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



Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES
 Jurisdiction OfName
    
    OrganizationClare Canada, Ltd.
    
    CanadaClare Capital, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Components, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Electronics, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare France S.A.R.L.
    
    FranceClare, Inc.
    
    MassachusettsClare Instruments, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Micronix Integrated Systems, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaClare N.V.
    
    BelgiumClare Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Systems, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Technologies, Inc.
    
    DelawareClare Technologies (Taiwan), Inc.
    
    TaiwanC.P. Clare Electronics GmbH
    
    GermanyC.P. Clare Foreign Sales Corporation
    
    DelawareC.P. Clare International N.V.
    
    NetherlandsC.P. Clare Mexicana S.A. de C.V.
    
    MexicoDirected Energy, Inc.
    
    ColoradoIXYS Berlin GmbH
    
    GermanyIXYS Buckeye, LLC
    
    DelawareIXYS Caymans L.P.
    
    Cayman Islands B.W.I.IXYS CH GmbH
    
    SwitzerlandIXYS Holdings Ltd.
    
    United KingdomIXYS Korea Ltd.
    
    South KoreaIXYS Semiconductor, B.V.
    
    NetherlandsIXYS Semiconductor GmbH
    
    GermanyIXYS Semiconductor, Ltd.
    
    South KoreaIXYS UK Ltd.
    
    United KingdomIXYS Unterstuetzungseinrichtung GmbH
    
    GermanyIXYS USA, Inc.
    
    DelawareMicrowave Technology, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaWestcode Industries Ltd.
    
    United KingdomWestcode Semiconductors, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaWestcode Semiconductors, Ltd.
    
    United Kingdom
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7171 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7171

 To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to require a certain 
 efficiency level for certain distribution transformers, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2024

 Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Deluzio, Mr. Meuser, Ms. 
Wild, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. Smucker, and 
 Mr. Womack) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to require a certain 
 efficiency level for certain distribution transformers, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Distribution Transformer Efficiency 
and Supply Chain Reliability Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR LIQUID-IMMERSED AND DRY TYPE DISTRIBUTION 
              TRANSFORMERS.

    Section 321(35) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
U.S.C. 6291(35)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) Efficiency level.--The Secretary shall not 
                finalize any rule under which the efficiency level of a 
                liquid-immersed type, low voltage dry type, or medium 
                voltage dry type distribution transformer is greater 
                than trial standard level 2 (as described in table V.1 
                in the proposed rule entitled `Energy Conservation 
                Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution 
                Transformers' (88 Fed. Reg. 1722 (January 11, 2023))).
                    ``(D) Effective date for certain rules.--Any rule 
                finalized by the Secretary under which the efficiency 
                level of a liquid-immersed type, low voltage dry type, 
                or medium voltage dry-type distribution transformer is 
                trial standard level 1 or 2 (as described in table V.1 
                in the proposed rule entitled `Energy Conservation 
                Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Distribution 
                Transformers' (88 Fed. Reg. 1722 (January 11, 2023))) 
                shall not take effect until 10 years after the date on 
                which the rule is finalized.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### WATSON STEWART v. THE UNITED STATES AND THE OSAGE NATION OF INDIANS.

[39 C. Cls. R., 321; 206 U. S. R., 185.]

*On the claimant's Appeal.*

The *Act 3d March, 1903*(32 Stat. L., pt. 1, p. 1010), confers jurisdiction on the court eases of registers and receivers in land offices who had the responsibility of the sales of the Osage lands under the treaty 29th September, 1865. It appears - that the claimant was appointed register in May, 1809, after the Secretary of the Interior had established rules and regulations for the sale of the Osage lands and had limited the compensation to the existing maximum of $2,500 per annum. I-Ie seeks to recover an unrestricted commission.

The court below decides:

1. The *Treaty 29th September, 1S65*(Indian Treaties, 585), between the Osage Indians and the United States constitutes an agreement whereby the United States were bound to so sell *532the lands of the Osages that they should produce for the beneficiaries as large a net sum as was practicable.

2. The treaty required the lauds to be sold under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior as public lands are sold under existing laws, and the Secretary had authority to prescribe rules and regulations regulating sales and the compensation of officers assigned to the duty of making sales.

3. A regulation authorizing the registers and receivers to charge a commission on these lands as on all others, but limiting the compensation for all services to the legal maximum of $2,500 per annum, and charging the Indian fund with only so much of the commissions as would bring the compensation to the maximum, was authorized by law.

4. A register appointed subsequent to the rules and regulations and assigned to the duty of disposing of Indian and other lands was' bound by the terms of the regulations, and can seek nothing beyond the prescribed legal maximum. The case distinguished from that of *Brindle*(100 U. S., G88).

The decision of the court below dismissing'the petition is affirmed upon the same grounds.

May 13, 1907.

Mr. Justice Peckham

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1048 CA 11-00506 PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ERIN DEVOGELAERE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WEBSTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

THE ANDERSON LAW FIRM, P.C., ROCHESTER (RICHARD F. ANDERSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

CHARLES J. GENESE, TOWN ATTORNEY, WEBSTER, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David Michael Barry, J.), entered January 14, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner owns property in the Town of Webster (Town) located in a Large Lot Single Family Residential District. Beginning in 2007, she rented the property for periods ranging from one night to approximately three months. In 2010 the Town amended its zoning ordinance to prohibit transient rental, i.e, “[r]ental of a dwelling unit for a period of less than 28 continuous days” (Code of the Town of Webster § 225-3; see § 225-80 [B]). Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination denying her “application to appeal” from the determination of the Town’s Code Enforcement Official that her use of the property for transient rentals was not permitted and directing her to cease the offending use.
Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. “ ‘[A] zoning board’s interpretation of its zoning ordinance is entitled to great deference . . . and judicial review is generally limited to ascertaining whether [its] action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion’ ” ( Matter of Falco Realty, Inc. v Town of Poughkeepsie Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 40 AD3d 635, 636, lv denied 9 NY3d 807). Here, respondent reasonably determined that petitioner’s serial rental of the subject property was prohibited under the zoning ordinance and that it did not constitute a legal nonconforming preexisting use, and thus petitioner had no right to continue such use ( see generally Matter of Marino v Town of Smithtown ,-2- 1048 CA 11-00506

61 AD3d 761, 762; Matter of Quatraro v Village of Kenmore Zoning Bd. of Appeals , 277 AD2d 1001).

Entered: September 30, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6893

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN MCKINLEY BEESON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David 

Schroeder, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00315-TDS-2; 1:09-cv-00152-

TDS-WWD)

Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John McKinley Beeson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, 

Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John McKinley Beeson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Beeson has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

Beeson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
First Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement



 Exhibit 10.5 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT 
 This First Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement (the “Amendment”) dated August 1, 2006 (“Amendment Date”) is by
and between Nevada Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Manager”) and MICHAEL J. KATIN, M.D., PROF. CORP., a Nevada professional corporation (“PC”). The terms defined in this Amendment shall have
the same meaning set forth in the Administrative Services Agreement unless otherwise set forth herein. 
 WITNESSETH:

 WHEREAS, MANAGER and PC are parties to that certain Administrative Services Agreement entered into as of January 1, 2002 (the
“Administrative Services Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Administrative Services Agreement
to clarify each party’s obligations with respect to fees for professional services; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
mutual promises and covenants herein contained and for other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 3.1. Service Fee. In consideration of the services being provided hereunder by Manager, PC shall pay Manager an amount equal to the collections of PC attributable to the provision of radiation therapy services
provided at the PC’s facilities in Clark County, Nevada, from and after the Amendment Date (“Facilities Collections”), after deducting from such Facilities Collections an amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of such
Facilities Collections (such percentage being referred to herein as the “Professional Component”), which Professional Component shall be retained by PC. The difference between the Facilities Collections and the total of the Professional
Component shall be referred to herein as the “Service Fee.” Effective August 1, 2006 
 2. Except as set forth herein, the
Administrative Services Agreement shall in all respects continue to be, and shall remain, unaltered and in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. This Amendment may be signed in one or more counterparts and by facsimile, all of which
shall be considered one and the same agreement. 
 [The remainder of the page is blank and the signature page follows.] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment on the date set forth herein.

  

			
	 NEVADA RADIATION THERAPY
 MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ David M. Koeninger

	 Name:
	 	David M. Koeninger
	 Title:
	 	Vice President

  

			
	MICHAEL J. KATIN, M.D., PROF. CORP.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Daniel E. Dosoretz

	 Name:
	 	Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.
	 Title:
	 	Vice President
[No. 15499-8-III.

Division Three.

January 8, 1998.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jose Angel Salazar, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Franklin County, No. 95-1-50022-5, Craig J. Matheson, J., entered October 10, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, C. J., concurred in by Sweeney and Kato, JJ.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 12-11712 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00394-GKS-KRS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUBEN PEREZ-RAMIREZ, 

a.k.a. Noe Flores-Zavala, 

 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Florida

 ________________________

(October 30, 2012)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-11712 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 1 of 3 
On March 21, 2012, appellant Ruben Perez-Ramirez, having pled guilty to

reentry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), was sentenced by

the District Court to a prison term of 18 months —an upward variance from the

1

Guidelines sentence range of 0 to 6 months but well below the statutory maximum

penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). He appeals his

sentence, arguing that the District Court procedurally erred in imposing his

sentence and in failing to provide a statement of reasons for the variance. We find

no error and accordingly affirm.

We find no procedural error in this case. As required by Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 128 S.Ct. 586, 591, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), the District

Court properly adopted the Guidelines sentence range set out in the presentence

report. Appellant, who was represented by counsel, voiced no objection to that

sentence range or the report’s recitation of the facts underpinning it. Nor did

appellant object to the sentence he received after the District Court imposed it. 

As for stating the reasons for the sentence, the District Court made it clear

 Appellant was given credit for time served between his detention on November 9, 2011, 1

and the imposition of sentence. Appellant is a Mexican citizen. He had entered the United

States illegally 14 times. His first removal occurred in 2003, after he was convicted of a

misdemeanor. He was arrested for the instant offense on November 9, 2011, after the police

stopped the car in which he and 10 others were riding. 

2

Case: 12-11712 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 2 of 3 
that it was imposing an 18 months’ period of incarceration because appellant had

entered the United States illegally 14 times, and a sentence above the Guidelines

sentence range was required to promote respect for law and to deter appellant from

illegally entering this country again. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(a)(2)(A), (C).

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 12-11712 Date Filed: 10/30/2012 Page: 3 of 3
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 675 

Condemning the Government of Iran for its violence against demonstrators 

and calling for peaceful resolution to the concerns of the citizens of Iran. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2018 

Mr. BANKS of Indiana (for himself, Mr. MESSER, and Mr. ROKITA) submitted 

the following resolution 

JANUARY 8, 2018 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning the Government of Iran for its violence against 

demonstrators and calling for peaceful resolution to the 

concerns of the citizens of Iran. 

Whereas, on December 28, 2017, citizens began protesting 

the Government of Iran across the country in the cities 

and towns of Dorud, Khomaini Shahr, Najafabad, 

Qahdarijan, Tehran, and Tuyserkan; 

Whereas so far 20 people have been killed and 450 have been 

arrested since demonstrations first began; 

Whereas the United States is committed to promoting universal human rights, specifically freedom of speech and 

freedom of assembly; 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 675 IH 

Whereas the Government of Iran has provided monetary support to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and 

Hamas; and 

Whereas the citizens of Iran deserve the support of the international community in their pursuit of a democratic government that respects human rights and freedoms: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) condemns the Government of Iran— 

3 (A) for its funding of terrorist organiza4 tions and activities; 

5 (B) for the continued oppression of its citi6 zens; and 

7 (C) for the suppression of communication 

8 through interference with internet applications 

9 such as Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, and 

10 Twitter; and 

11 (2) reaffirms— 

12 (A) the commitment of the United States 

13 to preserving and promoting the freedoms of 

14 speech and assembly as universal rights; and 

15 (B) the support of the United States for 

16 the citizens of Iran to establish a freely elected, 

17 democratic system. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       6,733,730               6,733,730
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,391,244               6,391,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                   271,493                 271,493
<INVENTORY>                                  2,179,592               2,179,592
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,266,856              16,266,856
<PP&E>                                      39,928,824              39,928,824
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,839,752              17,839,752
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,780,672              38,780,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,540,215               5,540,215
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        44,158                  44,158
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,328,347              31,328,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,780,672              38,780,672
<SALES>                                      9,426,000              38,000,597
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,426,000              38,000,597
<CGS>                                        5,967,000              23,863,297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,967,000              23,863,297
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                 (7,562)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,084,000               8,381,227
<INCOME-TAX>                                   720,000               3,056,440
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,363,787               5,324,787
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,363,787               5,324,787
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29                    1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29                    1.11
        

</TABLE>