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



List of Subsidiaries



|Subsidiaries of Registrant               |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|---------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                                        
|SpeechWorks International Holdings, Inc. |  | Delaware                     
|                                        
|SpeechWorks Technology (Canada), Inc.    |  | Canada                       
|                                        
|SpeechWorks (BVI) Ltd.                   |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                        
|SpeechWorks Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.       |  | Singapore                    
|                                        
|SpeechWorks U.K. Ltd                     |  | United Kingdom               
|                                        
|SpeechWorks Europe B.V.                  |  | Netherlands                  
|                                        
|SpeechWorks Japan K.K.                   |  | Japan                        
|                                        
|SpeechWorks France S.A.S.                |  | France                       
|                                        
|SpeechWorks Deutchland GmbH              |  | Germany                      
|                                        
|SpeechWorks Securities Corporation       |  | Massachusetts                
|                                        
|SpeechWorks Acquisition Sub, Inc.        |  | New York
Exhibit 24.1

G. BRAD BECKSTEAD

Certified Public Accountant	

330 E. Warm Springs

Las Vegas, NV 89119

702.257.1984

702.362.0540 (fax)

 

 

 

 

April 14, 2003

 

To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of G. Brad Beckstead, CPA, consents to the inclusion of my report of April 14, 2003, on the Financial Statements of Dicut, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2002, in its Form 10K-SB to be filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Signed,

/s/ G. Brad Beckstead

G. Brad Beckstead, CPA
§ 1115.5 Reporting of failures to comply with a voluntary consumer product safety standard relied upon by the Commission under section 9 of the CPSA. ( a ) *General provision.* Under the CPSA, the Commission may rely on voluntary standards in lieu of developing mandatory ones. In recognition of the role of voluntary standards under the CPSA, section 15(b)(1) requires reports if a product fails to comply with a voluntary standard “upon which the Commission has relied under section 9” of the CPSA. The Commission has relied upon a voluntary consumer product safety standard under section 9 of the CPSA if, since August 13, 1981 it has terminated a rulemaking proceeding or withdrawn an existing consumer product safety rule because it explicitly determined that an existing voluntary standard, or portion(s) thereof, is likely to result in an adequate reduction of the risk of injury and it is likely there will be substantial compliance with that voluntary standard. (See appendix to this part 1115 for a list of such voluntary standards.) This provision applies only when the Commission relies upon a voluntary standard in a rulemaking proceeding under section 9 of the CPSA. In evaluating whether or not to rely upon an existing voluntary standard, the Commission shall adhere to all the procedural safeguards currently required under the provisions of the CPSA, including publication in the Federal Register of the Commission's intent to rely upon a voluntary standard in order to provide the public with a fair opportunity to comment upon such proposed action.
( b ) *Reporting requirement.* A firm must report under this section if it has distributed in commerce, subsequent to the effective date of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 1990 (November 16, 1990), a product that does not conform to a voluntary standard or portion(s) of a voluntary standard relied upon by the Commission since August 13, 1981. If the Commission relied upon only a portion(s) of a voluntary standard, a firm must report under this section only nonconformance with the portion(s) of the voluntary standard relied upon by the Commission. Pursuant to section 7(b)(2) of the CPSA, the Commission shall monitor any modifications of a voluntary standard upon which it has relied and determine, as a matter of policy, at the time any substantive safety related modification is adopted, whether it shall continue to rely upon the former standard or whether it shall rely, subsequently, upon the modified standard. The Commission shall publish such decisions in the Federal Register. Until the Commission makes such a decision, subject firms need not report under this provision a product which complies with either the original version of the voluntary standard relied upon by the Commission or the new version of the standard. A firm must continue to evaluate whether deviations from other portions of a voluntary standard, or other voluntary standards not relied upon by the Commission, either constitute a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death.
[57 FR 34228, Aug. 4, 1992; 57 FR 39597, Sept. 1, 1992]
§ 971.604 Best available technologies (BAT) and mitigation. ( a ) The Administrator shall require in all activities under new permits, and wherever practicable in activities under existing permits, the use of the best available technologies for the protection of safety, health, and the environment wherever such activities would have a significant adverse effect on safety, health, or the environment, except where the Administrator determines that the incremental benefits are clearly insufficient to justify the incremental costs of using such technologies. Because of the embryonic nature of the industry, NOAA is unable either to specify particular equipment or procedures comprising BAT or to define performance standards. Until such experience exists, the applicant shall submit such information as is necessary to indicate, as required above, the use of BAT, the alternatives considered to the specific equipment or procedures proposed, and the rationale as to why one alternative technology was selected in place of another. This analysis shall include a discussion of the relative costs and benefits of the technologies considered.
( b ) NOAA is not specifying particular mitigation methodologies or techniques at this time (such as requiring the sub-surface release of mining vessel discharges), but expects applicants and permittees to develop and carry out their operations, to the extent possible, to minimize adverse environmental effects and to be able to demonstrate efforts to that end. The applicant must submit a plan describing how he would mitigate a problem, if it were caused by the surface release of mining vessel discharges, including a plan for the monitoring of any discharges. Based upon monitoring results, NOAA may find it necessary in the future to specify particular procedures for minimizing adverse environmental effects. These procedures would be incorporated into permit TCRs.
( c ) NOAA will require the permittee to report, prior to implementation, any proposed technological or operational changes that will increase or have unknown environmental effects. Changes in composition, concentration or size distribution of suspended particulates discharged from the mining vessel, water depth of vessel discharges, depth of cut in the seafloor of the mining collector, and direction or amount of sediment discharged at the seafloor are factors of concern to NOAA. In reporting any such change, the permittee shall submit information to indicate the use of BAT, alternatives considered, and rationale for selecting one technology in place of another, in a manner comparable to and to the extent required in paragraph (a) of this section. If proposed changes have a high potential for increasing adverse environmental effects, the Administrator may disapprove or require modification of the changes.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

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 BidGive International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Rebecca Richardson-Blanchard, the Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.



/s/ Rebecca Richardson-BlanchardRebecca Richardson-Blanchard
Interim Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 30, 2006
No. II-13-019 April 16, 2013

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

NRC SCHEDULES MEETING IN PIKETON 

TO DISCUSS USEC LEAD CASCADE FACILITY 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a public meeting in Piketon, 

Ohio, on April 25 to discuss results of the agency’s most recent review of USEC Inc.’s American 

Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility. 

The meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Comfort Inn, 7525 U.S. 23 in Piketon. The 

meeting will be open to the public and the news media, and NRC staff members will be available 

to answer questions after the business portion of the meeting.

The NRC staff assessed USEC’s performance last year in the areas of safety operations, 

radiological controls, facility support and other areas. The NRC staff review determined that 

USEC continued to conduct its activities safely and securely, protecting public health and the 

environment.

The NRC found no areas needing improvement during the performance review period. 

Due to that performance level, NRC inspections at the facility during the next review period are 

being conducted at the normal level of inspection for this type of nuclear fuel facility, and no 

additional inspections are required.

“The NRC inspects nuclear fuel facilities such as USEC’s Piketon facility and monitors 

their performance on an ongoing basis,” said NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “We 

issue inspection reports and hold these meetings near each facility to discuss our oversight and 

answer any questions local residents may have.”

A copy of the review for the USEC facility in Piketon is available on the NRC website.

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 2000, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
#### Cossettie E. Mitchell, Appellant, v. William Fulton, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. (The judgment is for defendant for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
### Part II—Responsibilities of Federal Government
#### In the Matter of Caroleitha C., Respondent, v Samuel David R., Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 343]

*1302Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Robert J. Rossi, J.), entered March 21, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied respondent’s objections to an order of the Support Magistrate entered January 24, 2005.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting the objections in part and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking child support from respondent for the benefit of the parties’ daughter. After a hearing on the petition, the Support Magistrate ordered respondent, inter alia, to pay $171.69 per week for the support of that child, and Family Court denied respondent’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order. We agree with respondent that the Support Magistrate and Family Court erred when, in determining respondent’s child support obligation under the Child Support Standards Act (Family Ct Act § 413), they failed to consider respondent’s contention that application of the statutory percentage to the parties’ combined parental income, including the amount in excess of $80,000, would be unjust and improper under the circumstances because he provided the sole support for his teenage son, who resided with him. We note in addition that the record establishes that respondent was providing child support for another child as well pursuant to a separation agreement.

The Support Magistrate did not determine whether respondent was entitled to an income offset for alimony “actually paid to a spouse not a party to the instant [proceeding] pursuant to court order or validly executed written agreement” or to an income offset for child support (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [vii] [B]; *see*§ 413 [1] [b] [5] [vii] [D]). Likewise, the record is devoid of any calculation of combined parental income, and there is no indication of the manner in which the Support Magistrate dealt with the fact that the combined parental income *1303was in excess of $80,000 *(see Matter of Cassano v Cassano,*85 NY2d 649, 655 [1995]; *Matter of Panossian v Panossian,*201 AD2d 983 [1994]). In the absence of the appropriate findings and calculations, we are unable to assess whether the Support Magistrate or the court gave due consideration to the fact that respondent provided the sole support for a child in his household, a factor that must be considered pursuant to Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f) (8). Thus, we modify the order by granting respondent’s objections in part, and we remit the matter to Family Court to determine respondent’s child support obligation in compliance with Family Court Act § 413 following a further hearing, if necessary. Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Green, JJ.
lps3264
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3
(Nos. 333-66460, 333-82762 and 333-111519) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-41374, 333-49978, 333-102741,
333-115988, 333-133974, 333-139357, 333-148072, 333-150860, and 333-161255) of Network Engines, Inc. of our report dated
December 14, 2009 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this
Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston,
Massachusetts
December 14, 2009

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, Steven R. Williams, the Chief Executive Officer of Petroleum Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify that: 

- I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of  the Registrant.

 

_/s/ Steven R. Williams                   

Steven R. Williams

Chief Executive Officer of the 

Managing General Partner of the Registrant

___May 13,  2004_________
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3413 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 403
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3413

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2012

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                              May 16, 2012

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, as the ``Private Isaac T. 
                         Cortes Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. PRIVATE ISAAC T. CORTES POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Private 
Isaac T. Cortes Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 403

112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3413

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, as the ``Private Isaac T. 
                         Cortes Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 16, 2012

                       Reported without amendment
```
##### 



Supplemental Financial Schedule II
 TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
(amounts in thousands)
 Column A
    
    Column B
    
    Column C
    
    Column D
    
    Column EBalance
    
    Additions,Beginning
    
    Costs, and
    
    
    
    
    
    Balance End ofDescription
    
    of Year
    
    Expenses
    
    Deductions
    
    YearYear ended December 31, 2006Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
    
    $
    233
    
    
    $
    284
    
    
    $
    (227
    )
    
    $
    290Allowance for Inventory Obsolescence
    
    $
    533
    
    
    $
    83
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    616Year ended December 31, 2005Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
    
    $
    690
    
    
    $
    243
    
    
    $
    (700
    )
    
    $
    233Allowance for Inventory Obsolescence
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    533
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    533Year ended December 31, 2004Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
    
    $
    393
    
    
    $
    556
    
    
    $
    (259
    )
    
    $
    690
### subpart 13—national institute on deafness and other communication disorders
#### § 1102.42 Disclaimers.

The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of the Consumer Product Safety Information Database, particularly with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of information submitted by persons outside of the CPSC. The Database will contain a notice to this effect that will be prominently and conspicuously displayed on the Database and on any documents that are printed from the Database.
### §523. Excess real property located on Indian reservations

(a) Procedures for Transfer.—The Administrator of General Services shall prescribe procedures necessary to transfer to the Secretary of the Interior, without compensation, excess real property located within the reservation of any group, band, or tribe of Indians that is recognized as eligible for services by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

(b) Property Held in Trust.—

(1) In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall hold excess real property transferred under this section in trust for the benefit and use of the group, band, or tribe of Indians, within whose reservation the excess real property is located.

(2) Special requirement for oklahoma.—The Secretary shall hold excess real property that is located in Oklahoma and transferred under this section in trust for Oklahoma Indian tribes recognized by the Secretary if the real property—

(A) is located within boundaries of former reservations in Oklahoma, as defined by the Secretary, and was held in trust by the Federal Government for an Indian tribe when the Government acquired it; or

(B) is contiguous to real property presently held in trust by the Government for an Oklahoma Indian tribe and was held in trust by the Government for an Indian tribe at any time.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1083.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 523 | 40:483(a)(2). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title II, §202(a)(2), as added Pub. L. 93–599, (2), Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1954. |

Section
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)





I,
      Thomas
      W. Martin, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of ICON Capital
      Corp., the Manager of the Registrant in connection with the Quarterly Report
      of
      ICON Income Fund Ten, LLC (the "LLC") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March
      31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the "Quarterly Report") certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





1.
            The
                Quarterly 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);
                and





2.
            The
                information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
                all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of
                the LLC.








*Dated:
      December 11, 2007*





*/s/
      Thomas W. Martin*


Thomas
      W.
      Martin


Chairman,
      Chief Executive Officer and President of the Manager


(Principal
      Executive Officer)


ICON
      Capital Corp.


Manager
      of ICON Income Fund Ten, LLC
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0000663 07-OCT-2013 09:27 AM
#### Calvin E. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 14996.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

June 8, 1954.

George M. Sullivan and Donald E. Rockne, Blooming Prairie, Minn., for appellant.

George E. MacKinnon, U. S. Atty., St. Paul, Minn., for appellee.

Appeal from District Court dismissed, on motion of appellant. 116 F.Supp. 439.