alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

MAXTOR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES 2003-2004

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES:
--------------------
<S>                                        <C>      <C>      <C>
Maxtor Disc Drives Pty. Limited            -        -        Australia
Maxtor Global Ltd.                         -        -        Bermuda
Maxtor Technology (Suzhou) Co. Ltd.        -        -        China
Maxtor Europe Sarl                         -        -        France
Maxtor GmbH                                -        -        Germany
Maxtor (Gibraltar) Limited                 -        -        Gibraltar
Maxtor Asia Pacific Limited                -        -        Hong Kong
Maxtor Ireland Limited                     -        -        Ireland
Maxtor (Japan) Ltd.                        -        -        Japan
Maxtor Korea  Ltd.                         -        -        Korea
Maxtor Luxembourg                          -        -        Luxembourg
Maxtor Technology (M) Sdn Bhd              -        -        Malaysia
Maxtor Peripherals (S) Pte. Limited        -        -        Singapore
Maxtor International Sarl                  -        -        Switzerland
Maxtor International Manufacturing Sarl    -        -        Switzerland
Maxtor Thailand Limited                    -        -        Thailand
Maxtor Europe Limited                      -        -        UK
</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES:
---------------------
<S>                                        <C>      <C>      <C>
Maxtor Funding LLC                         -        -        Delaware
Maxtor Receivables Corporation             -        -        California
MMC Technology, Inc.                       -        -        California
Old SDI Sub                                -        -        California
Maxtor Realty Corporation                  -        -        Massachusetts
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      38,921,000
<SECURITIES>                                12,729,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              130,292,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 6,650,000
<INVENTORY>                                 89,998,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           306,847,000
<PP&E>                                     291,407,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             140,404,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             672,358,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      146,387,000
<BONDS>                                     53,725,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    47,205,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 309,611,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               672,358,000
<SALES>                                    170,115,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           171,538,000
<CGS>                                       59,982,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              156,021,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,080,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,517,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,207,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,310,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,310,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Julius M. Gerzof, Appellant, v. Robert J. Sweeney, as Mayor of the Incorporated Village of Freeport, et al., Respondents.

In an action by a taxpayer pursuant to section 51 of the General Municipal Law, to annul: (1) a resolution of the respondent Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Freeport, made December 3, 1962, accepting the bid of the defendant Nordberg Manufacturing *Co.*for a generator unit, and (2) the contract of December 19, 1962 awarded pursuant thereto, and for related relief, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered August 9, 1963, upon the court’s decision and opinion after a non jury trial, dismissing the complaint. Judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. (For prior related appeal, see *Matter of Amatulli*v. *Sweeney,*17 A D 2d 631, affg. 33 Misc 2d 324.) Beldoek, P. J., Ivleinfeld, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Welcome to the web site of the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education.  We’ve tried to make the layout of the site as simple to    navigate as possible.  From the home page, the site is organized into six major categories of information:

**Know Your Rights**  –  This section contains information about the what the laws enforced by OCR require, in the areas of sex            discrimination, race and national origin discrimination, age discrimination and disability discrimination. This section also includes information about the OCR complaint process.

**Prevention**  –  This section includes information about how to prevent civil rights problems from arising and how to resolve            issues at the local level.

**Civil Rights Data** –  This section includes information about the Elementary and Secondary Civil Rights Compliance Reports

**About OCR**  –  This section describes the Office for Civil Rights, introduces the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and            includes information about the Impact of Civil Rights Laws, Reports to Congress, OCR Strategic Plan and Government Performance Results Act.

**Reading Room** –  This is where one can obtain pamphlets, publications and other documents relevant to the Office for            Civil Rights.

**Related Links**  – This section contains links to other resources relevant to civil rights interests.  Links have been            included that may be of special interest to children and young people.

If this list doesn’t help you find what you’re looking for, try these:

**FAQs** –  This leads to Frequently Asked Questions about OCR’s complaint process,  discrimination (race, sex, disability, and        age discrimination), discriminatory harassment (racial and sexual), and English Language Learners (Limited English Proficient student issues).

**Contact Us**  - This section contains information about how to reach OCR offices and staff, telephone        numbers and addresses for the Office for Civil Rights, access to the Department of Education electronic phonebook, various Department toll free numbers, and the names and telephone        numbers for about 175 programs that the Department administers.

**Topics A-Z** –  This is an alphabetical listing of topics users can access through this site.

**The Parents Guide to the Internet** – This pamphlet contains additional information about        the internet and how it works.  The Parents Guide is also available in Spanish: La Guía del Internet para Padres de        Familia.

Top
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

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 on Form 10-KSB of Angeles Income Properties, Ltd. II (the "Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each 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 the best of 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 operations of the Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: March 25, 2008   
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: March 25, 2008   





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

Minnesota Department of Education400 NE Stinson BlvdMinneapolis, MN 55413Phone: (651) 582-8200Website: http://education.state.mn.us/mde/index.html

### State Higher Education Agency

Minnesota Office of Higher EducationSuite 3501450 Energy Park DriveSt. Paul, MN 55108-5227Phone: (651) 642-0567Toll-Free: (800) 657-3866Fax: (651) 642-0675Website: http://www.ohe.state.mn.us/

### Special Education Agency

Special EducationMinnesota Department of Education400 NE Stinson BlvdMinneapolis, MN 55413Phone: (651) 582-8616Fax: (651) 582-8729Website: http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/fam/sped/

### State Adult Education Agency

Minnesota Department of Education1500 Hwy 36 W Roseville, MN 55113-4266Phone: (800) 222-1990Website: http://mnabe.org/

Back to state map
#### Jean Gregory et al., Appellants, v. Daily Gazette Company, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from an order and judgment entered thereon of the Supreme Court, Schenectady County, dismissing the complaint and granting a directed verdict for respondent at the close of its ease. Appellants allege that they were libeled by an article published on April 28, I960 on the first page of the second section of the *Schenectady Gazette.*This article bore the headline “ OQHN names 31 gambling spots in city ”, and stated that Cohn, then District Attorney of Schenectady County, had produced a chart at a hearing before the State Crime Commission which demonstrated a “ hookup ” between known or alleged gamblers in Schenectady and layoff gamblers in other parts of the State and country and on which appellants’ names were listed. Appellants assert that they have never been involved in gambling activities, and this assertion is not disputed here. Respondent’s position, and that accepted by the court below, was that this article was a *“*fair and true report ” of an official proceeding within the meaning of' section 74 of the Civil Rights Law and was thus privileged. Appellants ■ assert that the question of whether the article was a fair and true report should have been submitted to the jury citing *Campbell*v. *New York Evening Post*(245 N. Y. 320). This, of course, assumes that a factual issue has been developed that requires submission to the jury *(George*v. *Time,*259 App. Div, 324, affd. 287 N. Y. 742; *Bridgwood*v. *Newspaper PM,*276 App. Div. 858). We agree with the determination of the court below that no such factual issue had been raised here. In our opinion the article clearly represented a “ fair and true ” account of Cohn’s testimony before the commission and the material depicted on the chart he brought with.him, Cohn specifically testified that the chart contained the names of “bookmakers and their contacts” and there is no question that appellants’ names appear on the chart. At no time before the commission did .Cohn state that names and phone numbers appeared on the chart which were not necessarily connected with gambling activities. It was not until after the article appeared and appellants and others protested to him that Cohn revealed this to respondent. ; Respondent was not bound to know what Cohn “ meant to testify when in. fact. his .testimony .under oath left a contrary *847impression. To hold otherwise would place a burden on the press and defeat the purport of section 74. Order and judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         989,554
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  290,378
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,553
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,346,935
<PP&E>                                       9,413,227
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,677,432
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,700,564
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          364,861
<BONDS>                                        378,618
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,957,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,700,564
<SALES>                                      4,399,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,399,189
<CGS>                                        1,724,211
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,155,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                79,079
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,419,416
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,337
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (242,830)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (242,830)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (242,830)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (8)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (8)



</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0165

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRUCE SCHRODER,

Defendant and Appellant.

_______________________________________________________________

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 11, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve his Reply Brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 25 2023

10/25/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0165
#### EVANS, Respondent, v. BUFFALO RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 17, 1903.)

Action by John T. Evans against the Buffalo Railway Company.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with costs to abide event.

McLENNAN, P. J., and WILLIAMS, J., vote for the modification of the order, so as to. require the plaintiff, as a condition of the granting of the new trial, to pay the costs of the trial, already held.
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Joint Application of 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. and 

CZECH AIRLINES, et al.

for statements of authorization 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 212 

(Open Skies Blanket Codesharing) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket OST-2000-8207 

NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL CODESHARING

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: 

Allan I. Mendelsohn 

Sher & Blackwell 

1850 M Street, NW, Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20036 

(202) 463-2508 

Counsel for CZECH AIRLINES 

 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director – Government Affairs 

 & Associate General Counsel 

Jeff Morgan 

Regional Director – Government Affairs 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

1212 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 842-4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

February 2, 2010 
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Joint Application of 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. and 

CZECH AIRLINES, et al.

for statements of authorization 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 212 

(Open Skies Blanket Codesharing) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket OST-2000-8207 

NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL CODESHARING

Pursuant to the blanket statements of authorization granted in the captioned 

docket to Delta Air Lines, Inc., Czech Airlines, and their respective affiliates, the carriers 

hereby notify the Department that, beginning no earlier than 30 days from today, Delta 

Air Lines plans to display its “DL” designator code on flights operated by Czech Airlines 

on the following route: 

Prague, Czech Republic (PRG) – Minsk, Belarus (MSQ) 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Allan I. Mendelsohn 

______________________ 

Allan I. Mendelsohn 

Sher & Blackwell 

Counsel for CZECH AIRLINES 

 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director, Government Affairs & 

Associate General Counsel 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 A copy of the foregoing Notice has been served this 2nd day of February, 2010, upon 

the following persons via email: 

carl.nelson@aa.com; julie.oettinger@united.com; jeffrey.manley@united.com; 

hkamen@coair.com; dan.weiss@coair.com; howard.kass@usairways.com; 

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com; John.Allen@faa.gov; esta.rosenberg@dot.gov; 

mike.orr@airlineinfo.com
#### Alice C. Lagoe, as Limited Administratrix of the Estate of John H. Lagoe, Deceased, Respondent, v. City of Oswego, et al., Defendants, and E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal from order of Oswego Special Term resettling a previous order which denied motion by defendant Du Pont de Nemours and Company for summary judgment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MILAGRAS RAMOS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1114

)

TARGET CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This sua sponte memorandum order is triggered by some

fundamental flaws in the Answer of Target Corporation (“Target”)

to the personal injury Complaint brought against it by Milagras

Ramos. Although this Court has frankly been sorely tempted to

expand at some length with its criticism of the quality (or more

accurately the lack of quality) of the work product submitted by

Target’s counsel, it will content itself by simply identifying

some obvious defects:

1. Answer ¶2 reflects an inexplicable failure to

follow the clear roadmap prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P.

(“Rule”) 8(b)(5) -- see App’x ¶1 to State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill.

2001). It is stricken.

2. Answer ¶3 is nonresponsive to the

corresponding allegations of Complaint ¶3 and thus

Case: 1:12-cv-01114 Document #: 10 Filed: 03/27/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:27
fails to comply with Rule 8(b)(1)(B). It too is

sticken.

3. Because every affirmative defense (“AD”) must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint to

which it responds (see App’x ¶5 to State Farm), the

portions of Target’s first two ADs that speak of Ramos’

asserted contributory negligence as being the sole

cause of his injuries are also stricken.

4. Counsel Mark McAndrew’s Affidavit of

Insufficient Knowledge is defective in no fewer than

four respects: (a) It cites to an Illinois statute,

which of course has no application to this federal

case, (b) it repeats the same blunder referred to above

in paragraph 1, (c) it is signed by Target’s lawyer,

even though of course it is only the client’s

disclaimer that would be relevant and (d) it is stated

to the best of the lawyer’s knowledge and belief, which

is never adequate where an actual affidavit is called

for (as is not the case here). That “affidavit” must

be omitted the next time around.

Accordingly Target must file either an amendment to its

Answer or a self-contained Amended Answer on or before April 9,

2012. No charge is to be made to Target for the added work and

expense incurred in correcting counsel’s own errors. Target’s

2

Case: 1:12-cv-01114 Document #: 10 Filed: 03/27/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:28
counsel are ordered to apprise their client to that effect by

letter, with a copy to be transmitted to this Court’s chambers as

an informational matter (not for filing).

___________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 26, 2012

3

Case: 1:12-cv-01114 Document #: 10 Filed: 03/27/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:29
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

MAXTOR CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES 2002-2003

FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES:

Maxtor Disc Drives Pty. Limited            -       Australia
Maxtor Global Ltd.                         -       Bermuda
Maxtor Manufacturing (Suzhou) Co. Ltd.     -       China
Maxtor Europe Sarl                         -       France
Maxtor GmbH                                -       Germany
Maxtor (Gibraltar) Limited                 -       Gibraltar
Maxtor Asia Pacific Limited                -       Hong Kong
Maxtor Ireland Limited                     -       Ireland
Maxtor (Japan) Ltd.                        -       Japan
Maxtor Korea Ltd.                          -       Korea
Maxtor Luxembourg Sarl                     -       Luxembourg
Maxtor Peripherals (S) Pte. Limited        -       Singapore
Maxtor International Sarl                  -       Switzerland
Maxtor International Manufacturing Sarl    -       Switzerland
Maxtor Taiwan                              -       Taiwan
Maxtor Europe Limited                      -       UK

DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES:

MMC Technology, Inc.                       -       California
Maxtor Receivables Corporation             -       California
Maxtor Realty Corporation                  -       Massachusetts
DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 1, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00554-CV

DAVID DOSCHER AND KAREN DOSCHER, Appellants

V.

VINTAGE ESTATE HOMES OF TEXAS, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-04636-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Nowell, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Nowell

Before the Court is appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal

because the parties have reached a settlement in the underlying litigation. We grant 

the motion to dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

210554f.p05

/Erin A. Nowell//

ERIN NOWELL

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DAVID DOSCHER AND KAREN 

DOSCHER, Appellants

No. 05-21-00554-CV V.

VINTAGE ESTATE HOMES OF 

TEXAS, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-04636-

A.

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. 

Justices Molberg and Goldstein 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee 

VINTAGE ESTATE HOMES OF TEXAS, LLC recover its costs of this appeal from 

appellants DAVID DOSCHER AND KAREN DOSCHER.

Judgment entered this 1

st day of October, 2021.