alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21

                                  "EXHIBIT 21"

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Subsidiaries of International Bancshares Corporation

        Name                      Business               % Of Ownership
        ----                      --------               --------------
IBC Subsidiary Corporation        Bank Holding Company        100%
IBC Life Insurance Company        Credit Life Insurance       100%
IBC Trading Company               Export Trading              100%
IBC Capital Corporation           Investments                 100%

Subsidiaries of IBC Subsidiary Corporation

        Name                      Business               % Of Ownership
        ----                      --------               --------------

International Bank of Commerce    State Bank                  100%
Commerce Bank                     State Bank                  100%
International Bank of Commerce,
  Zapata                          State Bank                  100%
International Bank of Commerce,
  Brownsville                     State Bank                  100%
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JP
REALTY, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                        661,699
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               3,354,394
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            4,253,256
<PP&E>                                    105,539,623
<DEPRECIATION>                             64,256,230
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             45,985,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,023,685
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                   12,808,040
<OTHER-SE>                                  3,719,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               45,985,919
<SALES>                                    10,422,320
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           10,617,012
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               9,861,111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            911,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (155,735)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (117,513)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (38,222)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (38,222)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)



</TABLE>
#### Robert Widom, Plaintiff, and Refuah Research, Inc., Appellant, v Maida Mittman, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[833 NYS2d 502]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered November 17, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the fourth cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The elements necessary for an effective gift are: (1) an intent on the part of the donor to make a present transfer; (2) delivery of the gift, either actual or constructive, to the donee; and (3) acceptance by the donee *(see Rubenstein v Rosenthal,*140 AD2d 156, 158 [1988]). As to donative intent, the August 2005 agreement refers simply to “anticipation” of Mittman’s “investment.” It further notes that the $750,000 “will be” derived from proceeds of the sale of real property, not to take place until November of that year. Accordingly, there was no present transfer by virtue of the written agreement, nor was there an accepted delivery. Mittman was not yet in possession of the money to be gifted, and her receipt of such moneys was dependent on the culmination of a future transaction, with delivery anticipated only after the closing. Given the absence of a present donative intent and the fact that Mittman did not yet possess, much less relinquish control over, the money at the time of the purported gifting, Refuah Research cannot establish its fourth cause of action *(see Lichtenstein v Eljohnan, Inc.,*161 AD2d 397 [1990]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Catterson, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                     JUN-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                       NOV-30-1995
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<CASH>                                           1,850
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,317
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0 
<PP&E>                                         262,220
<DEPRECIATION>                                 124,153
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 166,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0 
<BONDS>                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                         8,753
<OTHER-SE>                                          48
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   166,266
<SALES>                                         10,486
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,924
<CGS>                                           10,815
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,074
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,410
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,664
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,664
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.87
        

</TABLE>
#### Alwin Construction Company, Inc. *v.*Douglas M. Costle, Commissioner of Environmental Protection

*Melvin J. Silverman,*in support of the motion.

*Brian E. O’Neill,*assistant attorney general, and *Alan B. Spirer,*in opposition.

Submitted October 10

decided October *24,*1974

The plaintiff’s motion for a review of the action of the trial court in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is granted and the relief sought therein is denied.
**EXHIBIT (12)**

 

**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

** **
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | **Twelve**                  | ** **     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------|----------------|
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | **Months Ended**            | ** **     |
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | **September 30, 2009** | ** **     |
|                                                                 |       |                        |           |
| Income before provision for income taxes and fixed  charges (Note A) |       | $                           | 115,061,555    |   |
|                                                                 |       |                        |           |
| Fixed charges:                                                       |       |                        |           |
| Interest on long-term debt                                           |       | $                           | 41,022,782     |   |
| Interest on short-term debt                                          |       | 1,749,160                   |           |
| Interest on note payable to securitization trust                     |       | 4,250,000                   |           |
| Other interest                                                       |       | (170,532                    | )              |
| Rental expense representative of an interest  factor (Note B)        |       | 6,731,433                   |           |
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | ** **                  | ** **     |
| **Total fixed charges**                                              | ** ** | **$**                       | **53,582,843** | ** ** |
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | ** **                  | ** **     |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                   |       | 2.15                        | X              |

 
| NOTE A: | For the purpose of  determining earnings in the calculation of the ratio, net income has been  increased by the provision for income taxes, non-operating income taxes and  by the sum of fixed charges as shown above. |
|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| NOTE B: | One-third of rental  expense (which approximates the interest factor).                                                                                                                                                  |

 

----
§ 776.57 Unauthorized practice of law. ( a ) A covered USG attorney shall not: ( 1 ) Except as authorized by an appropriate military department, practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so is prohibited by the regulations of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; or
( 2 ) Assist a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
( 3 ) Engage in the outside practice of law without receiving proper authorization from the JAG.
( b ) Limiting the practice of law to members of the bar protects the public against rendition of legal services by unqualified persons. A covered USG attorney's performance of legal duties pursuant to a military department's authorization, however, is considered a Federal function and not subject to regulation by the states. Thus, a covered USG attorney may perform legal assistance duties even though the covered attorney is not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction within which the covered attorney's duty station is located. Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not prohibit a covered USG attorney from using the services of non-attorneys and delegating functions to them, so long as the covered attorney supervises the delegated work and retains responsibility for it. See § 776.55 of this part. Likewise, it does not prohibit covered USG attorneys from providing professional advice and instruction to non-attorneys whose employment requires knowledge of law; for example, claims adjusters, social workers, accountants and persons employed in Government agencies. In addition, a covered USG attorney may counsel individuals who wish to proceed pro se or non-attorneys authorized by law or regulation to appear and represent themselves or others before military proceedings.
#### Dominick Gavigan, appellee, v. Charles R. Gold, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,489.

Action for damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Emanuel Eller, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 3, 1925.

Rehearing denied March 16, 1925.

Alfred Roy Hulbert, for appellant.

James C. MeShane, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §4206. Grants, contracts, etc., authority

The Secretary may carry out the purposes of this chapter, with existing facilities and funds otherwise available, through the use of grants, contracts, or such other means as the Secretary deems appropriate.

(Pub. L. 97–98, title XV, §1545, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1343.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective six months after Dec. 22, 1981, see section 1549 of Pub. L. 97–98, set out as a note under section 4201 of this title.
'DEPARTMENT OF 

August 17, 2010 :^iT0Si0NS 

Mr. J. Gray, Supervisor - 3 AUG 2 U P 1^ I b 

Town of Massena • 

60 Main Street 

Massena, New York 13662 

Reference: Docket No. DOT-OST-1997-2842 

Dear Mr. Gray: 

I have recently been advised that Cape Air, a regional carrier providing non-stop air service 

between Massena and Albany, New York is seeking renewal of its EAS status. I would like to 

offer my support for the company's bid. 

As backgrounder to this support, the City of Cornwall, through its Department of Economic 

Development, partnered in a Cornwall/ Massena cross border economic development initiative 

focused on developing shared growth opportunities for both regions. I was assigned as a delegate 

from Cornwall and the surrounding region. 

An initiative given considerable attention was that of securing air service. While primarily 

serving the upstate New York region, such a service was viewed as having positive implications 

for Cornwall and surrounding region which included Ottawa, Canada's National Capital, located 

one hour north. 

A number of air carriers were given an opportunity to provide the service and Cape Air, which 

offered a comprehensive array of services, was ultimately selected as the carrier of choice. Since 

the firm commenced operations in September, 2008, it has provided regular and reliable service 

to clients throughout the region. 

From an economic development standpoint, having an air carrier within minutes of the City of 

Cornwall is viewed as a benefit and a possible catalyst to development. Massena International 

Airport is utilized by a number of industrial plant managers in the Cornwall region and as a point 

of interest, and during a conversation with one such manager, he spoke highly of the service 

Cape Air provided 

I look forward to a continuing partnership between Cape Air, the Town of Massena, and 

communities on both sides of the international border 

Respectfully submitted. 

Michael G. Metcalfe
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                              40,649
<SECURITIES>                                     3,864,898
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,911,178
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,911,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              111,808
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           608,293
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,191,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,911,178
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   157,245
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      167,168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (9,923)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (2,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (7,923)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0

<FN>
<F1> UNITED STATES TREASURY OBLIGATIONS
</FN>



</TABLE>
No. 282.

No. 283.

#### Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railway Company et al. *v.*Maclay Hoyne, State’s Attorney, etc., et al.; and Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railway Company et al. *v.*Sanitary District of Chicago et al.

Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois,

Argued March 25, 1920.

Decided April 19, 1920.

*Per Curiam.*

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon thd *574authority of § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726.

*Mr. Frank J. Loesch*and *Mr. Timothy J. Scofield,*with whom *Mr. Addison L. Gardner*and *Mr. Gilbert E. Porter*were on the briefs, for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Edmund D. Adcock,*with whom *Mr. George I. Haight*was on the brief, for defendants in error in No. 282.

*Mr. C. Arch Williams,*for defendants in error in No. 283, submitted.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2




               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated February 12, 1999 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements of CB Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of CB
Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 333-81279, effective
June 22, 1999, and File No. 333-64437, effective September 28, 1998).



Grant Thornton LLP
Honolulu, Hawaii
March 15, 2000
#### § 935.64 Clerk of the Court.

There is a Clerk of the Court, who is appointed by the Chief Judge. The Clerk shall serve at the pleasure of the Chief Judge. The Clerk maintains a public docket containing such information as the Chief Judge may prescribe, administers oaths, and performs such other duties as the Court may direct. The Clerk is an officer of the Court.
§ 855.6 Aircraft exempt from the requirement for a civil aircraft landing permit. ( a ) Any aircraft owned by: ( 1 ) Any other US Government agency.
( 2 ) US Air Force aero clubs established as prescribed in AFI 34-117, Air Force Aero Club Program, and AFMAN 3-132, Air Force Aero Club Operations[1] . Note:
This includes aircraft owned by individuals but leased by an Air Force aero club.
( 3 ) Aero clubs of other US military services. Note:
This includes aircraft owned by individuals but leased by Army or Navy aero clubs.
( 4 ) A US State, County, Municipality, or other political subdivision, when operating to support official business at any level of Government.
( b ) Any civil aircraft under: ( 1 ) Lease or contractual agreement for exclusive US Government use on a long-term basis and operated on official business by or for a US Government agency; for example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of the Interior, or Department of Energy. Note:
The Government must hold liability responsibility for all damages or injury associated with operation of the aircraft.
( 2 ) Lease or contractual agreement to the Air Force for Air Force Civil Air Patrol (CAP) liaison purposes and operated by an Air Force CAP liaison officer on official Air Force business.
( 3 ) CAP control for a specific mission directed by the Air Force.
( 4 ) Coast Guard control for a specific mission directed by the Coast Guard. Note:
For identification purposes, the aircraft will be marked with a sticker near the port side door identifying it as a Coast Guard Auxiliary aircraft. The pilot will always be in uniform and normally have a copy of a Coast Guard Auxiliary Patrol Order. If the aircraft is operating under “verbal orders of the commander,” the pilot can provide the telephone number of the cognizant Coast Guard commander.
( 5 ) Contractual agreement to any US, State, or local Government agency in support of operations involving safety of life or property as a result of a disaster.
( 6 ) Government furnished property or bailment contract for use by a contractor, provided the Federal, State, or local Government has retained liability responsibilities.
( 7 ) Civil aircraft transporting critically ill or injured individuals or transplant organs to or from an Air Force installation.
( 8 ) Historic aircraft being delivered for Air Force museum exhibits under the provisions of AFI 84-103, Museum System.[2]
Footnotes -
855.6
[1] Copies of the publications are available, at cost, from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
[2] See footnote 1 to § 855.6.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of GPS Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to GPS Industries, Inc. and
will be retained by GPS Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






Date:  November 14, 2005        By:  /s/ ROBERT C. SILZER, SR.
                                     ---------------------------
                                     Robert C. Silzer, Sr.
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     (Duly Authorized Officer)