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



                         LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


     The Partnership was a 25% shareholder in Carlyle Managers, Inc., a
Delaware corporation that was the general partner of JMB/NYC Office
Building Associates, L.P. ("JMB/NYC"), an Illinois limited partnership,
which (through 237/1290 Upper Tier Associates, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership), had (i) (prior to its sale in March 2001) an indirect limited
partnership interest in 1290 Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership, which owns 1290 Avenue of the Americas in New York, New York,
and (ii) (prior to its sale in January 2002) an indirect interest in 237
Park Partners, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, which owns 237
Park Avenue in New York, New York.  The partners in the JMB/NYC Office
Building Associates, L.P. were affiliates of the General Partners of the
Partnership.  The Partnership was a 25% shareholder in Carlyle Investors,
Inc., a Delaware corporation that was the general partner of Carlyle-XIII
Associates, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership.  The Partnership was a
99% limited partner in Carlyle-XIII Associates, L.P., which held an
approximate 25% limited partnership interest in JMB/NYC.  JMB/NYC, Carlyle-
XIII Associates, L.P., Carlyle Managers, Inc. and Carlyle Investors, Inc.
were dissolved in September and October 2002.
2 8 June 2013

Richard Payton

8P

- AR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII

1595 Wynkoop Street

Denver, CO 80202

- 1129

Dear Richard :

Enclosed is the Exceptional Event report for the high wind/blowing dust episode that occurred on April 28 to

April 29 , 2010 in Alamosa, Pagosa Springs and Durango, Colorado. Data for this event are flagged on AQS, as

required. This report, and the analysis and data contained within it, clearly shows that this exceptional event

passed the four required tests under 40 CFR 50.14 (3)(iv ).

This report was made available for public comment on our website from May 28 through June 27 , 201 3 , and

was also distributed to potentially interested parties

. Some minor non

- substantiative external comments were

received and corrections have been made to the report

. Some non

- substantiative and formatting changes were

also made to the report by the Air Pollution Control Division. The Division commits to submitting an

Addendum further detailing Local Particulate Matter Dus t Control Measur es: Windblown Dust from Disturbed

Soils for potential areas surrounding the Alamosa Municipal Building PM 10 monitor.

We respectfully request a review of this exceptional event report and concurrence by EPA on this natural high

wind/blowing dust event

.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Gordon E. Pierce

Program Manager

Technical Services Program

Air Pollution Control Division

cc. D ei rdre Rothery, EPA

Lisa Clarke, APCD

Kaitlin Stabrava, APCD

Pat McGraw, APCD

Pat Reddy, APCD

Terry Furuli, APCD
222.102-1 Policy. ( 1 ) Direct all inquiries from contractors or contractor employees regarding the applicability or interpretation of Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) regulations to the Department of Labor.
( 2 ) Upon request, provide the address of the appropriate field office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor.
( 3 ) Do not initiate any application for the suspension or relaxation of labor requirements without prior coordination with the labor advisor. Any requests for variances or alternative means of compliance with OSHA requirements must be approved by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Department of Labor.
[71 FR 18670, Apr. 12, 2006]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

AT CHICAGO 

ANDREAS SCHOU : CASE NO. 1:12-cv-02764 

 : JUDGE JOAN B. GOTTSCHALL 

v. : 

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS : 

LTD PLAN 

 : 

and 

 : DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO 

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE RULE 41(a)(1)(A)(i) OF 

COMPANY : DEFENDANT COGNIZANT 

 TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS 

 LTD PLAN

 

 Now Comes Plaintiff, Andreas Schou, by and through counsel, and hereby notifies this 

Court of its intent to dismiss Defendant Cognizant Technology Solutions LTD Plan only

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The remaining claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance 

Company shall remain on this Court’s docket for adjudication. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Joseph P. McDonald 

 

 

 Joseph P. McDonald (0055230) 

 McDonald & McDonald Co., L.P.A. 

 200 E. Spring Valley Rd., Suite A 

 Dayton, OH 45458 

 Tel: (937)428-9800; Fax: (937)428-9811 

 joseph@mcdonaldandmcdonald.com

 Attorney for Plaintiff, Andreas Schou 

Case: 1:12-cv-02764 Document #: 10 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on June 8, 2012, a copy of the foregoing Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(1)(A)(i) of Defendant Cognizant Technology Solutions LTD Plan was filed electronically. 

Notice of this filing will be sent to the all parties by operation of the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

Case: 1:12-cv-02764 Document #: 10 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:20
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Antonio Lo Dolce, Deceased. Eva La D. Capuzzo et al., Appellants; Grace La D. Elisberg et al., as Executors of Antonio Lo Dolce, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

In a compulsory accounting proceeding to settle the account of the executors of the estate of Antonio Lo Dolce, deceased, the objectants, Eva La Dolce Capuzzo and Rose Lo Dolce Traína, two adult residuary legatees of the estate, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, rendered January 31, 1961, as: (1) granted the motion of the petitioners (executors) to modify the Referee’s report insofar as it recommended that two certain objections (No. 3a and No. 9) to the account be sustained and that the executors be surcharged; (2) confirmed the said report as so modified; and (3) denied objectants’ cross motion to modify the said report insofar as it recommended that the remaining objections be overruled and insofar as it *828refused to recommend additional surcharges. Decree modified on the law and the facts, as follows: (1) by striking out so much of the second decretal paragraph as confirms the Referee’s report insofar as it overruled objection No. la (such objection being that the executors’ account failed to include as an estate asset debts aggregating $14,142.66 owing to the testator by his son, Prank Lo Dolce); and (2) by substituting a paragraph disapproving the Referee’s report insofar as it overruled such objection; and proceeding remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for a new plenary hearing as to such objection only. As so modified, decree insofar as appealed from affirmed, with costs to all parties filing separate briefs payable out of the estate. In our opinion, the finding that Prank Lo Dolce was not indebted to the estate is contrary to the record. We find that his indebtedness to the estate was established prima facie by the executors’ Schedule L and by decedent’s ledger book, both of which show the origin of the debt and its balance. We also believe that this ledger was improperly excluded by the learned Referee, since it was an account book kept by decedent in the regular course of his business; hence it was admissible under section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act. However, the proof as a whole is inadequate. It fails to show: (1) whether or not such debt was paid or discharged either in whole or in part; (2) whether, if not paid, it was or still is collectible; and (3) whether the executors were derelict in their duty to collect it. To resolve these questions and any others which may arise, and to permit all the relevant proof to be adduced, a new trial, limited to this indebtedness, should be had. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
120°10' 120°5' 120°0'

34°25'

34°25'

120°10' 120°5' 120°0'

0 1 2

Kilometers

0 0.5 1 Nautical Miles

1 : 24,000 scale

 Acoustic Backscatter. 

 Northern Santa Barbara Channel

 Backscatter image generated from 2008 

 USGS bathymetric sidescan survey. Brighter tones

indicate higher intensity and darker tones indicate lower intensity

20m

40m

60m

80m

100m

120m

Refugio Beach State Park

El Capitan Beach State Park

 Topography image generated from IfSAR data available at, 

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/coastalifsar/index.html

Ventura

Santa Barbara

Gaviota

Santa Barbara Channel

3-nautical mile State limit
## As of October 15, 2015,    updates for this page are no longer available.     April 2016, this page will no longer be available.

## Please visit this page's new location: Protecting Students - Athletics

      -  Dear    Colleague Letter - Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Clarification: The Three-Part Test – Part Three  (April 20, 2010). Dear     Colleague Letter from the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali.
      - Questions  and Answers  about Dear Colleague Letter – Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Clarification: The Three-Part Test – Part Three (April 20, 2010)  
      -  Further Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance Regarding Title IX Complance (July 11, 2003).  Dear Colleague letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Gerald Reynolds   PDF 
      - Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Interpretation
      - Clarification of the three part test for analyzing participation in sports
      - Responsibilities in the area of athletic scholarships (letter to Bowling Green University) 
      - 1975 Memorandum to Chief State School Officers

**Technical Assistance Materials**
      - Equal Opportunity in Intercollegiate Athletics  (pamphlet)

**OCR Case Decisions**
      - Indiana University at Bloomington  (OCR Case No. 05962113)
      - Jurupa Unified School District  (OCR Case No. 09911222)
      - Northwestern University  (OCR Case No. 05972130)

**Success Stories**

**Links to Other Resources**
      - Equity Assistance Centers

Top
EIS International, Inc. and Subsidiaries
----------------------------------------


                                                                      Exhibit 11

                 Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings
                  (In thousands, except for per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                  Three Months
                                                                                 Ended March 31,
                                                                             -----------------------
                                                                                1997         1998
                                                                             ----------   ----------
<S>                                                                          <C>           <C>      
Net income (loss)                                                            $  (3,522)    $   1,019
                                                                             ==========   ==========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding - Basic:                   11,143        11,546
     Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants                                 ---           263
                                                                             ----------   ----------
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding - Diluted:                 11,143        11,809
                                                                             ==========   ==========
Basic income (loss) per share:                                               $  (0.32)     $   0.09
Diluted income (loss) per share:                                                (0.32)         0.09
</TABLE>




(a) For the three months ended March 31, 1997, the assumed exercise of stock
options and warrants has not been included in the calculation as they would be
anti-dilutive.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          18,652
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,710
<ALLOWANCES>                                       184
<INVENTORY>                                      6,218
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,178
<PP&E>                                          19,228
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,064
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,248
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               68
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,960
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,064
<SALES>                                         42,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,634
<CGS>                                           23,724
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,724
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,616
<INCOME-TAX>                                        89
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,527
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    158
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,685
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .82
        

</TABLE>
1815.604 Agency points of contact. (NASA supplements paragraph (a)) ( a ) ( 6 ) Information titled “Guidance for the Preparation and Submission of Unsolicited Proposals” is available on the Internet at *http://ec.msfc.nasa.gov/hq/library/unSol-Prop.html .* A deviation is required for use of any modified or summarized version of the Internet information or for alternate means of general dissemination of unsolicited proposal information.
[63 FR 9954, Feb. 27, 1998, as amended at 63 FR 44409, Aug. 19, 1998; 66 FR 53546, Oct. 23, 2001; 69 FR 21764, Apr. 22, 2004]
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

*Certificationspursuant to Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 13a-14 as adoptedpursuant to Section 302 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:*

 

I, MarkShefts, Chief Financial Officer of Arbor Entech Corporation (the “Registrant”),certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-KSB of the Company;

 

2. Basedon my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e) for the Registrant and I have:

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b)evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annualreport (the Evaluation Date); and

 

c)presented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the EvaluationDate;

 

5. Ihave disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

a) allsignificant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial data and have identified for the Registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b) anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6. Ihave indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significantchanges in internal controls or in other factors that could significantlyaffect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

 
| Date:  July 29, 2005 |
|---------------------------|
|                      |
| s/ Mark Shefts            |   |
| Mark  Shefts              |
| Chief  Financial Officer  |

 

----
# In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

OCTOBER 27, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

1. ED101393 JUANITA MCKEE, APP V HONEYWELL SECURITY, RES

2. ED101618 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V THEODIS HOLMES, APP

3. ED101662 STATE OF MIS SOURI, RES V RONALD MILLS, APP

4. ED101845 SHARON M. BROOKS, APP V ROBERT BROOKS, RES

5. ED102195 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V LONNIE BROWN, APP

6. ED102604 DAVID GERMAINE WHITE, APP V STA TE OF MISSOURI,

RES
§ 79.1 Purpose. This part: ( a ) Reissues DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6060.2 in accordance with the authority in DoD Directive (DoDD) 5124.02, “Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R))” (available at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/512402p.pdf*) and DoD Instruction 1342.22, “Military Family Readiness” (available at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134222p.pdf*) and the requirements of DoDD 1020.1
( b ) Updates established policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for providing care to minor children (birth through age 12 years) of individuals who are eligible for care in DoD CDPs. This includes: ( 1 ) Center-based care and community-based care.
( 2 ) Family child care (FCC).
( 3 ) School-age care (SAC).
( 4 ) Supplemental child care.
( c ) Cancels DODI 6060.3
( d ) Implements 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1791 through 1800.
( e ) Authorizes the publication of supporting guidance for the implementation of CDP policies and responsibilities, including child development training modules, program aids, and other management tools.
( f ) Establishes the DoD Effectiveness Rating and Improvement System (ERIS), in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1791 through 1800.
| 1.   | the Form 10-Q, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2010 (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: November 4, 2010 | By:  /s/ Gary L. Martin                                                                                            |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   | Gary L. Martin, Chairman of the Board and President                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
#### 225.372 Antiterrorism/force protection.
#### Jack Ross, Respondent, v. Daniel J. Magid et al., Defendants. David A. Goldner, Appellant; Murray S. Lokietz, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for injury to person and property, plaintiff’s former attorney of record (David A. Goldner) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 20, 1962, which: (a) granted plaintiff’s renewed motion to substitute attorneys and to dissolve the attorney’s lien of the former attorney; (b) vacated certain provisions of the court’s prior order, dated May 17, 1962; (c) directed the said former attorney to deliver forthwith all papers in the action to Murray S. Lokietz, Esq., plaintiff’s new attorney; (d) declared “void and forfeited as of the date of the disbarment ” of the former attorney, his alleged liens for his prior services and disbursements; and (e) declared the foregoing disposition to be without prejudice to the former attorney’s enforcement by plenary suit of whatever rights he may have in the pending action. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The order appealed from, dated August 20, 1962, expressly states that “ no one ” appeared “ in opposition ” to the renewed motion. The order is thus one entered “upon the default” of the former attorney and is not reviewable by him (CPLR 5511). His sole remedy is by motion to open his default *(Burn*v. *Coyle,*258 App. Div. 618). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.