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



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



The following table sets forth all subsidiaries of the registrant, the state or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of each, and the names
under which such subsidiaries do business as of December 31, 2008. The financial statements of all subsidiaries are included in the consolidated statements of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary.



| | 1. |  | The Palmetto Bank, a South Carolina corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc.
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | Palmetto Capital Inc., a South Carolina corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of The Palmetto Bank
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.343 Resident assessment data. ( a ) *Submission of resident assessment data.* SNFs are required to submit the resident assessment data described at § 483.20 of this chapter in the manner necessary to administer the payment rate methodology described in § 413.337. This provision includes the frequency, scope, and number of assessments required.
( b ) *Assessment schedule.* In accordance with the methodology described in § 413.337(c) related to the adjustment of the Federal rates for case-mix, SNFs must submit assessments according to an assessment schedule. This schedule must include performance of an initial Medicare assessment with an assessment reference date that is set for no later than the 8th day of posthospital SNF care, and such other interim payment assessments as the SNF determines are necessary to account for changes in patient care needs.
( c ) *Noncompliance with assessment schedule.* CMS pays a default rate for the Federal rate when a SNF fails to comply with the assessment schedule in paragraph (b) of this section. The default rate is paid for the days of a patient's care for which the SNF is not in compliance with the assessment schedule.
[63 FR 26309, May 12, 1998, as amended at 64 FR 41682, July 30, 1999; 84 FR 38832, Aug. 7, 2019]
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3073

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 in order to allow the continued

operation of certain overlapping stations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 12, 1996

Mrs. ROUKEMA (for herself and Mr. TORRICELLI) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 in order to

allow the continued operation of certain overlapping stations.

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

3 SECTION 1. FM TRANSLATOR STATIONS.

4 Section 331 of the Act (47 U.S.C. 331) is amended

5 by adding at the end the following new subsection:

6 ‘‘(c) FM TRANSLATOR STATIONS.—It shall be the

7 policy of the Commission, to extend to licensed FM trans8 lator stations, operating in a county which has a popu9 lation of more than 750,000 persons that lacks a commer10 cial FM station assignment—
2

•HR 3073 IH

1 ‘‘(1) authority for local programming origina2 tion, provided such FM translator station abides by

3 all rules and regulations of the Commission regard4 ing program material, content, and schedule, which

5 authority shall be effective upon written notification

6 to the Commission from the licensee of the FM

7 translator station; and

8 ‘‘(2) authority to operate with an effective radi9 ated power not to exceed 1,000 watts, if—

10 ‘‘(A) the FM translator station is not lo11 cated within 320 kilometers (approximately 199

12 miles) of either the Canadian or Mexican bor13 ders,

14 ‘‘(B) the FM translator station’s interfer15 ing contour would not create a new area of

16 overlap attributable only to the FM translator

17 station within the protected contour of a

18 cochannel or first-adjacent channel facility, and

19 ‘‘(C) the FM translator station complies

20 with the requirements of part 74 of the regula21 tions of the Commission (47 C.F.R. 74.1 et

22 seq.),

23 which authority shall be effective upon grant of a

24 minor change application for construction permit.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 APACHE OFFSHORE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
by Apache Corporation, General Partner
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer
  /s/ G. Steven FarrisBy:
    
    G. Steven FarrisTitle:
    
    President, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Operating Officer of
Apache Corporation, General PartnerDate:
    
    October 11, 2006
  /s/ Roger B. PlankBy:
    
    Roger B. PlankTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of
Apache Corporation, General PartnerDate:
    
    October 11, 2006
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Glendell SHOWERS.

No. 63856.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 16, 1979.

In re Glendell Showers applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Jefferson.

Writ denied.
§ 436.1002 FFP for services. ( a ) FFP is available in expenditures for Medicaid services for all beneficiaries whose coverage is required or allowed under this part.
( b ) FFP is available in expenditures for services provided to beneficiaries who were eligible for Medicaid in the month in which the medical care or services were provided, except that, for beneficiaries who establish eligibility for Medicaid by deducting incurred medical expenses from income, FFP is not available for expenses that are the beneficiary's liability.
( c ) FFP is available in expenditures for services covered under the plan that are furnished— ( 1 ) To children who are determined by a qualified entity to be presumptively eligible;
( 2 ) During a period of presumptive eligibility;
( 3 ) By a provider that is eligible for payment under the plan; and
( 4 ) Regardless of whether the children are determined eligible for Medicaid following the period of presumptive eligibility.
[43 FR 45218, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 17940, Mar. 23, 1979; 66 FR 2669, Jan. 11, 2001]
#### Robert TOOMEY, Appellant, v. L. Pat BLACK, d/b/a L. Pat Black Supply # 2, Appellee.

No. MM-418.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 27, 1979.

*708F. E. Steinmeyer, III, of Folsom & Stein-meyer, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Thomas E. Stone, of Cowart & Stone, Madison, for appellee.

HENRY CLAY MITCHELL, Jr., Associate Judge.

The appellant seeks review of an adverse judgment finding him personally liable on a corporate obligation.

Appellee states that the appellant personally guaranteed payment of the corporate obligation'. We find that the evidence is not sufficient to make a prima facie case to prove a promise by the appellant to pay the debt of the corporation. See *Computer Center, Inc. v. Vedapco, Inc.,*320 So.2d 404 (4th DCA 1975).

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed with directions to enter judgment for the appellant.

MILLS, C. J., and ROBERT P. SMITH, J., concur.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT
 
The Board of Directors
Quarterdeck Corporation:
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-04606, 333-10269, No. 333-22325, and No. 333-38693) on Form S-3, the
registration statement (No. 33-98456) on Form S-4 and the registration
statements (No. 333-01766, No. 333-04602, 333-26107, and 333-26105) on Form S-8
of Quarterdeck Corporation of our report dated November 7, 1997, except for the
first paragraph of note 13, which is as of December 19, 1997, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheets of Quarterdeck Corporation and subsidiaries as
of September 30, 1997 and 1996 and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended September 30, 1997, and the related schedule, which
report appears in the September 30, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of
Quarterdeck Corporation.
 
                                          KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
 
Los Angeles, California
December 23, 1997
#### § 441.254 Mentally incompetent or institutionalized individuals.

FFP is not available for the sterilization of a mentally incompetent or institutionalized individual.
§ 436.510 Determination of dependency. For families with dependent children who are not receiving AFDC, the agency must use the definitions and procedures used under the State's AFDC plan to determine whether— ( a ) An individual is a dependent child because he is deprived of parental support or care; and
( b ) An individual is an eligible member of a family with dependent children.
[43 FR 45218, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 58 FR 4936, Jan. 19, 1993]
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.206 Basis for Medicare primary payments and limits on secondary payments. ( a ) *General rule.* CMS makes Medicare primary payments for services furnished to disabled beneficiaries covered under the LGHP by virtue of their own or a family member's current employment status if the services are— ( 1 ) Furnished to Medicare beneficiaries who have declined to enroll in the GHP;
( 2 ) Not covered under the plan for the disabled individual or similarly situated individuals;
( 3 ) Covered under the plan but not available to particular disabled individuals because they have exhausted their benefits under the plan;
( 4 ) Furnished to individuals whose COBRA continuation coverage has been terminated because of the individual's Medicare entitlement; or
( 5 ) Covered under COBRA continuation coverage notwithstanding the individual's Medicare entitlement.
( b ) *Conditional primary payments: Basic rule.* Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, CMS may make a conditional Medicare primary payment for any of the following reasons: ( 1 ) The beneficiary, the provider, or the supplier that has accepted assignment has filed a proper claim with the LGHP and the LGHP has denied the claim in whole or in part.
( 2 ) The beneficiary, because of physical or mental incapacity, failed to file a proper claim.
( c ) *Conditional primary payments: Exceptions.* CMS does not make conditional Medicare primary payments if— ( 1 ) The LGHP denies the claim in whole or in part for one of the following reasons: ( i ) It is alleged that the LGHP is secondary to Medicare.
( ii ) The LGHP limits its payments when the individual is entitled to Medicare.
( iii ) The LGHP does not provide the benefits to individuals who are entitled to Medicare on the basis of disability and covered under the plan by virtue of current employment status but does provide the benefits to other similarly situated individuals enrolled in the plan.
( iv ) The LGHP takes into account entitlement to Medicare in any other way.
( v ) There was failure to file a proper claim for any reason other than physical or mental incapacity of the beneficiary.
( 2 ) The LGHP, an employer or employee organization, or the beneficiary fails to furnish information that is requested by CMS and that is necessary to determine whether the LGHP is primary to Medicare.
( d ) *Limit on secondary payments.* The provisions of § 411.172(e) also apply to services furnished to the disabled under this subpart.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,497,045
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,623,169
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,261,246
<PP&E>                                     167,863,673
<DEPRECIATION>                             159,840,902
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,284,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,225,988
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,058,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,284,017
<SALES>                                      4,349,472
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,374,720
<CGS>                                        1,838,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,838,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               275,592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,260,291
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,260,291
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,260,291
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1,379
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1,379
        

</TABLE>
#### James Ackroyd, Plaintiff, *v.*John M. Newton et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, Albany Special Term,

August, 1898.)

Discontinuance — Costs — Defendants severing unnecessarily.

Although the court has power to permit the discontinuance, without costs, o-f a common-law action it will not -ordinarily do so; but where two former partners, who subsequently formed a corporation, When mistakenly sued as partners unnecessarily, sever in their defense, but one bill of costs will be allowed.

-Motion to discontinue, without costs, an action commenced against the defendants, as copartners, it appearing, subsequent to the joinder of issue, that the debtor was a corporation and not a copartnership. Defendants severed in their defenses and answered by separate attorneys.

Frederick E. Wadhams, for motion.

Chas. Irving Oliver, opposed.

Edwards, J.

In common law, as well as in equitable- .actions, the court has power to permit a. discontinuance of the action, without costs. De Barante v. Deyermand, 41 N. Y. 357. The almost invariable rulé in actions at law is that the party desiring to- discontinue muáft pay the; accrued costs. To this rule there are bu|t few exceptions.- Although the present case is a hard one for the plaintiff, I do- not think that it comes within, that class' of cases which are exceptions to the rule.

But-1 cannot conceive of any good reason why the defendants should have separately answered by separate attorneys. ■ The papers disclose, beyond any question, the fact that the defendants -needlessly severed in- their defenses. It is sufficiently onerous to the plaintiff to lose his claim and to pay one bill -of costs. The burden of two bills would be as unjust as- it is needless. The case is not one in which separate bills of costs should be allowed. Let an order be entered permitting the plaintiff to discontinue the action upon payment to the defendant, John M. Newton, of his taxable costs down to the time of noticing this motion. No costs of this motion allowed. '

Ordered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3518 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3518

To amend the Clean Air Act to permit the exclusive application of State 
        regulations regarding reformulated gas in certain areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 1996

 Mr. Bilbray introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Clean Air Act to permit the exclusive application of State 
        regulations regarding reformulated gas in certain areas.

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

SECTION 1. STATE REFORMULATED GAS RULES.

    Section 211(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding the 
following at the end thereof: ``Whenever any such State has promulgated 
reformulated gas rules for any covered area (as defined in subsection 
(k)), such rules shall apply in such area in lieu of the requirements 
of subsection (k) if such State rules will achieve equivalent or 
greater reductions in emissions of ozone-forming compounds and of toxic 
air contaminants than would result from the application of the 
requirements of subsection (k).''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 426.517 CMS' statement regarding new evidence. ( a ) CMS may review any new evidence that is submitted, regardless of whether the Board has stayed the proceedings, including but not limited to new evidence: ( 1 ) Submitted with the initial complaint;
( 2 ) Submitted with an amended complaint;
( 3 ) Produced during discovery;
( 4 ) Produced when the Board consults with scientific and clinical experts; and
( 5 ) Presented during any hearing.
( b ) CMS may submit a statement regarding whether the new evidence is significant under § 426.340, by a deadline set by the Board.
#### G & B OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., d/b/a Out of Sight, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF BEVERAGE, Respondent.

No. GG-304.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 2, 1979.

Harry Katz, Jr., of Katz *&*Katz, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

Dennis E. LaRosa and David M. Hudson, Tallahassee, for respondent.

MASON, (Circuit Judge, Retired) Associate Judge:

We reverse. In so doing we hold that the order of the respondent agency is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Especially is this true as to knowledge on the part of the licensee. We find that the record herein is completely void as to any knowledge on the part of the licensee or of any responsible officer or employee thereof as to the employee’s alleged violation of the law by offering to commit or engage in prostitution with a patron as charged. Before a beverage license may be suspended or revoked it must be found by competent substantial evidence that the licensee was culpably responsible for the al*878leged violation as a result of its own negligence, intentional wrongdoing or lack of diligence. There is no competent substantial evidence in this case proving that the alleged violation occurred as a result of such fault on the part of the licensee. See *Woodbury v. State Beverage Department,*219 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). We note that the licensee was charged with but one single violation by an employee. There is no evidence that such activity was persistent or recurring. See *Pauline v. Lee,*147 So.2d 359, at p. 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).

Reversed, and the order of the agency herein suspending the licensee’s license is set aside and revoked.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3477

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to restrict employers

in obtaining, disclosing, and using of genetic information.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 16, 1996

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to restrict

employers in obtaining, disclosing, and using of genetic

information.

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

3 SECTION. 1. GENETIC INFORMATION.

4 The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C.

5 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the follow6 ing:

7 ‘‘GENETIC INFORMATION

8 ‘‘SEC. 20. (a) No employer may obtain from any

9 source genetic information about an employee or prospec-
2

•HR 3477 IH

1 tive employee unless authorized by such employee or pro2 spective employee in accordance with subsection (b).

3 ‘‘(b) An authorization for the disclosure of genetic in4 formation about an employee or prospective employee to

5 an employer is valid only if each of the following require6 ments is met:

7 ‘‘(1) The authorization is in writing, signed by

8 the individual making the authorization, and dated

9 on the date of the signature.

10 ‘‘(2) The authorization is not on a form used

11 for any other purpose.

12 ‘‘(3) The employer authorized to receive the in13 formation is specifically named in the authorization.

14 ‘‘(4) The authorization contains an acknowledg15 ment that the individual making the authorization

16 has received the statement described in subsection

17 (c).

18 ‘‘(c) An employer who wishes to receive genetic infor19 mation about an employee or prospective employee shall

20 provide the employee or prospective employee with a writ21 ten statement of the uses which the employer intends for

22 such genetic information.

23 ‘‘(d) If an employer obtains, discloses, or uses genetic

24 information without a valid authorization or not in accord25 ance with a statement provided under subsection (c), the
3

•HR 3477 IH

1 employee or prospective employee whose genetic informa2 tion was so obtained, disclosed, or used may bring a civil

3 action for actual damages and equitable relief.

4 ‘‘(e) Nothing in this section authorizes an employer

5 to obtain, disclose, or use genetic information about an

6 employee or prospective employee in violation of the Amer7 icans With Disabilities Act of 1990 or any other Federal

8 or State law that restricts access to, disclosure of, or use

9 of genetic information.’’.

Æ
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 

Connect Biopharma Holdings Limited - Ordinary Shares 

(Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands) 
  

			
	Number	  	Shares

 Share Capital is US$76,560 divided into 

(i) 400,000,000 Ordinary Shares of a nominal or par value of US$0.000174 each 

(ii) 40,000,000 Preferred Shares of a nominal or par value of US$0.000174 each 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT
                                         
                                

is the registered holder of
                                         
                                        

Ordinary Shares in the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association
thereof. 
 EXECUTED for and on behalf of the said Company on      

 

					
	by:
			
	DIRECTOR
HomeJ. Douglas Dykhouse

# 									J. Douglas Dykhouse							

## **J. Douglas Dykhouse**

#### **Principal Deputy Director**

J. Douglas Dykhouse joined the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) in April 2022 as the Principal Deputy Director. An experienced Senior Foreign Service Officer, Douglas brings over 21 years of service to the role. Most recently he was the Deputy Director in the Executive Office of the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs (NEA-SCA/EX), and previous to that, the Supervisory Post Management Officer for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Douglas has also served as the Management Counselor at Embassy Budapest; Human Resources Officer in Kabul; Regional Management Officer in Zagreb, Croatia; General Services Officer in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan; and a Consular tour in Mexico City.  He earned a Bachelor of Arts in History and a Master of Arts in Russian and East European Studies from the University of Michigan. He is married to retired Foreign Service Officer Vivian S. Walker and has two stepsons.

 

Back to Top