alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


   (i) SVG Lithography Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (SVGL),

  (ii) Tinsley Laboratories, Inc., a California corporation ("TLI"),

 (iii) Silicon Valley Group, Japan Ltd., a Japanese corporation,

  (iv) SVG International Service, a California corporation ("SVG
       International"),

   (v) Silicon Valley Group FSC Incorporated, a Barbados corporation,

  (vi) SVG Israel, Inc., a Delaware corporation,

 (vii) SVG Thailand, Inc., a Delaware corporation,

(viii) Silicon Valley Group Korea, Inc., (SVG Korea) a Korean corporation,

  (ix) SVG Taiwan, Inc., a Delaware corporation,

   (x) Silicon Valley Group, Thermal Systems LLC, a Delaware company and

  (xi) Watkins-Johnson International Taiwan, a Taiwan corporation.

       SVG Lithography Japan Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, Silicon Valley
       Group B.V., a Netherlands corporation, SVG France S.A.R.L., a French
       corporation, and SVG Lithography Systems FSC, Inc., a Barbados
       corporation are wholly-owned by SVGL.

       Century Precision Industries, Inc., a California corporation and Tinsley
       International FSC, a Barbados corporation are wholly-owned by TLI.

       SVG Europe Limited, a United Kingdom corporation (SVG Europe), Silicon
       Valley Group Deutschland GmbH, a German corporation, SVG Systems (Asia)
       Pte. Ltd (SVG Singapore), a Singapore corporation and Thermco Systems
       (Far East) Limited, a Hong Kong corporation are wholly-owned by SVG
       International.

       UK Systems Limited, an English corporation, and Watkins-Johnson Europe
       Limited, an English corporation are wholly-owned by SVG Europe.

       Watkins-Johnson International Singapore Pte. Ltd., is wholly owned by SVG
       Singapore.

       Watkins-Johnson International Korea, Ltd., is wholly owned by SVG Korea.
(June 24, 1964)

#### Richard S. Boeckel, Respondent, v. Charles C. Stroup et al., Appellants. (And Two Other Actions.)

In consolidated negligence actions to recover damages for personal injury sustained in a collision between two automobiles, Action No. 1 being by a passenger in one of such vehicles against the defendants Stroup and Bernstein (the drivers of said vehicles), and Actions Nos. 2 and 3 being by each such driver against the other, each of said defendants in Action No. 1 appeals, on the ground of excessiveness, from so much (to wit, the first decretal paragraph) of a judgment of the Ruprcme Court, Nassau County, entered November 15, 1963 after trial, upon a jury’s verdict, as awarded plaintiff $20,000 against them. The verdict was for the defendant in both Action No. 2 and Action No. 3, but no appeal from the judgment has been taken by either defendant with respect thereto. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law and on the facts; Action No. 1 severed; and a new trial granted as to such action and as to the parties thereto, with costs to abide the event, unless, *824within 30 days after entry of the order hereon, plaintiff in said action shall serve and file a written stipulation consenting to reduce to $15,000 the amount of the verdict in his favor and to modify the judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as thus reduced and modified, and insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, on the facts disclosed by this record, the jury’s verdict in the plaintiff’s favor was excessive to the extent indicated. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 16.203 Fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment.
**EXHIBIT      21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES      OF THE REGISTRANT**

| **Name                    of Subsidiary**                   | **Jurisdiction                    of Incorporation** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Proxim                    Wireless Corporation              | Delaware                                             |
| Ricochet                    Networks, Inc.                  | Delaware                                             |
| Terabeam                    Corporation                     | Washington                                           |
| Terabeam                    International Holdings, Inc.    | Delaware                                             |
| Proxim                    International Operations, Inc.    | Delaware                                             |
| Proxim                    Europe B.V.                       | Netherlands                                          |
| Proxim                    Hong Kong Limited                 | Hong                    Kong                         |
| Terabeam                    Proxim Wireless Private Limited | India                                                |
| KarlNet,                    Inc.                            | Delaware                                             |
| Young                    Design, Inc.                       | Virginia                                             |
#### George S. Moss, Appellant, v. Roy M. Carstairs, Respondent, et al., Defendants. Roy M. Carstairs, Respondent, v. George S. Moss et al., Appellants.

Motion, by appellant Szerlip for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order of this court, dated December 27, 1960, insofar *931as it dismissed his appeal from a judgment rendered January 19, 1959; motion by appellant Moss for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the judgment entered January 6, 1961, upon the order of this court, dated December 27, 1960, affirming as to such appellant the said judgment of January 19, 1959, and for a stay of all proceedings under the judgment of affirmance; and motion by appellants Szerlip and Moss for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from an order of this court, dated December 27, 1960, denying their motion to amend the caption so as to include additional parties, referred to the court which rendered the original decisions. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur. The three motions above described are denied *in toto.*Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains restated summary financial information extracted from
the balance sheet, statement of income and statement of cash flows contained
in Form 10-Q of Cambridge Electric Light Company for the nine months ended
September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000016573
<NAME> CAMBRIDGE ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>           99,055
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          9,520
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              20,188
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            11,713
<OTHER-ASSETS>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     140,476
<COMMON>                             8,665
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>           27,953
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 10,957
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>      47,575
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                17,503
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                  24,060
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>        4,360
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>              0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                         0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>      46,978
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      140,476
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>           90,984
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 2,641
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          82,623
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          85,264
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>              5,720
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                   2,032
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>       7,752
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             2,710
<NET-INCOME>                         5,042
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>        5,042
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             1,646
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            1,809
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>               6,177
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Clara Alves, Appellant, against Edward J. Petrillo, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board disallowing her claim for death benefits. The decedent collapsed and died in the ditch which he was digging on his first day at work for the employer. No autopsy was performed and the cause of death was given on the death certificate as cerebral thrombosis. The claimant’s medical witness testified that he assumed a pre-existing arteriosclerosis and in his opinion the work decedent was performing contributed to and caused death. The medical examiner who signed the death certificate testified that the work the decedent was performing had nothing to do with his death. The board was presented with a conflict in the medical testimony and such a conflict presents a question of fact for it to resolve. We may not say as a matter of law that the board erred in its determination. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas Meers, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. (Appeal from order of Erie County Court denying a motion to vacate a 1937 judgment of conviction.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
89–008 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–494 

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT 

TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE 

COMMITTEE ON RULES, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES 

MAY 25, 2010.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 1392] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 1392, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 

the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the 

Rules Committee. The resolution applies the waiver to any resolution reported on the legislative day of May 26th, 2010 relating to 

consideration or disposition of the Senate amendment to the bill 

(H.R. 4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes. The resolution 

authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time through the calendar day of May 30, 

2010. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority 

Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to section 2 of the resolution. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
#### J & A Roofing and Siding Co., Inc., Respondent, v New York State Department of Law, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 which was transformed by Special Term into an action for a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered May 16, 1978, which (1) granted plaintiff’s motion for (a) an examination before trial and the production of certain records of the defendant and (b) a stay and an extension of the time within which to move to confirm class action status and (2) denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is denied and the cross motion is granted to the extent that the action is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. In this action, plaintiff seeks to maintain a class action against the defendant New York State Department of Law because of the issuance of subpoenas in consumer fraud cases by certified mail instead of by personal service upon it and other persons, firms, corporations or associations similarly situated. As a general rule where governmental operations are involved and subsequent complainants will be adequately protected by the principles of *stare decisis,*a class action will not be permitted (see *Matter of Martin v Lavine,*39 NY2d 72; *Baumes v Lavine,*38 NY2d 296; *Perez v Dumpson,*58 AD2d 887). Since such is the case here the asserted class action claim does not state a cause of action. Where, unlike here, subsequent complainants will not be adequately protected, class action status will be confirmed (see *Ammon v Suffolk County,*67 AD2d 959). In the instant case the motion to stay and extend the time to confirm class action status and for an examination before trial and production of records must be denied and the action must be dismissed. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
| *Read the Resolution Letter*(s)                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
| New Hanover  County Schools (NC) (11-09-1240)PDF (159K) |
| New Hanover County Schools (NC)  (11-11-1185)PDF (122K) |

Top
**Exhibit 31(i)****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Richard C. Baylor, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Camco Financial Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of Camco as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. Camco’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a 15(f) and15d 15(f))for Camco and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to Camco, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of Camco’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisannual report based on such evaluations; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in Camco’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during Camco’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Camco’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.5. Camco’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Camco’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in Camco’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: August 6, 2007         By:  /s/ Richard C. Baylor    Richard C. Baylor, Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT OCTOBER 31, 1996 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND RETAINED EARNINGS FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                         159,769
<SECURITIES>                                    42,647
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,474,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,001
<INVENTORY>                                     61,077
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,209,361
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,990,697
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,126,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,441,726
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,723,765
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,370,152)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,126,420
<SALES>                                      1,294,953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,634,615
<CGS>                                          779,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,990,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              92,118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (355,842)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (355,842)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (355,842)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.34)
        

</TABLE>
#### 216.402 Application of predetermined, formula-type incentives.
I would like to add the following redlines to 30.91 (b) 

(18) Student loans with more than 100k original principal balance combined or not combined including

those not owed to the Department

(19) The loan was disbursed to a student or parent on behalf of a student in a graduate student 

healthcare program that provides direct patient care 

(a) Direct patient healthcare graduate programs mentioned above includes but is not limited to: 

Occupational Therapy (ODT), Medical Doctor (MD), Doctor of Osteopathy (DO), Pharmacist (PharmD), 

Dentist (DMD), Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT), Physician Associate (PA), master’s in nursing (MSN), 

Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.)

(20) Student loans that have been paid to exceed the original principal balance and have satisfied the 

original principal
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 17 (Thursday, January 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 7392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01888]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH), 
Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Review (SDRR), National Institute 
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); Correction

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Advisory 
Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH), Subcommittee on Dose 
Reconstruction Review (SDRR), National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH); February 25, 2021, 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., 
EST which was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2020, 
Volume 85, Number 247, pages 83965-83966.
    The Matters to be Considered should read as follows:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Matters to be Considered: The agenda will include discussions on 
the following dose reconstruction program quality management and 
assurance activities: Dose reconstruction cases under review from Set 
28, possibly including cases involving, Rocky Flats Plant (RFP), 
Hanford, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Mound, Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Savannah River Site (SRS), Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory (X-10), and Y-12 Plant. Dose reconstruction 
cases under review from Sets 14 through 21, possibly including cases 
involving, Uranium Mill in Monticello, GE Vallecitos, and Texas City 
Chemicals; and Tracking of decision points requiring professional 
judgement (time permitting). Agenda items are subject to change as 
priorities dictate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rashaun Roberts, Ph.D., Designated 
Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, Mailstop C-24, 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, Telephone (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1 (800) 
CDC-INFO, Email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#620d010311220106014c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbd4d8dac8fbd8dfd895dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-01888 Filed 1-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>