alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit21

BERNARD CHAUS, INC. List of Subsidiaries

|                                              |  |                                  |  |  |  |  |
|----------------------------------------------|--|----------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| Nameof Company                               |  | State of Incorporation/Formation |
| Bernard Chaus International (Hong Kong),Inc. |  | Delaware                         |
| Bernard Chaus International(Korea), Inc.     |  | Delaware                         |
| Bernard ChausInternational (Taiwan), Inc.    |  | Delaware                         |
| ChausRetail, Inc.                            |  | New Jersey                       |
| S.L. DanielleAcquisition, LLC.               |  | New York                         |
| Cynthia SteffeAcquisition, LLC.              |  | NewYork                          |
|                                              |

----
#### Carlisle *v.*The State.

*Indictment for Selling IJgnor without License.*

1. *Land hue prohibitimj sale of liquor “within three miles of” two ■named elm relies.*— Under a local law prohibiting the sale of liquor “within three miles oí the Methodist and Baptist churches of the town of D. in said county,” a conviction may be had on proof of a sale at a place which is within three miles of either one of the churches, though not of both.

From the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa.

Tried before the Hon. Jas. R. Dowdell.

Thos. L. Bulger, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney-! ten eral, for the State.

STONE, C. J.

The statute approved December 12,1888— Sess. Acts, 258 — enacts “that from and after the first of January, 1889, it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to sell, give away, barter, exchange, or otherwise dispose of any alcoholic, vinous, or malt liquors,” &c. . . . “within three miles of the Methodist anc£ Baptist churches in the town of Daviston, in Tallapoosa county.” The proof in this cáse showed that the accused sold a pint of whiskey to one IT., and received the money therefor; and that the sale was made *2within three miles of the said Baptist church, but not within three miles of the said Methodist church. It was and is contended, that to come within the prohibition of the statute, the sale must be made within three miles of both of the churches.

We think this too narrow and technical a view of the statute. The manifest purpose of the enactment was to protect worshipping assemblies from annoying disturbances, which sometimes attend the sale of intoxicating drinks. And the protection was intended to be extended equally and alike to the two churches. In other words, the legislative intent was to establish a prohibition district, which should include an area extending three miles in every direction from the churches. Such district necessarily includes every foot of ground which is less than three miles from both churches.

There is no error in the record.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2** **Certification    Pursuant to    Rule 13a-14(a)    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**     I, Christopher A. Black, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on    Form 10-Q    of American Commercial Lines Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any    untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material    fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the    circumstances under which such statements were made, not    misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this quarterly report,    fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,    results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,    and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are    responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls    and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(e)    and    15d-15(e))    for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or    caused such disclosures controls and procedures to be designed    under our supervision, to ensure that material information    relating to the registrant, including its consolidated    subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those    entities, particularly during the period in which this report is    being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report    our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure    controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by    this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over the financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I    have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal control over financial    reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. /s/  Christopher    A. Black    Christopher A. Black    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer     Date: May 8, 2007
#### § 29.3057 Special factor.

A symbol or term authorized to be used with specified grades. Tobacco to which a special factor is applied may meet the general specifications but has a peculiar side or characteristic which tends to modify the grade. (See Rule 9.)

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 47 FR 51722, Nov. 17, 1982, and at 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 10, 2017

Order 

Clerk

February 10, 2017

153830(75)

RONNIE DANCER and ANNETTE DANCER,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

SC: 153830

v COA: 324314 

Kalamazoo CC: 2012-000571-NO

CLARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant, 

and

BETTER BUILT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,

INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellee to file a 

supplemental brief in support of the application for leave to appeal in No. 153830 is 

GRANTED. The supplemental brief submitted on February 1, 2016, is accepted for 

filing. The motion of defendant-appellee to participate in oral arguments is DENIED.
#### KREIZER v. HEINEMANN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by Bernard Kreizer against Adolph Heinemann.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 271
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 271 appear at 78 FR 11972, Feb. 21, 2013.

§ 271.4 Delegations to State agencies for administration. ( a ) *General delegation.* The State agency shall be responsible for the administration of the program within the State, including, but not limited to: ( 1 ) Certification of applicant households;
( 2 ) Issuance, control, and accountability of SNAP benefits and EBT cards;
( 3 ) Developing and maintaining complaint procedures;
( 4 ) Developing, conducting, and evaluating training;
( 5 ) Conducting performance reporting reviews;
( 6 ) Keeping records necessary to determine whether the program is being conducted in compliance with these regulations; and
( 7 ) Submitting accurate and timely financial and program reports.
( b ) *Claims delegation.* FNS delegates to the State agency, subject to the standards in § 273.18, the authority to determine the amount of, and settle, adjust, compromise or deny all or part of any claim which results from fraudulent or nonfraudulent overissuances to participating households.
[Amdt. 132, 43 FR 47882, Oct. 17, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 207, 47 FR 52333, Nov. 19, 1982; 85 FR 52032, Aug. 24, 2020]
{"ifdata":false,"content":"\u003Cdiv class=\u0022messages-main-container\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022error-message-icon\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cspan class=\u0022error-message-mark\u0022\u003E\n          \u003Cspan class=\u0022error-message-mark-line-left\u0022\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n          \u003Cspan class=\u0022error-message-mark-line-right\u0022\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\n        \u003C\/span\u003E\n      \u003C\/span\u003E\u003Ch3 class=\u0022warning\u0022\u003ENo Bookmarks Yet!\u003C\/h3\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n"}
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2136 

To ensure small businesses in rural America have access to credit to promote 

economic growth and job creation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mrs. HARTZLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To ensure small businesses in rural America have access 

to credit to promote economic growth and job creation, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Credit 

5 Availability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCLUSIONS FROM FINANCIAL ENTITY DEFINITION. 

7 Section 2(h)(7)(C)(ii) of the Commodity Exchange 

8 Act (7 U.S.C. 2(h)(7)(C)(ii)) is amended to read as fol9 lows: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2136 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) EXCLUSION.—Such definition 

2 shall not include an entity that is a small 

3 bank, savings association, farm credit sys4 tem institution, non-profit cooperative 

5 lender controlled by electric cooperatives, 

6 or credit union if the aggregate 

7 uncollateralized outward exposure plus ag8 gregate potential outward exposure of the 

9 entity with respect to its swaps does not 

10 exceed $1,000,000,000.’’. 

11 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

12 The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 

13 as if it had been included in subtitle A of title VII of the 

14 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protec15 tion Act. 

16 SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION. 

17 The amendment made by this Act shall be imple18 mented— 

19 (1) without regard to— 

20 (A) chapter 35 of title 44, United States 

21 Code; and 

22 (B) the notice and comment provisions of 

23 section 553 of title 5, United States Code; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2136 IH

1 (2) through the promulgation of an interim 

2 final rule, pursuant to which public comment will be 

3 sought before a final rule is issued, and 

4 (3) such that paragraph (1) shall apply solely 

5 to changes to rules and regulations, or proposed 

6 rules and regulations, that are limited to and di7 rectly a consequence of such amendments. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

98-920.

#### State ex rel. Krause v. Conrad.

Franklin App. No. 97APD02-153. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****PRAMS ... surveillance report,Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System**
 
1995: Parts 01020304 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 |2000 | 2002
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.7621:
Item Number:0494-H-13 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000576681
 
February 19, 2020
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.41

BASE SALARIES OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF ASPECT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

The following is a schedule of the 2005 annual base salaries of the Company's
named executive officers:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
  NAME                      PRINCIPAL POSITION                         BASE SALARY
  ----                      ------------------                         -----------
<S>                         <C>                                        <C>
  Nassib G. Chamoun         Chief Executive Officer and President      $   260,000
  Boudewijn L.P.M. Bollen   President of International Operations      $   405,130 (1)
  J. Neal Armstrong         Vice President of Investor Relations       $   215,000
  Scott Kelley              Vice President and Medical Director        $   213,200
                            Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
  Michael Falvey             Secretary and Treasurer                   $   208,000
</TABLE>

(1) Mr. Bollen's salary is based on 300,000 euros using a 1.35 exchange rate.