alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01

                       ALLIANCE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                      Jurisdiction or State of
Name of Subsidiary of Alliance Semiconductor Corporation                     Incorporation
--------------------------------------------------------              ------------------------
<S>                                                                   <C>
Alliance Semiconductor Holding Company, LLC                                     Delaware

Alliance Semiconductor International Corporation                             Cayman Islands

Alliance Semiconductor International Corporation                                Delaware

Alliance Semiconductor (India) Private Limited                                    India

Alliance Semiconductor (S.A.) (Pty) Ltd.                                      South Africa

Alliance Semiconductor, South Africa, LLC                                       Delaware

Alliance Venture Management, LLC                                               California

Alliance Ventures I, LP                                                        California

Alliance Ventures II, LP                                                       California

Alliance Ventures III, LP                                                      California

Alliance Ventures IV, LP                                                       California

Alliance Ventures V, LP                                                        California

Chip Engines, Inc.                                                             California

Dioptech, Inc.                                                                  Delaware

Nimbus Technology, Inc.                                                        California

SiPackets, Inc.                                                                California

Solar Venture Partners, LP                                                     California

</Table>
#### § 1b.11 Limitation on participation.

There are no parties, as that term is used in adjudicative proceedings, in an investigation under this part and no person may intervene or participate as a matter of right in any investigation under this part.

[43 FR 27174, June 23, 1978, as amended by Order 756, 77 FR 4893, Feb. 1, 2012]
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1053 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1053

  To amend the Clean Air Act to incorporate certain provisions of the 
 transportation conformity regulations, as in effect on March 1, 1999.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 14, 1999

   Mr. Bond introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Clean Air Act to incorporate certain provisions of the 
 transportation conformity regulations, as in effect on March 1, 1999.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DETERMINATION OF TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY.

    Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) Determination of transportation conformity.--
        Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the 
        following provisions of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 
        as in effect on March 1, 1999, are incorporated in this Act: 
        section 93.102(a)(1), section 93.102(c), section 93.118(e)(1), 
        section 93.120(a)(2), section 93.121(a)(1), and section 
        93.124(b).''.
                                 <all>
```
### §5114. State examination authority

In addition to any authority allowed under State law a State licensing agency shall have the authority to conduct investigations and examinations as follows:

(1) For the purposes of investigating violations or complaints arising under this chapter, or for the purposes of examination, the State licensing agency may review, investigate, or examine any loan originator licensed or required to be licensed under this chapter, as often as necessary in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter.

(2) Each such loan originator shall make available upon request to the State licensing agency the books and records relating to the operations of such originator. The State licensing agency may have access to such books and records and interview the officers, principals, loan originators, employees, independent contractors, agents, and customers of the licensee concerning their business.

(3) The authority of this section shall remain in effect, whether such a loan originator acts or claims to act under any licensing or registration law of such State, or claims to act without such authority.

(4) No person subject to investigation or examination under this section may knowingly withhold, abstract, remove, mutilate, destroy, or secrete any books, records, computer records, or other information.

(Pub. L. 110–289, div. A, title V, §1515, July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2823.)
## Enlaces de accesibilidad

      - Ir al contenido principal
      - Ir a la navegación principal
      - Ir a la búsqueda

## 

This image contains sensitive content which some people may find offensive or disturbing.

### Print Options:

              -    Images 
              -    Multimedia 
              -    Embedded Content 
              -    Comments 

-    Cuba  CubaDerechos HumanosEconomíaInmigraciónContra la censura 
-  Estados Unidos 
-  América Latina 
-  Mundo 
-  Deportes 
-  Arte y Entretenimiento 
-  Audiovisuales Martí 
-  Radio Martí 
-    Especiales  EspecialesDía Mundial Contra la Libertad de Prensa#ContraDesinformaciónRusaDesinformación rusa en América LatinaLa realidad de la vivienda en CubaSer viejo en CubaLa invasión de Rusia a Ucrania 
-  Multimedia 
-  Editoriales 

##### Síguenos 

EN VIVO
SET HER UP FOR SUCCESS IN AND 

OUT OF THE CLASSROOM.

Support your child’s overall health and wellness by 

being informed.

It’s important to talk about the risks of underage drinking and 

substance use from a young age, and continue those conversations 

as your child gets older and becomes more independent. For tips on 

how—and when—to begin the conversation, visit 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

#TalkTheyHearYou PEP20-03-01-036
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John O. Lambert, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 616]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 23, 2005, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a custodian for a school district for 10 years. He was terminated from his position after he refused to sign a weekly inspection report and threw the report at his supervisor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. “It is well settled that failure to comply with a reasonable request of an employer can constitute disqualifying misconduct” *(Matter of Mercure [Commissioner of Labor],*27 AD3d 857, 857 [2006] [citations omitted]). Here, claimant refused to sign the report because he was concerned that his supervisor might write in comments, although he admitted that his signature was to acknowledge receipt of the report, not his agreement with its contents. In our view, this was not sufficient reason for claimant’s failure to accede to the employer’s reasonable request *(see Matter of Guagliardo [Commissioner of Labor],*27 AD3d 866, 867 [2006]). Moreover, while claimant denied throwing the report at his supervisor, his assertion presented a credibility issue to be resolved by the Board in light of the contrary testimony *(see Matter of Kretchmer [Commissioner of Labor],*8 AD3d 849, 850 [2004]). Inasmuch as there is substantial evidence indicating that claimant was discharged for insubordination, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision. We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing.

Mercure, J.E, Feters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Eugene H. Westphal, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 71-22;

Second District

September 17, 1971.

E. Roger Horsky, of Illinois Defender Project, of Elgin, for appellant.

William B. Petty, State’s Attorney, of Mt. Carroll, for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE SEIDENFELD.
# C_2013009EN.01001001.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Yoshikazu Iida v Stadt Ulm

(Case C-40/11) (1)

1

(Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 51 - Directive 2003/109/EC - Third-country nationals - Right of residence in a Member State - Directive 2004/38/EC - Third-country nationals who are family members of Union citizens - Third-country national neither accompanying nor joining a Union citizen in the host Member State and remaining in the citizen’s Member State of origin - Right of residence of a third-country national in the Member State of origin of a citizen residing in another Member State - Citizenship of the Union - Fundamental rights)

2013/C 9/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Yoshikazu Iida

Applicant:

Defendant: Stadt Ulm

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation, in the light of Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, of Article 21(1) TFEU and Articles 2(2)(d), 3(1), 7(2) and 10(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Interpretation of Article 6(1) and (3) TEU, and Article 24(3), Article 45(1) and the first sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National of a Member State (a minor), who has moved her principal place of residence together with her mother to another Member State — Right to reside, in the Member State of origin of the child, of the father, a third-country national with custody rights — Scope of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Concept of ‘implementation of Union law’

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Outside the situations governed by Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC and where there is no other connection with the provisions on citizenship of European Union law, a third-country national cannot claim a right of residence derived from a Union citizen.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1

---
§ 590.510 Classifications of shell eggs used in the processing of egg products. ( a ) The eggs must be sorted and classified into the following categories: ( 1 ) Eggs listed in paragraph (d) of this section.
( 2 ) Dirty.
( 3 ) Leakers as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
( 4 ) Eggs from other than chicken; duck, turkey, guinea, and goose eggs.
( 5 ) Other eggs—satisfactory for use as breaking stock.
( b ) Shell eggs having strong odors or eggs received in cases having strong odors shall be candled and broken separately to determine their acceptability.
( c ) Shell eggs, when presented for breaking, shall be of edible interior quality and the shell shall be sound and free of adhering dirt and foreign material, except that: ( 1 ) When presented for breaking, eggs must have an edible interior quality and the shell must be sound and free of adhering dirt and foreign material. However, checks and eggs with a portion of the shell missing may be used when the shell is free of adhering dirt and foreign material and the shell membranes are not ruptured.
( 2 ) Eggs with clean shells which are damaged in candling and/or transfer and have a portion of the shell and shell membranes missing may be used only when the yolk is unbroken and the contents of the egg are not exuding over the outside shell. Such eggs shall be placed in leaker trays and be broken promptly.
( 3 ) Eggs with meat or blood spots may be used if the spots are removed.
( d ) All loss or inedible eggs must be placed in a designated container and handled as required in § 590.504(c). Eggs extensively damaged during breaking, whether not completely cracked open mechanically or in the movement of trays of eligible eggs for hand breaking, must be broken promptly. For the purpose of this section and § 590.522, inedible and loss eggs include crusted yolks, filthy and decomposed eggs, and the following: ( 1 ) Any egg with visible foreign matter other than removable blood and meat spots in the egg meat.
( 2 ) Any egg with a portion of the shell and shell membranes missing and with egg meat adhering to or in contact with the outside of the shell.
( 3 ) Any egg with dirt or foreign material adhering to the shell and with cracks in the shell and shell membranes.
( 4 ) Liquid egg recovered from shell egg containers and leaker trays.
( 5 ) Open leakers made in the washing operation.
( 6 ) Any egg which shows evidence that the contents are or have been exuding prior to transfer from the case.
( e ) Incubator reject eggs shall not be brought into the official plant.
[36 FR 9814, May 28, 1971, as amended at 40 FR 20059, May 8, 1975. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981; 85 FR 68680, Oct. 29, 2020]
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.8


	
					
	SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION FOR 

	THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF 

	RAMCO-GERSHENSON PROPERTIES TRUST

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	The following table sets forth the compensation program for non-employee Trustees:
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Annual cash retainer (1)
	 
	$
	30,000
	


	Additional cash retainer:
	 
	 

	 
	Chairman
	100,000
	


	 
	Audit Committee chair
	15,000
	


	 
	Compensation Committee chair
	10,000
	


	 
	Nominating and Governance Committee chair
	10,000
	


	 
	Executive Committee chair
	5,000
	


	 
	Executive Committee members
	—
	


	 
	 
	 

	Annual equity retainer (value of restricted shares) (2)
	 
	75,000
	


	 
	 
	 






		
	(1) 
	The annual cash retainer is equal to $105,000 less the grant date fair value, which approximates $75,000, of the restricted shares granted in the applicable year.


		
	(2) 
	Grants are made under the Trust's 2012 LTIP.  The restricted shares vest over one year.  The grant is made on July 1st or, if not a business day, the business day prior to July 1st.  During 2015, 4,546 shares were granted to each Trustee that was in service as of the July 1st date.  For directors appointed during the period July 2 - December 31, 2015, each Trustee received a grant of 3,057 shares. 




The Trust also reimburses all Trustees for all expenses incurred in connection with attending any meetings or performing their duties as Trustees.
# C_2011072EN.01003302.xml

| 5.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/33

---

Order of the General Court of 12 January 2011 — Maximuscle v OHIM — Foreign Supplement Trademark (GAKIC)

(Case T-198/10) (1)

1

2011/C 72/52

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.

1

---
### §1847. Maximum obligation

The maximum obligation of the Board under all outstanding loans guaranteed by it shall not exceed at any time $250,000,000.

(Pub. L. 92–70, §8, Aug. 9, 1971, 85 Stat. 181.)
January 15, 2014

Mr. Joseph R. Haley

Medical Express

3204 Point White Dr. NE

Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

Dear Mr. Haley:

This is in response to your letter, dated August 20, 2013 sent to the public docket (No. FAA2013-0762) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Medical 

Express (MedEx) for an exemption from part 125 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow MedEx to be exempt from the 

part 125 certification process and the opportunity to demonstrate by performance and 

compliance the legitimacy to hold a certificate.

On November 12, 2013, MedEx submitted the following additional information to the FAA, 

which we added to the docket:

• Preapplication Statement of Intent

• Reformatted exemption request

• Resume for Mr. Joseph Haley

• Offshore Air Certificate

Unfortunately, the additional information provided does not comply with the requirements of 

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). Section 11.81 requires that a petition for exemption must include 

the following information:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of 

the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

• The reasons granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which 

you seek an exemption.

• Any more information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

• The specific reasons you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside 

the United States. 

MedEx requested relief from a certification process which is used to determine an applicant’s 

ability to hold and maintain an operating certificate. MedEx requested to be exempted from 

this process based on the years of experience amassed by the individuals mentioned in the 

petition for exemption. Claims alone are insufficient evidence for the FAA to issue an 

exemption. Merely relying on past experience is not a sufficient reason to provide relief. 

MedEx has failed to provide a sufficient explanation of why granting an exemption would not 

affect safety or how an exemption would provide an equivalent level of safety to the existing 

regulation. MedEx did not specify which section(s) in part 125 from which you seek relief

(14 CFR § 11.81(e)). MedEx has also failed to provide sufficient evidence that the proposed 

operation would be in the public interest (14 CFR § 11.81(d)).

Based on the reasons above, and since the relief you seek through exemption from the part 

125 certification process is not a valid request, we will take no further action on your petition.

Accordingly, Docket No. FAA-2013-0762 is being closed.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda D. Courtney

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
# C_2011055EN.01002601.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/26

---

Action brought on 21 December 2010 — ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v OHIM (Highprotect)

(Case T-565/10)

2011/C 55/47

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by U. Ulrich, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2010 in Case R 1038/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2010 in Case R 1038/2010-1;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Highprotect’ for goods in Class 6.

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) since the trade mark concerned is not devoid of distinctive character and is not descriptive.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

1

---