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



SEER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
List of Subsidiaries


DOMESTIC COMPANIES

Parent Company:

     Seer Technologies, Inc.

     Date of Incorporation:03/06/90
     State of Incorporation:Delaware

Subsidiary:

     Seer  Technologies (Worldwide Holdings) Limited

     Date of Incorporation:02/26/92
     State of Incorporation:Delaware

FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES

Argentina:

     Seer Technologies de Argentine S.A.

     Date of Incorporation:09/11/96

Australia:

     Seer Technologies Australia Pty Limited

     Date of Registration:08/09/93

Barbados:

     Seer Technologies FSC, Inc.

     Date of Registration:12/27/95

Benelux:

     Seer Technologies Benelux B.V.

     Date of Registration:09/25/92

                                     E-22
<PAGE>
 
 
Brazil:

     Seer Technologies do Brazil Ltda.

     Date of Registration:12/09/93

Canada:

     Seer Technologies Canada, Inc.

     Domestic Province:  Ontario
     Date of Registration:05/18/94

Denmark:

     Seer Technologies Denmark ApS

     Date of Registration:04/01/94

France:

     Seer Technologies France S.A.R.L.

     Date of Registration:06/09/95

Germany:

     Seer Technologies Europe (Deutschland) GmbH

     Date of Registration:11/19/92

Hong Kong:

     Seer Technologies Hong Kong Limited

     Date of Registration:12/14/94

Ireland:

     Seer Technologies Ireland Limited

     Date of Registration:03/11/95

                                     E-23
<PAGE>
 
 
Italy:

     Seer Technologies Italia S.r.l.

     Date of Registration:08/07/92

Mexico:

     Seer Technologies de Mexico S.A. de C.V.

     Date of Registration:11/08/95


Sweden:

     Seer Technologies Nordic AB

     Date of Registration:07/09/92

Singapore:

     Seer Technologies Singapore Pty Limited

     Date of Registration:02/11/95

South Africa:

     Seer Technologies, Inc.

     Date of Registration:06/18/96

Spain:

     Seer Technologies Espana S.L.

     Date of Registration:07/22/93

United Kingdom:

     Seer Technologies (U.K.) Limited

     Date of Registration:01/07/92

                                     E-24
#### § 2424.10 What does this part do?

In this part, HUD adopts, as HUD policies, procedures, and requirements for nonprocurement debarment and suspension, the OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by this part. This adoption thereby gives regulatory effect for HUD to the OMB guidance, as supplemented by this part. This part satisfies the requirements in section 3 of Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension” (3 CFR 1986 Comp., p. 189), Executive Order 12689, “Debarment and Suspension” (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 235) and 31 U.S.C. 6101 note (Section 2455, Pub. L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327).
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 Atlantis Business DevelopmentCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I Christopher Dubeau, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By: 

***/s/ Tim DeHerrera***

Tim DeHerrera

CEO

Dated:   August 20, 2007
#### § 71.63 Special requirement for plutonium shipments.

Shipments containing plutonium must be made with the contents in solid form, if the contents contain greater than 0.74 TBq (20 Ci) of plutonium.

[69 FR 3795, Jan. 26, 2004]
§ 1400.756 May a respondent request administrative review of the Suspending and Debarring Official's decision? A respondent may seek administrative reconsideration of the Suspending and Debarring Official's decision by following the procedures in this section. ( a ) Within 30 days of receiving the decision, the respondent may ask the Suspending and Debarring Official to reconsider the decision for clear and material errors of fact or law that would change the outcome of the matter. The respondent bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of the asserted clear and material errors of fact or law.
( b ) A respondent's request for reconsideration must be submitted in writing to the Suspending and Debarring Official and include: ( 1 ) The specific findings of fact and conclusions of law believed to be in error; and
( 2 ) The reasons or legal basis for the respondent's position.
( c ) The Suspending and Debarring Official may, in the exercise of discretion, stay the suspension pending reconsideration. The Suspending and Debarring Official will: ( 1 ) Notify the respondent in writing of the decision on whether to reconsider the decision; and
( 2 ) If reconsideration occurs, notify the respondent in writing of the results of the reconsideration.
#### § 1.720 Are user fees under this subpart refundable?

User fees accompanying completed applications and annual fees under this subpart are not refundable.
#### Craig K. MISMASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MURRAY CITY, a Municipal Corporation, Scott Robinson, Gary Reid, and John Does 1 through 20, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 82-1963.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

March 30, 1984.

Mary C. Corporon of Corporon & Williams, Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiff-appellant.

Allan L. Larson of Snow, Christensen & Martineau, Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendants-appellees.

Before SETH, Chief Judge, and HOLLOWAY, McWilliams, barrett, doyle, McKAY, LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges.

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge.

Craig Mismash was allegedly arrested and severely beaten without cause by Scott Robinson and Gary Reid, detectives on the Murray City Police Force. Asserting that this conduct denied him due process,- Mismash brought this action under 42 U.S.C. *1367§ 1983 (1976) against Robinson, Reid, Murray City, and several unnamed police and city officials who may have authorized the acts complained of. The district court concluded that the suit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We reverse.

The incident giving rise to this suit occurred on September 1, 1979. Mismash filed his complaint on August 21, 1981, more than one year and less than two years later. The district court applied the one-year limitations period provided by Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-29(4) (1953), which governs “[a]n action for libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment or seduction.”

Because Congress has not enacted a statute of limitations expressly applicable to section 1983 claims, the court must adopt the most analogous limitations period provided by state law. *See*42 U.S.C. § 1988 (1976); *Board of Regents v. Tomanio,*446 U.S. 478, 483-84, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 1794-95, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980). In *Garcia v. Wilson,*731 F.2d 640 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc), decided this day, we considered the method by which an appropriate state statute is to be selected for section 1983 actions. We concluded as a matter of federal law that all section 1983 claims should be characterized as actions for injury to the rights of another. *See id.*at 650-51.

No Utah statute of limitations is expressly applicable to actions for injury to the rights of another. Under Utah law, personal torts other than those set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-29(4) (1953) are governed by the four year statute of limitations which applies to “[a]n action for relief not otherwise provided for by law,” id. § 78-12-25(2). *See, e.g., Matheson v. Pearson,*619 P.2d 321 (Utah 1980). Accordingly, we conclude that all section 1983 claims brought in federal court in Utah are subject to the four-year limitations period provided in Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25. Under this statute, Mismash’s suit was timely filed and the judgment for defendants must be reversed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-40585

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jose Edman Zamora-Hernandez,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:22-CR-248-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Edman 

Zamora-Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Zamora-Hernandez has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 24, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-40585 Document: 00516656116 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2023
No. 22-40585

2

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-40585 Document: 00516656116 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2023
EXHIBIT 11
NATIONAL DATACOMPUTER, INC.
STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         Third Fiscal Quarter              Nine Months
                                               Ended                          Ended
                                     ----------------------------   ---------------------------
                                     September 28,  September 30,   September 28,  September 30,
                                         1997           1996            1997           1996
                                             (Unaudited)                    (Unaudited)

<S>                                  <C>            <C>             <C>            <C>         
Net loss, as reported                $  (188,941)   $  (669,080)    $(1,026,157)   $(1,248,407)

Preferred Stock preference items:

Interest on convertible preferred
   stock                                (106,500)       (84,000)       (312,000)      (124,000)
                                     ------------   ------------    ------------   ------------
Net loss attributable to common 
   shareholders                      $  (295,441)   $  (753,080)    $(1,338,157)   $(1,372,407)

Net loss per share                   $     (0.23)   $     (0.61)    $     (1.05)   $     (1.15)
                                     ============   ============    ============   ============

Weighted average shares and dilutive
   shares equivalents outstanding      1,309,246      1,230,153       1,277,926      1,196,650
                                     ============   ============    ============   ============
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             274
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                        90
<INVENTORY>                                      1,398
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,512
<PP&E>                                           3,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,233
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,760
<SALES>                                         58,303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,701
<CGS>                                           47,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,622
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,285)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (523)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (762)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (762)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 3001.661 Reimbursable Agreement.

*Reimbursable Agreement* means an award in which the recipient is reimbursed for expenditures only, and is not eligible for advance payments.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 6-30-97 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,555
<SECURITIES>                                     4,509
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                       633
<INVENTORY>                                     12,510
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,533
<PP&E>                                          12,925
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,517
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,135
<BONDS>                                          4,561
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,440
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,422)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,028
<SALES>                                         14,044
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,572
<CGS>                                            9,879
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,382
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    783
<INCOME-TAX>                                       108
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                720
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       720
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
| (logo) ncb  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011 Crystal Drive  Suite 8oo  Arlington, Virginia 22202 |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

Wells Fargo CommercialMortgage Securities, Inc. as Depositor

Attn: Anthony Sfarra

375 Park Avenue, 2nd Floor

J0127-023

New York, NY 10152

 

RE: Annual Statement as toCompliance

WFRBS 2013 C12

 

Dear Sir/Madam:

 

 

In accordance with the Poolingand Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of theCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C12, as an authorizedofficer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A. (the “NCB MasterServicer”), I hereby certify pursuant to Section 11.12 thereof that:

 

a. A review of the activitiesof the NCB Master Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the“Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b. To the best of myknowledge, based on these reviews, the NCB Master Servicer has fulfilled allobligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

Please note that the annualfinancial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31,2017.

 

 

Best regards,

/s/ Karyn Mann

Karyn Mann

Senior Vice President,Investor Compliance

National Cooperative Bank, N.A.
H. Res. 953 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 21, 2018. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6136) to 

amend the immigration laws and provide for border security, 

and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as 

read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 

without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate, 

with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Homeland Security; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
**100th Division (IT) Century Division News:**

      Home

|  | *News of the    Century*, Summer 01 |
|--|-------------------------------------|
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||

> 
Last Changed:   05/15/04

**hits since 08/05/2001**

| Home |
§ 2900.3 Questioned cost. In the DOL, in addition to the guidance contained in 2 CFR 200.1, a questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by an auditor, Federal Project Officer, Grant Officer, or other authorized Awarding agency representative because of an audit or monitoring finding: ( a ) Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a statute, regulation, or the terms and conditions of a Federal award, including for funds used to match Federal funds;
( b ) Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by adequate documentation; or
( c ) Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances.
( d ) Questioned costs are not an improper payment until reviewed and confirmed to be improper as defined in OMB Circular A-123 Appendix C (see also the definition of improper payment in 2 CFR 200.1).
[79 FR 76081, Dec. 19, 2014, as amended at 80 FR 81440, Dec. 30, 2015; 86 FR 22108, Apr. 27, 2021]
#### In re EMMET. In re EMPIRE STATE SURETY CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 15, 1915.)

In the matter of William T. Emmet, superintendent, etc. In the matter of the Empire State Surety Company.

No opinion. Motions granted. Settle orders on notice. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 567.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 801 

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Route 66 National 

Historic Trail, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 

Mr. LAHOOD (for himself, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, 

Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mrs. TORRES, 

and Mr. KINZINGER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the 

Route 66 National Historic Trail, 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 ‘‘Route 66 National 

5 Historic Trail Designation Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 801 IH

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF THE ROUTE 66 NATIONAL HIS2 TORIC TRAIL. 

3 Section 5(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 

4 U.S.C. 1244(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(31) ROUTE 66 NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Route 66 Na8 tional Historic Trail, a trail of approximately 

9 2,400 miles extending from Chicago, Illinois, to 

10 Santa Monica, California, and following the 

11 route generally depicted on the map entitled 

12 lllll, numbered lllll, and dated 

13 lllll. 

14 ‘‘(B) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map 

15 described in subparagraph (A) shall be on file 

16 and available for public inspection in the office 

17 of the Director of the National Park Service, 

18 Department of the Interior, the District of Co19 lumbia. 

20 ‘‘(C) ADMINISTRATION.—The Route 66 

21 National Historic Trail shall be administered by 

22 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through 

23 the National Park Service. Such administration 

24 shall be conducted in a manner that respects 

25 and maintains the idiosyncratic nature of the 

26 Route 66 National Historic Trail. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 801 IH

1 ‘‘(D) LAND ACQUISITION.—The United 

2 States may not acquire for the Route 66 Na3 tional Historic Trail any land or interest in 

4 land— 

5 ‘‘(i) outside the exterior boundary of 

6 any federally managed area without the 

7 consent of the owner of the land or interest 

8 in land; or 

9 ‘‘(ii) that extends more than an aver10 age of one-quarter of a mile on either side 

11 of the trail. 

12 ‘‘(E) NO BUFFER ZONE CREATED.—Noth13 ing in this Act, the acquisition of the land or 

14 an interest in land authorized by this Act, or 

15 the management plan for the Route 66 Na16 tional Historic Trail shall be construed to cre17 ate buffer zones outside of the Trail. That ac18 tivities or uses can be seen, heard, or detected 

19 from the acquired land shall not preclude, limit, 

20 control, regulate, or determine the conduct or 

21 management of activities or uses outside of the 

22 trail.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
§ 1125.437 What method do I use to communicate to a participant the requirements described in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.435? You as a DoD Component official must include a term or condition in each covered transaction into which you enter, to communicate to the participant the requirements to— ( a ) Comply with subpart C of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by subpart C of this part; and
( b ) Include a similar term or condition in any lower-tier covered transactions into which the participant enters.
#### H. W. CALDWELL & SON CO., Respondent, v. SPENCER KELLOGG CO., Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 3, 1915.)

Action by the H. W. Caldwell & Son Company against the Spencer Kellogg Company, impleaded with others.

No opinion. Motions to amend decision as to costs (in 151 N. Y. Supp. 1122) granted.