alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                GTI CORPORATION

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



Electronic Supply Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Esco Sales, Inc.

Esco Sales, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Valor Electronics, Inc., a California corporation

Valor East Electronics, Ltd., a Hong Kong corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valor Electronics, Inc.

Barnfinch, Ltd., a Hong Kong corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Valor
Electronics, Inc.

Valor Electronics GmbH, a German corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of
Valor Electronics, Inc.

Valor Electronics Philippines, Inc., a Philippines corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valor Electronics, Inc.

Val Pan Am, S.A., a Mexican corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Valor
Electronics, Inc.

Sierracin, S.A., a Mexican corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Valor
Electronics, Inc.

Valor Electronics Investments BV, a Netherlands corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valor Electronics, Inc.

Valor Electronics Cayman, Inc., a Cayman Islands corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valor Electronics, Inc.

Promptus Communications, Inc., a Rhode Island corporation

Promptus Communications (UK) Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of Promptus Communications, Inc.

Promptus Communications Pty. Ltd., an Australian corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Promptus Communications, Inc.

         The financial statements of the foregoing subsidiaries are included in
the Company's consolidated financial statements.
EXHIBIT 10.6


                            ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT


     THIS  AGREEMENT is made as of this 13th day of April,  1998, by and between
Uranium  Power  Corporation,   a  Colorado  corporation  (the  "Purchaser")  and
Athabasca Uranium Syndicate, a syndicate formed in British Columbia, Canada (the
"Seller").

     WHEREAS,  the Seller is willing to sell,  and the  Purchaser  is willing to
purchase,  all  of the  assets  of  the  Seller  on  the  terms  and  conditions
hereinafter set forth.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  for and in  consideration  of the premises and the mutual
covenants  contained  herein  and other  good and  valuable  consideration,  the
receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,  the parties
hereto covenant and agree as follows:

     1.  Purchase  and Sale of the Assets.  The Seller  agrees to sell,  assign,
convey and transfer to the Purchaser,  and the Purchaser agrees to purchase from
the  Seller,  all of the  assets of the  Seller  (collectively,  the  "Assets"),
consisting  primarily  of a parcel of  property in  Northern  Saskatchewan.  The
Seller's sale,  conveyance,  assignment and transfer of the Assets shall be free
and clear of all liens, encumbrances, liabilities or obligations.

     2. Purchase  Price. In full  consideration  for the purchase of the Assets,
the  Purchaser  will issue to the  owners of Seller an  aggregate  of  6,000,000
shares of Purchaser's Common Stock, or 300,000 shares per Syndicate Unit.

     3. Consent of Seller's Owners. All holders of Syndicate Units of the Seller
will execute a Subscription Agreement and Investment Letter in the form provided
by the Purchaser. The Subscription Agreement and Investment Letter will evidence
the consent of each Unit holder to this Agreement.

     4. Governing Law. The  interpretation  and  construction of this Agreement,
and all matters relating  hereto,  shall be governed by the internal laws of the
State of Colorado.





<PAGE>



     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties  hereto  have  caused  their names to be
hereunto subscribed, all as of the day and year first above written.

                                    "PURCHASER"

                                    URANIUM POWER CORPORATION


                                    By:   /s/Thornton J. Donaldson
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Thornton J. Donaldson, President

                                    "SELLER"

                                    ATHABASCA URANIUM SYNDICATE


                                    By:   /s/Thornton J. Donaldson
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Thornton J. Donaldson, Director


                                    By:   /s/William G. Timmins
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         William G. Timmins, Director





                                       -2-
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Joseph MAZEWSKI v. D. N. MYERS, Superintendent.

Misc. No. 3223.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Jan. 4, 1967.

*823Joseph Mazewski, in pro. per.

Richard S. Lowe, Dist. Atty., of Montgomery County, Norristown, Pa., for respondent.

MEMORANDUM

LUONGO, District Judge.

This petition for writ of habeas corpus (M-3223) was filed March 3, 1966. In it Joseph Mazewski complains of an illegal search and seizure of evidence by forcible entry of his home and an unauthorized search of his automobile. Proceedings on this petition were stayed on March 24, 1966, pending final disposition of Mazewski’s earlier petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he complained that his constitutional right to assistance of counsel at the trial of the same burglary charge had been violated. United States of America ex rel. Mazewski v. Myers; petition for writ of habeas corpus denied October 9, 1964; affirmed per curiam by the Court of Appeals under No. 15152, October 27, 1965; petition for rehearing denied May 3, 1966, 3 Cir., 359 F.2d 940; cert. denied October 10, 1966, 385 U.S. 845, 87 S.Ct. 89, 17 L.Ed.2d 77.

The mandate of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of October 9, 1964 in M-2796 was received in this court on October 19, 1966. On November 21, 1966 an Order was entered in this proceeding (M-3223) requiring the filing of an answer to the petition and the filing of the state court records. The state court records have been re-examined in light of petitioner’s contention that his conviction resulted from illegally obtained evidence. The transcript of the state court trial proceedings fully sets forth the circumstances of the alleged forcible entry and alleged illegal search of the automobile. From the transcript of the state court trial it appears, by Mazewski’s own testimony, that he voluntarily admitted the police to his home and willingly surrendered the keys to his automobile to them. It is apparent from the state court record that the claim of illegal search and seizure is without merit, and the instant petition will be dismissed without hearing.

Mazewski has petitioned for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The petition will be denied for the same reasons that the leave to proceed in forma pauperis in M-2796 was terminated.
### §460aa–8. Federal-State water rights

The jurisdiction of the State and the United States over waters of any stream included in the recreation area shall be determined by established principles of law. Under the provisions of this subchapter, any taking by the United States of a water right which is vested under either State or Federal law at the time of enactment of this subchapter shall entitle the owner thereof to just compensation. Nothing in this subchapter shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws.

(Pub. L. 92–400, §9, Aug. 22, 1972, 86 Stat. 614.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Time of enactment of this subchapter, referred to in text, means Aug. 22, 1972, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 92–400, which enacted this subchapter.
### §460dd–5. Mineral and grazing leases; Bureau of Land Management administration and policies

The administration of mineral and grazing leases within the recreation area shall be by the Bureau of Land Management. The same policies followed by the Bureau of Land Management in issuing and administering mineral and grazing leases on other lands under its jurisdiction shall be followed in regard to the lands within the boundaries of the recreation area, subject to the provisions of sections 460dd–2(a) and 460dd–3 of this title.

(Pub. L. 92–593, §6, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1312.)
Filed 1/15/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2019 ND 7

State of North Dakota, Statutory Party in Interest 

       and 

Kenneth McGath,                                                                                                Plaintiff

        v.

Wonda McGath,                                                                       Defendant and Appellant

No. 20180186

Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Donovan J. Foughty, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Wonda McGath, Devils Lake, ND, defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

State v. McGath

No. 20180186

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Wonda McGath appeals from a judgment granting Kenneth McGath a divorce from her, awarding him primary residential responsibility of the parties’ three minor children, ordering her to pay child support, and distributing the parties’ marital property.  Wonda McGath argues the district court erred in distributing the parties’ marital property, awarding Kenneth McGath primary residential responsibility of the parties’ children, establishing a parenting time schedule, ordering her to pay child support, and denying her request for a free copy of trial transcripts for appeal because she is indigent.

[¶2]Wonda McGath has failed to provide a trial transcript of the divorce proceeding for her appeal.  A civil litigant is not constitutionally nor statutorily entitled to a free transcript on appeal.  Koenig v. Schuh, 2016 ND 252, ¶¶ 6-14, 888 N.W.2d 385.  An appellant assumes the consequences and risks of failing to provide a complete transcript on appeal, and if the record does not provide for a meaningful and intelligent review of an alleged error, this Court will decline to review the issue.  Id. at ¶ 13.  Under Koenig, Wonda McGath is not entitled to a free transcript on appeal.  Without a transcript, this record is inadequate to provide for meaningful and intelligent review of her claimed errors.  She bears the consequences of her failure to provide a transcript, and we affirm the judgment under Koenig and N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte

Jon J. Jensen
Order filed August 30, 2019

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-19-00260-CV

__________

GEORGINA RENDON, Appellant

V.

BOBBY SWANSON, BOBBY SWANSON, INC., AND 

MODEL CLEANERS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-17-07-0806-CV

O R D E R

On August 19, 2019, Georgina Rendon filed a notice of appeal from a 

judgment signed on March 22, 2019. When the appeal was filed in this court, we

noted that the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely under TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. 

Rendon indicated in her notice of appeal that it was timely filed because she did not 

receive notice of the trial court’s final judgment until May 20, 2019, on which date 

she filed a motion for new trial. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a; see also TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). We abate this appeal. 
2

TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a provides that, if within twenty days after a judgment is 

signed, a party adversely affected by it has neither received the required notice nor 

acquired actual knowledge of the judgment, the appellate deadlines shall begin to 

run from the date that such party received notice or acquired actual knowledge of 

the rendition of judgment. TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a.4; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(a). 

In order to establish the application of the rule, the adversely affected party must 

“prove in the trial court, on sworn motion and notice, the date on which the party or 

his attorney first either received a notice of the judgment or acquired actual 

knowledge of the signing and that this date was more than twenty days after the 

judgment was signed.” TEX.R.CIV. P. 306a.5; see also TEX.R. APP. P. 4.2(b). After 

hearing the motion, the trial court shall sign a written order indicating the date when 

the party first received notice or acquired actual knowledge of the signing of the 

judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 4.2(c).

Rendon has not presented this court with any finding by the trial court 

reflecting the date that Rendon or her attorney received notice or acquired actual 

knowledge of the judgment. We abate this appeal to provide Rendon an opportunity 

to file with the trial court the appropriate motion and obtain the requisite findings 

from that court. If this matter is pursued by Rendon in the trial court, the trial court

clerk is directed to furnish the trial court’s findings to this court on or before

September 30, 2019.

The appeal is abated. 

August 30, 2019 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating. 

 1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6114

GEORGE ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MR. THOMPSON, Assoc Warden, South Carolina Dept Corrections; MS. REMBERT, General Counsel, ICC; DAVID TATARSKY, General Counsel; JAMES SIMMONS, III, IGC; STAN BRUTT, Warden; SANDRA S. BOWIE, IGC, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (3:07-cv-03884-DCN)

Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 4, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Heath McAlvin Stewart, III, RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: George Adams appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Adams v. Thompson , No. 3:07-cv-03884-DCN (D.S.C. filed Jan. 13, 2009 & entered Jan. 14, 2009). We grant Adams’ motion to file a supplemental informal brief and deny his motions for a transcript at Government expense, for default judgment, and for injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 99619 / February 28, 2024

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-21796

In the Matter of the Application of

MEGURDITCH PATATIAN

For Review of Action Taken by 

FINRA

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO DISMISS APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

On November 7, 2023, Megurditch Patatian, an associated person of a FINRA member 

firm, filed an application for review of a FINRA action. FINRA imposed a bar and other 

sanctions for violation of its rules related to, among other things, suitability requirements and 

maintenance of accurate books and records. After we issued a briefing schedule,1 Patatian filed 

his opening brief on January 8, 2024, and FINRA filed its opposition brief on February 7, 2024.

On February 8, 2024, Patatian filed an unopposed request that the Commission dismiss 

his application for review. Under the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant Patatian’s 

unopposed request.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the request of Megurditch Patiatian to dismiss his 

application for review is granted and that this review proceeding is dismissed. 

For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated 

authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary

1 Megurditch Patatian, Exchange Act Release No. 99123, 2023 WL 8527164 (Dec. 8, 

2023).
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 265 

Designating July 27, 2019, as ‘‘National Day of the American Cowboy’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 26, 2019 

Mr. ENZI (for himself, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. RISCH, Mr. THUNE, Mr. 

TESTER, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. 

ROUNDS, Mr. BENNET, Mr. UDALL, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. CORNYN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

the Judiciary 

JULY 23, 2019 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating July 27, 2019, as ‘‘National Day of the 

American Cowboy’’. 

Whereas pioneering men and women, recognized as ‘‘cowboys’’, helped to establish the American West; 

Whereas the cowboy embodies honesty, integrity, courage, 

compassion, respect, a strong work ethic, and patriotism; 

Whereas the cowboy spirit exemplifies strength of character, 

sound family values, and good common sense; 

Whereas the cowboy archetype transcends ethnicity, gender, 

geographic boundaries, and political affiliations; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

SRES 265 ATS 

Whereas the cowboy, who lives off the land and works to protect and enhance the environment, is an excellent steward 

of the land and its creatures; 

Whereas cowboy traditions have been a part of American culture for generations; 

Whereas the cowboy continues to be an important part of the 

economy through the work of many thousands of ranchers across the United States who contribute to the economic well-being of every State; 

Whereas millions of fans watch professional and working 

ranch rodeo events annually, making rodeo one of the 

most-watched sports in the United States; 

Whereas membership and participation in rodeo and other organizations that promote and encompass the livelihood of 

cowboys span every generation and transcend race and 

gender; 

Whereas the cowboy is a central figure in literature, film, and 

music and occupies a central place in the public imagination; 

Whereas the cowboy is an American icon; and 

Whereas the ongoing contributions made by cowboys and 

cowgirls to their communities should be recognized and 

encouraged: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates July 27, 2019, as ‘‘National Day 

3 of the American Cowboy’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

SRES 265 ATS 

1 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

2 to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and 

3 activities. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 13 -575 C

Filed: December 11, 2015

*************************************

AAR MANUFACTURING, INC., and *

WEATHERHAVEN RESOURCES, *

LTD., *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*************************************

ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, the court
accepts the December 8 , 2015 Stipulation For The Entry Of Judgment. Therefore, the Clerk of the
United States Court of Federal Claims is ordered to enter final judgment against the Government in the amount of $2,000,000, in accordance with the Stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED

. s/ Susan G. Braden

SUSAN G. BRADEN
Judge
### §459j–6. Transfer of lands for use as administrative and visitor facilities to Secretary of the Interior; use of portion of John F. Kennedy Space Center; transfer of excess land within seashore to Secretary of the Interior

On January 3, 1975, those lands to be used for the administrative and visitor facilities described in section 459j–4(c)(1) of this title shall be transferred by sections 459j to 459j–8 of this title to the Secretary of the Interior and those portions of the John F. Kennedy Space Center falling within the boundaries of the seashore as defined in section 459j of this title shall become a part of the seashore, and within ninety days thereafter, the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, shall grant to the Secretary for carrying out the intent and purpose of sections 459j to 459j–8 of this title such use of said portions as the Administrator determines is not inconsistent with public safety and the needs of the space and defense programs of the Nation. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any lands within the seashore which the Administrator determines to be excess to the needs of such agency shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Interior for administration in accordance with the provisions of sections 459j to 459j–8 of this title: Provided, That any portions of the John F. Kennedy Space Center within the seashore not transferred to the Secretary shall remain under the control and jurisdiction of the Administrator.

(Pub. L. 93–626, §7, Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2125.)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

ANTHONY KEFFER,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 59 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.