alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 
     The following is a list of the subsidiaries of the Registrant:
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                    NAME                                JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
--------------------------------------------     --------------------------------------------
<S>                                              <C>
Quarterdeck International Limited                Ireland
Quarterdeck GmbH                                 West Germany
Quarterdeck S.A.R.L.                             France
Quarterdeck U.K. Limited                         United Kingdom
Quarterdeck FSC, Ltd.                            U.S. Virgin Islands
Quarterdeck Australia                            Australia Pty Limited
Quarterdeck Select Corporation                   Florida
StarNine Technologies, Inc.                      California
Internetware, Inc.                               California
Datastorm Technologies, Inc.                     Missouri
Inset Labs, Inc.                                 Connecticut
Future Labs, Inc                                 California
Vertisoft Systems, Inc.                          California
Limbex Corporation                               California
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,911
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                17,825
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     54,028
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          23,355
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            23,575
<LOANS>                                        137,737
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,087
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 259,001
<DEPOSITS>                                     222,930
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,315
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,476
<LONG-TERM>                                      5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,057
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,223
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 259,001
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,899
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,583
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   812
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                17,294
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,230
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,867
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           10,427
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,754
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,754
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,246
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.62
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,024
<LOANS-PAST>                                        17
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   399
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  6,192
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,120
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    (407)
<RECOVERIES>                                       374
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,087
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,087
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6039
SAMUEL BOYD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEARNED D. BARRY, Deputy Commonwealth Attorney, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-95-571) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Boyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Boyd v. Barry , No. CA-95-571 (E.D. Va. Dec. 21, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1


                              WASTE RECOVERY, INC.

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Domino Salvage, Tire Division, Inc. (incorporated in Pennsylvania)

Waste Recovery - Illinois, L.L.C. (an Illinois limited liability company), a
subsidiary of Domino Salvage, Tire Division, Inc. and the Registrant

New U.S. Tire Recycling Corp. (incorporated in Texas)

U.S. Tire Recycling Partners, L.P. (a Delaware limited partnership), a
subsidiary of New U.S. Tire Recycling Corp. and the Registrant

Tirus Associates, L.L.C. (a New York limited liability company), a subsidiary of
New U.S. Tire Recycling Corp. and the Registrant
41158.

#### ETHERIDGE v. CASHIN, Trustee.

Decided February 9, 1965.

Pannell, Judge.

Where, to a judgment rendered prior to a defendant’s adjudication as a bankrupt, the defendant files a plea for stay of execution, which stay is granted pending determination of discharge, and where subsequently the defendant filed his plea of discharge in bankruptcy and after hearing thereon the plea is denied, and the defendant, in his bill of exceptions to this court, assigns error on the denial of his plea, *held:*

There being in the record before this court no brief of evidence or stipulation of facts in proof of the allegations contained in the plea, and a consideration thereof being necessary to a decision of the sole assignment of error, the, judgment of the trial judge denying said plea must be affirmed. *Whitner v. Whitner,*207 Ga. 97, 100 (60 SE2d 464); *Pierce v. Felts,*146 Ga. 716 (92 SE 212); *White v. Hornsby,*191 Ga. 462 (2) (12 SE2d 875); *Walker v. Hamilton,*209 Ga. 735, 738 (76 SE2d 12); *Lewis & Matthews v. W. J. Sams*& *Son,*22 Ga. App. 222 (95 SE 764).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*

*180*E. B. Shaw,*for plaintiff in error.

*Lvpshutz, Macey, Zusmann & Sikes, Robert A. Eisner,*contra.
#### Burd *v.*Philadelphia, Appellant.

*Negligence*— Municipalities—Sewer *inlet*— Streets.

Where the cover of a sewer inlet is broken, and remains unrepaired for at least two weeks with actual notice to the city department, and becomes covered with muddy water mixed with slush and ice, a woman who steps upon it without any knowledge of its existence, and is injured by its giving away under her, may recover from the city damages for her injuries.

Argued Jan. 13, 1909.

Appeal, No. 326, Jan. T., 1909, by-defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 3,155, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Margaret C. Burd v. City of Philadelphia.

Before Fell, Mestrezat, Potter, Elicin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Ralston, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $4,000. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.

*Robert Brannan,*assistant city solicitor, with him *Frederick Beyer,*assistant city solicitor, and *J. Howard Gendell,*city solicitor, for appellant.

*Maurice W. Sloan,*for appellee.

March 8, 1909:

Per Curiam,

The top of a sewer inlet was at the curb in the line of a street crossing. The iron cover of the inlet was broken and had fallen in or was in such a condition that it would fall if stepped on. This condition had existed for at least two weeks and it had been reported to the proper city department. In midwinter, *655following a thaw, the inlet was clogged with dirt so as to obstruct the flow of water, and muddy water mixed with slush and ice extended from the curb two or three feet into the street, entirely covering and obscuring the top of the inlet. The plaintiff in crossing the street stepped into the inlet or on the cover, which gave way.

It appeared from the plaintiff’s testimony that she could have avoided the water and reached the pavement by making a few steps to one side of the crossing. From this it is argued that she took the chance of dangers that were concealed under the muddy water. She had no knowledge of the existence of the inlet and the collection of water gave her no notice of it, since this might have been caused by the clogging of the gutter with slush and ice. The chance she took in walking on a regular street crossing partly covered by water, which she could have avoided, was danger caused by the usual irregularities of the surface, but not danger of an unusual character that she had no reason to apprehend.

It was not error to submit the case to the jury, and the judgment is affirmed.
HomeLocally Employed Staff...Hayatullah Ahmadi

# 									Hayatullah Ahmadi							

DS Memorial

September 8, 2006

		Diplomatic Security Memorial		

**Locally Employed Staff****Year of Death: 2006**Hayatullah Ahmadi, Locally Employed Staff, died on September 8, 2006, in Kabul, Afghanistan. He was killed in a terrorist car bombing near the U.S. Embassy.

**Please contact DS Public Affairs (dspublicaffairs@state.gov) if you have an image of this individual.**

Tags

AfghanistanDS Locally Employed Staff

Back to Top
#### Hilton TRIBBLE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 46436.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 5, 1974.

Certiorari dismissed sua sponte. 301 So.2d 529.
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Paula VanLare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 01/10/2013 05:13 PM Subject: RE: RICE Interagency Comments -- CI RIA

Hi Melanie, One follow up comment on this: It appears that EPA has made some changes to the CI RIA. However, none of those changes relate to our comment about updating the inventory numbers for irrigation engines. EPA’s previous comment that they are not changing anything that would relate to any of those engines is also false, as the changes they have made for the San Joaquin Valley engines do impact engines in the affected categories.

Can we talk about this tomorrow?

Thanks, Cortne
From: Higgins, Cortney Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:47 PM To: 'King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov' Cc: Bob Wayland (Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov); 'VanLare.Paula@epamail.epa.gov'; sorrels.larry@epa.gov Subject: RICE Interagency Comments -- CI RIA

Hi all, Attached are comments on the CI RIA – please let me know if you have any questions. We had no questions about the revised SI RIA.

Regards, Cortney
#### Curl *v.*Early.

4-9475

238 S. W. 2d 756

Opinion delivered April 23, 1951.

*W. M. Lee,*for appellant.

*Sharp & Sharp,*for appellee.

Robinson, J.

This appeal involves a question of fact. Appellant paid to appellee $650 and received a title retaining note on which there was a balance owed of $333.04, and which had been given by Luther Butler as part-payment on the purchase price of a gasoline engine. Appellee did not have with him the Butler note when he was paid the $650 by appellant, but mailed it to him a short time later. Appellant claims that it was upon receipt of the note that he discovered the balance owed thereon was only $333.04, rather than $650.

The undisputed evidence is that the engine was well-worth $650. Later the appellant took possession of the engine and sold it, but the price received is not shown. Appellant filed suit alleging that appellee had falsely represented there was a balance of $650 owed on the note and asked judgment for $316.96, the difference between $333.04 and $650. The Chancellor found that there had been no false representation and rendered a decree in favor of the appellee.

Butler had paid $325 cash and given a title retaining note for the balance of $333.04, which included $8.04 carrying charge.. Butler, who operated a sawmill, borrowed the down-payment of $325 from Gr. C. Duncan, who was to be repaid in lumber. Later, Butler made a deal to furnish lumber to appellant and, as part of the *804consideration, appellant agreed to advance to Butler money to pay certain obligations to help him straighten out his financial affairs. The money owed on the gasoline engine was one of the debts appellant agreed to pay. Butler represented that $650 was owed on the engine. Appellant and appellee disagree in regard to the exact conversation between them as to the balance owed by Butler. There was a balance owed on the note of $333.04; however, in addition Butler owed Duncan $325 which he had borrowed to make the down-payment.

Appellee testified that he made no representation to appellant whatever except that he would warrant the title to the engine; that appellant made the statement that he understood from Butler that $650 was owed. Appellee further testified that he knew Butler had borrowed $325 from Duncan to make the down-payment and had not repaid Duncan; that he accepted the $650 from appellant and offered to pay Duncan the amount Butler had borrowed to make the down-payment, but Duncan stated that he did not want it because he was going to be paid in lumber by Butler.

Appellee then paid Butler $316.21 by check, which was introduced in evidence. Undoubtedly, Butler represented to appellant that he owed $650 on the engine. In this statement he was not far wrong, as he had borrowed $325 from Duncan to make the down-payment, which had not been repaid, and still owed $333.04 on the title retaining note. The Chancellor’s finding that there was no false representation on the part of appellee is not against the preponderance of the evidence.

Affirmed.
#### Dexter CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1082.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 7, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
HomeTunisia

# Tunisia

101 items

        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL FY2020: Guaranteeing Constitutional Rights in Tunisia	  November 23, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Tunisia	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Tunisia	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Tunisia	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Tunisia	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Tunisia	  March 11, 2020 
        -    		Taoufik Missaoui	  March 6, 2020 
        -    Report  		Tunisia	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Tunisia	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Tunisia	  June 20, 2019 

previous page1…67891011next page

Back to Top
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCollection Efficiency and Ice Accretion Calculations for a Boeing 737-300 InletCollection efficiency and ice accretion calculations have been made for a Boeing 737-300 inlet using a three-dimensional panel code, an adaptive grid code, the NASA Lewis LEWICE3D grid based ice accretion code. Flow solutions for the inlet were generated using the VSAERO panel code. Grids used in the ice accretion calculations were generated using the newly developed adaptive grid code ICEGRID3D. The LEWICE3D grid based ice accretion program was used to calculate impingement efficiency and ice shapes. Ice shapes typifying rime and mixed icing conditions were generated for a 30 minute hold condition. All calculations were performed on an SGI Power Challenge computer. The results have been compared to experimental flow and impingement data. In general, the calculated flow and collection efficiencies compared well with experiment, and the ice shapes looked reasonable and appeared representative of the rime and mixed icing conditions for which they were calculated.Document ID19970013640Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsBidwell, Colin S.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateFebruary 1, 1997Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberE-10498NAS 1.15:107347NASA-TM-107347Meeting InformationMeeting: World Aviation CongressLocation: Los Angeles, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: October 22, 1996End Date: October 24, 1996Sponsors:Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsAccession Number97N17362Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-68-10Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970013640.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 23.12 Who will supervise and control the assigned personnel?

Assigned National Health Service Corps personnel will at all times remain under the direct supervision and control of the Secretary. Observance of institutional rules and regulations by the assigned personnel is a mere incident of the performance of their Federal functions and does not alter their direct professional and administrative responsibility to the Secretary.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Lloyd DELISLE v. Honorable Judge Israel M. AUGUSTINE, Jr., Criminal Judicial District Court, Parish of Orleans.

No. 65796.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re Lloyd Delisle, applying for writs of mandamus and prohibition. Parish of Orleans. No. 220-866.

Denied. Moot.
# C_2006113EN.01002001.xml

| 13.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/20

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4133 — Mellon/WestlB/JV)

(2006/C 113/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 March 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4133. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4133. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
Aero Contractors, Ltd. is requesting a 24 month exemption from 14 CFR Part 91.313(a) in order to 

perform pilot training and/or certification events conducted in a Restricted Category aircraft. The 

aircraft Aero Contractors, Ltd. request to be included in this exemption request are Beechcraft King Air, 

B200 series aircraft operated by Aero Contractors, Ltd. 

Petition for relief: 

Aero Contractors, Ltd is requesting an exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.313(a). Aero 

Contractors, Ltd. requests an exemption in order to perform pilot training and/or certification events in 

restricted category aircraft. 

Information in support of this exemption request: 

1. There are not sufficient numbers of Beechcraft B200 series aircraft certificated in the 

Standard/Normal Category which are used in "heavy-weight" operations to support training 

and/or type rides. 

2. The aircraft identified in the opening statement are "dual certificated" in the normal and 

restricted categories. 

a. The aircraft are operated in accordance with Beechcraft Pilot Operating Handbook 

Airplane Flight Manual Supplement, p/n 101-590037-47, when conducting operations in 

restricted category for heavy-weight operations. 

b. The aircraft are inspected in accordance with Hawker Beechcraft document, PROP 2009-

06-10, (and an aircraft logbook entry made) by a properly certificated FAA mechanic 

when the aircraft is transferred between categories to ensure the aircraft meets FAA 

required airworthiness standards. 

3. The Beechcraft King Air B200 series aircraft operated by Aero Contractors, Ltd. have been used 

for providing training and/or certification events while operating in restricted category since 

August of 2009. 

4. Operations providing training and/or certification events in restricted category aircraft have not 

been questioned by FAA personnel prior to the issuance of FAA Notice N8900.295, dated 

5/5/2015. 

5. When the aircraft is operated in restricted category there is no reduction in operational 

functionality of the aircraft or its systems. The aircraft also have a fully equivalent level of safety 

which is equal to any other Beechcraft King Air B200 series aircraft operated in US airspace. This 

exemption will not adversely affect safety, the training, and/or the certification of FAA 

certificated pilots. 

Description of Operation under the proposed exemption: 

Aero Contractors, Ltd. will operate the aircraft in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration 

regulations and the FAA limitations provided in the restricted category Operating Limitations which are 

part ofthe restricted category certificate. The lone exception to this will be the conduct of training 

and/or certification events while the aircraft is operating in restricted category. 

Thank you for your consideration. 
Respectfully submitted, 

Bernie Consol 

Chief Pilot, Aero Contractors, Ltd.
- Division Home
- About Us
- Remarks and Releases
- Contact Us

HomeCuba Sanctions...Cuba Restricted List

# 						Cuba Restricted List					

2 items

          -    		List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated With Cuba Effective January 8, 2021	   
          -    		Frequently Asked Questions on the Cuba Restricted List	   

Back to Top