alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>


                    SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY-EXHIBIT 21.1
<CAPTION>


                         State or Other Jurisdiction of
          Subsidiary (1)                   Incorporation of Organization
------------------------------------       ----------------------------------
<S>                                        <C>   
BFR Co., Inc.                              New Jersey
Chamberlain Associates, Inc.               California
Data Arts & Sciences, Inc.                 Massachusetts
Data Processing Professionals, Inc         Missouri
ESP Software Services, Inc.                Minnesota
Financial Data Systems, Inc                Washington
Innova Solutions, Inc.                     Texas
Jastech, Inc.                              Ohio
Pittsburgh Business Consultants, Inc.      Pennsylvania
TRC Computers, Inc.                        California
United Data Processing, Inc.               Oregon

<FN>
(1) All subsidiaries operate under the names listed.  In addition,  BFR Co., Inc. conducts business as
             BFR Systems, and Financial Data Systems, Inc. conducts business as FDSI Consulting, United Data
             Processing, Inc. conducts business as UDP Consulting Services.

</FN>
</TABLE>

                                       49
<PAGE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.

*Docket Number:*                         OST-2000-7549.                     

*Date Filed:*                         June 19, 2000.                     

*Parties:*                         Members of the International Air Transport Association.                     

*Subject:*

PTC2 EUR 0316 dated May 23, 2000 (Issuance). 

PTC2 EUR 0325 dated June 16, 2000 (Adoption) 

Mail Vote 076—Resolution 078y 

TC2 Pex Fares Within Europe 

Intended effective date: June 23, 2000 

*Docket Number:*                         OST-2000-7566.                     

*Date Filed:*                         June 22, 2000.                     

*Parties:*                         Members of the International Air Transport Association.                     

*Subject:*

CAC/28/Meet/006/00 dated June 8, 2000 

Finally Adopted Resos R1-6 

Minutes—CAC/28/Meet/005/00 dated June 7, 2000 

Intended effective date: October 1, 2000 

*Docket Number:*                         OST-2000-7579.                     

*Date Filed:*                         June 23, 2000.                     

*Parties:*                         Members of the International Air Transport Association.                     

*Subject:*

PTC12 USA-EUR 0099 dated June 20, 2000. 

North Atlantic USA-Europe Expedited Resolutions 002v and 054s 

Intended effective date: August 1, 2000 

Dorothy Y. Beard,

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 00-16825 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.401 Petitions for rulemaking. ( a ) Any interested person may petition for the issuance, amendment or repeal of a rule or regulation.
( b ) The petition for rule making shall conform to the requirements of §§ 1.49, 1.52, and 1.419(b) (or § 1.420(e), if applicable), and shall be submitted or addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554, or may be submitted electronically.
( c ) The petition shall set forth the text or substance of the proposed rule, amendment, or rule to be repealed, together with all facts, views, arguments and data deemed to support the action requested, and shall indicate how the interests of petitioner will be affected.
( d ) Petitions for amendment of the FM Table of Assignments (§ 73.202 of this chapter) or the Television Table of Assignments (§ 73.606) shall be served by petitioner on any Commission licensee or permittee whose channel assignment would be changed by grant of the petition. The petition shall be accompanied by a certificate of service on such licensees or permittees. Petitions to amend the FM Table of Allotments must be accompanied by the appropriate construction permit application and payment of the appropriate application filing fee.
( e ) Petitions which are moot, premature, repetitive, frivolous, or which plainly do not warrant consideration by the Commission may be denied or dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner.
[28 FR 12432, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 28 FR 14503, Dec. 31, 1963; 40 FR 53391, Nov. 18, 1975; 45 FR 42621, June 25, 1980; 63 FR 24125, May 1, 1998; 71 FR 76215, Dec. 20, 2006]
§ 15.113 Power line carrier systems. Power line carrier systems, as defined in § 15.3(t), are subject only to the following requirements: ( a ) A power utility operating a power line carrier system shall submit the details of all existing systems plus any proposed new systems or changes to existing systems to an industry-operated entity as set forth in § 90.35(g) of this chapter. No notification to the FCC is required.
( b ) The operating parameters of a power line carrier system (particularly the frequency) shall be selected to achieve the highest practical degree of compatibility with authorized or licensed users of the radio spectrum. The signals from this operation shall be contained within the frequency band 9 kHz to 490 kHz. A power line carrier system shall operate on an unprotected, non-interference basis in accordance with § 15.5 of this part. If harmful interference occurs, the electric power utility shall discontinue use or adjust its power line carrier operation, as required, to remedy the interference. Particular attention should be paid to the possibility of interference to Loran C operations at 100 kHz.
( c ) Power line carrier system apparatus shall be operated with the minimum power possible to accomplish the desired purpose. No equipment authorization is required.
( d ) The best engineering principles shall be used in the generation of radio frequency currents by power line carrier systems to guard against harmful interference to authorized radio users, particularly on the fundamental and harmonic frequencies.
( e ) Power line carrier system apparatus shall conform to such engineering standards as may be promulgated by the Commission. In addition, such systems should adhere to industry approved standards designed to enhance the use of power line carrier systems.
( f ) The provisions of this section apply only to systems operated by a power utility for general supervision of the power system and do not permit operation on electric lines which connect the distribution substation to the customer or house wiring. Such operation can be conducted under the other provisions of this part.
( g ) *Special provisions.* An electric power utility entity shall not operate a new or modified power line carrier (PLC) system in the 135.7-137.8 kHz and/or 472-479 kHz bands if a previously coordinated amateur station pursuant to § 97.301(g)(2) of this chapter is located within one kilometer of the transmission lines conducting the PLC signal.
[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989; 54 FR 32339, Aug. 7, 1989; 75 FR 63031, Oct. 13, 2010; 82 FR 27213, June 14, 2017]
431P15

#### State v. William Charles Compton

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-567)

Denied
#### § 0.473 Reports of violations.

Reports of violations of the Communications Act or of the Commission's rules and regulations may be submitted to the Commission in Washington or to any field office.

[32 FR 10578, July 19, 1967]
No. 11-5148.

#### Campbell *v.*Social Security Administration.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2021-2311: SoClean, Inc. v. Sunset Healthcare Solutions, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"4LQ4sT4149\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2022-2021-2311-soclean-inc-v-sunset-healthcare-solutions-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-2311: SoClean, Inc. v. Sunset Healthcare Solutions, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2022-2021-2311-soclean-inc-v-sunset-healthcare-solutions-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=4LQ4sT4149\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-2311: SoClean, Inc. v. Sunset Healthcare Solutions, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"4LQ4sT4149\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: SoClean, Inc. v. Sunset Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-2311 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
AFS-10-288 

May 26, 2010 

Mr. Richard D. Blosser 

3037 Lakeview Terrace 

Fullerton, CA 92835 

Dear Mr. Blosser 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for reconsideration 

from § 61.303(b)(2), Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot 

process your request. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

We entered your April 23, 2010, petition for reconsideration into the public docket (No. FAA2008-1223), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent 

does not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.101 (copy enclosed). For us to consider 

your petition, you must show the following: 

 That you have a significant additional fact and why you did not present it in your 

original petition.

 That we made an important factual error in our denial of your original petition; or

 That we did not correctly interpret a law, regulation, or precedent.

For the reasons above, no further action will be taken on your petition and the docket will be 

closed. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-2092: WRIGHT v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TbVnfJV7fG\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/04-14-2023-22-2092-wright-v-mcdonough-opinion-22-2092-opinion-4-14-2023_2111069\/\">22-2092: WRIGHT v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/04-14-2023-22-2092-wright-v-mcdonough-opinion-22-2092-opinion-4-14-2023_2111069\/embed\/#?secret=TbVnfJV7fG\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-2092: WRIGHT v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"TbVnfJV7fG\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: WRIGHT v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-2092 Origin: CAVC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
NOTICE OF APPEAL – PAGE 1

CAUSE NO. 36865

FRANKIE MARIE MILLER, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Individually and as Representative §

of the Estate of T.J. Miller, §

§

Plaintiff, §

v. § 76TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

JOHN B. MULLEN, M.D.and §

TITUS REGIONAL MEDICAL §

CENTER, §

§

Defendants. § TITUS COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Frankie Marie Miller files notice of this appeal to the Sixth District 

Court of Appeals at Texarkana from the Final Judgment signed in this case 

on June 8, 2015, and all orders merged into that final judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Charles “Chad” Baruch

Texas Bar Number 01864300

THE LAW OFFICE OF CHAD BARUCH

3201 Main Street

Rowlett, Texas 75088

Telephone: (972) 412-7192

Facsimile: (972) 412-4028

Email: baruchesq@aol.com

Attorney for Frankie Marie Miller

ACCEPTED

06-15-00059-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

8/28/2015 12:24:15 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/28/2015 12:24:15 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
NOTICE OF APPEAL – PAGE 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of this notice of 

appeal was served this 28th day of July, 2015, upon the following counsel of 

record by efiling and email:

Russell W. Schell

Schell Cooley LLP

15455 Dallas Parkway, Suite 550

Addison, Texas 75001

Trial Counsel for Appellees

rschell@schellcooley.com

Patrick Wigle

Turley Law Firm

6440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1000

Trial Counsel for Appellant

Dallas, Texas 75206

patrickw@wturley.com

/s/Charles “Chad” Baruch
Exhibit
23.2




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (No 333-21735, No. 333-50293 and 333-131692) of KSW, Inc. of our report
dated February 15, 2007, except for certain subsequent events
previously reported, as to which the dates are March 6, 2007 and March 8,
2007, respectively, relating to the consolidated statements of income,
comprehensive income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows which are
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




/s/
Marden, Harrison & Kreuter


Certified
Public Accountants, P.C.




White
Plains, New York


March 23,
2009
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,

Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Intervenor

______________________

2018-1768

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-

01621.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Polaris Innovations Limited moves unopposed to dismiss the above-captioned appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. 

P. 42(b) with each side to bear its own costs.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Case: 18-1768 Document: 144 Page: 1 Filed: 06/03/2022
2 POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED v. US

The motion is granted.

June 3, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 3, 2022.

Case: 18-1768 Document: 144 Page: 2 Filed: 06/03/2022
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16568]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC00-71-001


Reliant Energy Northeast Generation, Inc.; Notice of Filing

June 26, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 21, 2000, Reliant Energy Northeast 
Generation, Inc. (Reliant Energy Northeast), tendered for filing a 
supplement to its application, submitted in the above-captioned docket 
on March 31, 2000, under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act. The 
supplement provided certain information regarding the participants in 
the transactions for which Reliant Energy Northeast requests 
authorization.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before July 7, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16568 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2018-2397: Metricolor LLC v. L'Oreal S.A. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"J29quh8bHD\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2397-metricolor-llc-v-loreal-sa-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-2397: Metricolor LLC v. L’Oreal S.A.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2397-metricolor-llc-v-loreal-sa-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=J29quh8bHD\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-2397: Metricolor LLC v. L’Oreal S.A.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"J29quh8bHD\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Metricolor LLC v. L’Oreal S.A. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-2397 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}