, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40508

Summary Calendar

 

LINDA F. JOHN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CLEAR LAKE REGIONAL MEDICAL 

CENTER, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Texas, Galveston

(USDC No. 05-40508)

_________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for these reasons:

1. The court did not abuse its discretion by denying a continuance for

discovery. The failure of counsel to take the deposition earlier or respond

to notices of the pending motion for summary judgment do not excuse the
2

delay. And no particular reason was given to explain the need for the late

deposition.

2. The deposition was not filed within the discovery period. Plaintiff did not

suggest to the district court or this court any material evidence obtained by

the Walker deposition.

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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 25, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41224

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN CARLOS TRINIDAD-RENOVATO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-03-CR-83-1

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Carlos Trinidad-Renovato (“Trinidad”) appeals the 64-

month sentence that was imposed following entry of his guilty

plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute

approximately three kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Trinidad argues that the district

court erroneously denied him a sentence reduction under the

Sentencing Guidelines’ safety valve provision, U.S.C.G. 5C1.2.
No. 03-41224

- 2 -

We review the decision to deny the application of U.S.C.G.

§ 5C1.2 for clear error. United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143,

145 (5th Cir. 1996). The safety valve provision, in pertinent

part, requires that a defendant, at or before sentencing, provide

the Government with all the information and evidence he has

concerning his offense. U.S.C.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5). 

We ordinarily do not disturb a district court’s credibility

determinations and see no reason to do so in the instant case. 

See United States v. Ridgeway, 321 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 2003). 

After reviewing the record, we are convinced that the district

court did not clearly err when it denied Trinidad the reduction

afforded by the safety valve provision. See Flanagan, 80 F.3d at

145. 

Trinidad also challenges the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C.

841(a) and (b) in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). As Trinidad concedes, his Apprendi argument is

foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th

Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Ca se number: 01

- 1 3

- 00 797

- CV

Style: Alexandra Burns, Appellant v. Michael Donald Burns, Appellee

Type of motion: Motion for rehearing filed April 25, 2014

Part y filing motion: Appell ant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ J a ne Bland

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justice s Keyes, Bland, and Brown

.

Date: May 15, 2014
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-1710

JUL 19 2018

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) : Docket Nos. WEVA 2014-395-R
: WEVA 2014-1028
v. : WEVA 2014-854

POCAHONTAS COAL COMPANY, LLC

ORDER

On July 10, 2018, Counsel for Pocahontas Coal Company, LLC (“Pocahontas”), filed a
motion “under seal” to withdraw its Petition for Discretionary Review (“PDR”) on the grounds
that the parties had reached a settlement agreement in the above-referenced cases. On July 17,
2018, the Secretary of Labor filed a response “under seal” in support of Pocahontas’ motion to
withdraw its PDR. However, neither party filed a motion to file under seal or provided
justification for the Commission sealing what would otherwise be publicly available filings.

The Commission directs the parties to file a pleading explaining why the motion and
response have been filed “under seal.” Parties should explain how sealing these pleadings is
consistent with Congressional intent that settlements under the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Act of 1977 take place with sufficient transparency so that the public will be aware of the
process. The parties’ response must be filed within five (5) days of the issuance of this order.

Vet 0 abt

William I. Althen, Acting Chairman

Repke gee

Maly ordan, Corny issioner

Miche 1G. ac (iia
" Shoewal

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner


Distribution:

Jason Nutzman

Dinsmore & Shoh] LLP

707 Virginia Street East, Suite 1300
Charleston, West Virginia 25301

Robert Huston Beatty Jr., Esq.

Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP

801 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 610
Washington, D.C. 20004

Edward Waldman, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor

US Department of Labor
201 12th St. South, Suite 401
Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Ali Beydoun, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

US Department of Labor
201 12th St. South-Suite 401
Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Melanie Garris

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA
U.S. Department of Labor

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202-5450

Administrative Law Margaret Miller

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Administrative Law Judges

721 19th Street, Suite 443

Denver, CO 80202-2536
OFFICE OF THE A’l-rORNEY ITORNEY GENERAL GENERAL OF ‘TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Qua.m4l.m c. WLllW 

AlTomnrromn Ommu. 

Bonol*blr Ben Dmir Oeerlia 

Cout;t Attorney 

mron GouB8y 

&Tanon, Tsar 

Bonol*blr Ben Dmir Oeerlia 

Cout;t Attorney 

mron GouB8y 

hTa#on, Tsar 

DOW 6i.r; 

Your requort for op 

auerully aonslllerd by thlr 

y0uf requwt l 8 rallow~: 

Wll you ilo m 

_-_ tol@wiq &woblear 

ram the cQlw5.8efonor4i court 

ve pte a total or #LOO i?or l aeh 

1. undrrra%and it! the fee whioh I would 

be eBt2tlOd t0 in 8bWb $&I rUli riB8 UJd OOBtl 

were pcrld. 
fionorablo Ben Davis Osaalin, Fag@ 8 

to whlah I am not entitled. Kill you please 

write me and 1st PLO know just what oourao 

should be followed. II tha above uplanatlon 

la not full anou@h pleace let M know and I 

will attempt to ~rplaln further.* 

Article loss, Vernon~s 4nBotatra Coda or Criminal 

Prcc~dure, raada se Sollowsl 

“Tha county shall not be liable to the 

OffiWt ‘and WitBOSS h8~lng OOSt8 1~ 8 dSdemeanor oaae where dafandant pays hia fine amI 

00mta. Ths oouaty shall be llablo ?or ortabsir or the ram8 of the 0rrioua Of tha Court, 

whan the 4arandant falls to pay hla rlna and 

lays his rlaa out In the county jell or dlaohargaa the 86ma by meant3 0r working auah ritk8 

out on the oouaty roads or on any oounty pojaot. 

AM to g8y 8Uoh hair ao8te, the County Clark 

shall iaeue hlr warrant on tba County Traaaorar 

in faror 0r sueh 0rfl0w to ba paid out of thr 

Road and Eridge Lund or other fnads not otherwlaa appropsiated .* 

lrtlols 920, ?arnon*B Annotated Co&e of Crlalnal 

pT000aw, appliwble to surtioe courts, roads SR r0Um8: 

=A derandant plaoau la Jail an acoouat 0r 

failure to pay the fine and mats oan be dlaobrr&eQ oa haboas corpus by @having: 

“1, Tht he la too poor to pay tha rim 

and coet5, and 

“2. Thet he has ramaload in jail a auiriciant length or time to satliy the rin8 and 

aomtu, at the rata 0r thras dallarm r0r aaah 

day. 

aoi the defendant *ball, In no ~888 under 

thir artlola, be diaaharged until ho has been 

lmpsiaoned at least tan days2 and a juatloe 0r 

the. pea00 nuy dlrobarga the dafendant upon his 

ahowlng the aama aauss, by ap.plfeatlon to suoh 

justiae; and wben auuh a~pllcrcrtlon la granted, 

the Justlos ahall not6 tba same on hla Ilooket,* 
, 

1. 

lionorablo Bon Davis Qeaalln, Page 3 

iJn6dsr the feats atated~in 

sorvicc of the defendants wag prl+ 2 ~~~l~;~~~zl~~ 

and not after their convictlon. 

no c~i~l~ally be al.fcrea for jell service a 

to ocnvlotlon. 

It is our further opinion tbat the Justice bad 

no authority to give the dofandanto oredit for oaid Jail 

eervica ald that the defendants &ill. owe the balance of 

their fine and co$t6, an6 earns ie nova oollaotlble a6 in 

other carom. 

It 18 our further opinion that the county la 

not now liable for any ooste In the aa6e to any ofrioor 

under tb fact6 ststed. 

For your inform&ion we are maloalng barawltb 

oopiss of opinions #OS. O-l@&8 and O-1792 of tbls Aagartment which baa1 with collmotlon of lines and costa in 

Juatfao Courts. 

Very truly yours 

WF: lb 

2 sno.
EXHIBIT 8

|                                                                            |  |                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARIES                                                        |  | JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
|Aladdin
  Knowledge Systems Inc.                                            |  | New York                     
|Aladdin
  Japan Co. Ltd.                                                    |  | Japan                        
|Aladdin
  Europe Ltd. (formerly Aladdin Western Europe Ltd)                 |  | England and
  Wales          
|Hafalad BV                                                                  |  | The
  Netherlands            
|Aladdin Europe
  BV (formerly Aladdin Western Europe BV)                    |  | The
  Netherlands            
|Aladdin
  Europe S.A.R.L. (formerly Aladdin Western Europe S.A.R.L.)        |  | France                       
|Aladdin
  Europe GmbH (formerly Aladdin Knowledge Systems Deutschland GmbH) |  | Germany                      
|Aladdin
  Knowledge Systems India Private Lmited                            |  | India                        
|Aladdin
  Knowledge Systems Espana S.L.                                     |  | Spain                        
|Aladdin
  Knowledge Systems ITALY SRL                                       |  | Italy                        

---