alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 21.1****SUBSIDIARIES**   **Company** **Jurisdiction of Organization**PRG-Schultz USA, Inc. GeorgiaThe Profit Recovery Group Asia  PRG-Schultz Australia  PRG-Schultz Belgium  PRG-Schultz Canada  The Profit Recovery Group Costa Rica  The Profit Recovery Group New Zealand  The Profit Recovery Group Netherlands  The Profit Recovery Group Mexico  PRG-Schultz France  The Profit Recovery Group Germany  The Profit Recovery Group South Africa  PRG-Schultz Switzerland  The Profit Recovery Group Italy  The Profit Recovery Group Spain  PRG-Schultz Portugal  PRG International  PRG USA  PRG-Schultz Scandinavia  PRG-Schultz Japan, Inc.  PRG-Schultz Puerto Rico, Inc.  PRG-Schultz Chile, Inc.  PRG-Schultz Europe, Inc.  The Profit Recovery Group Holdings Mexico, S de RL de CV MexicoThe Profit Recovery Group Servicios Mexico S de RL de CV MexicoThe Profit Recovery Group de Mexico S de RL de CV  The Profit Recovery Group Argentina S.A. ArgentinaProfit Recovery Brasil Ltda. BrazilPRG-Schultz International PTE LTD SingaporePRG-Schultz Suzhou’ Co Ltd. ChinaPRG International CR s.r.o. Czech RepublicPRGFS, Inc. DelawareHS&A Acquisition — UK Inc. TexasMeridian Corporation Limited Jersey (Channel Islands)Tamebond Limited United KingdomJA Ewing, Inc. New YorkMeridian VAT Reclaim Operations Limited IrelandPRG-Schultz Ireland LTD  PRG-Schultz UK Ltd. United KingdomMeridian VAT Processing (International) Limited IrelandMeridian VAT Processing (N. America) Limited  Meridian VAT Processing (Japan) Limited  
 

 
   **Company** **Jurisdiction of Organization**VATClaim International (Ireland) Limited  Meridian VAT Reclaim, Inc. DelawareMeridian VAT Reclaim Canada, Inc. CanadaMeridian VAT Reclaim Hong Kong Limited Hong KongMeridian VAT Reclaim (India) Private Limited India Meridian VAT Reclaim (UK) Limited United KingdomMeridian, Inc. JapanMeridian VAT Reclaim (Schwiez) AG SwitzerlandMeridian VAT Reclaim GmbH GermanyMeridian VAT Reclaim Services Limited United KingdomMeridian VAT Reclaim France S.A.R.L. FranceMeridian Sverige AB SwedenMeridian VAT Reclaim Korea Co., Limited South KoreaMeridian VAT Reclaim (Australia) Pty. Limited AustraliaVAT Claim (International) UK Limited United KingdomPRG-Schultz Canada Corp. CanadaPRG-Schultz (Deutschland) GmbH GermanyPRG-Schultz Nederland B.V. NetherlandsPRG-Schultz Italia SRL ItalyPRG-Schultz Puerto Rico Puerto RicoPRG-Schultz Peru S.R.L. PeruPRG-Schultz Colombia Ltda ColumbiaPRG-Schultz Svenska A. B. SwedenPRG-Schultz Venezuela S. R. L. VenezuelaPRG-Schultz Chile Ltda ChilePRG-Schultz Polska Sp. Zo. O. PolandHoward Schultz & Associates (Asia) Limited Hong KongHS&A International PTE LTD SingaporePRG-Schultz (Thailand) Co., Limited ThailandHoward Schultz de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. MexicoPRGDS, LLC GeorgiaPRGTS, LLC GeorgiaVATClaim International (Ireland) Limited  Meridian VAT Reclaim, Inc. DelawareMeridian VAT Reclaim Canada, Inc. Canada
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 60303 Summary Calendar

CECILIA YANIRA CHAVEZ

- LOPEZ, also known as Cecilia Yaniera Chavez

Lopez , Petitioner

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 895 824

Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Cecilia Yanira Chavez

- Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal of the denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal by an immigration judge (IJ) . Chavez

- Lopez argues that (1) the IJ and BIA should have applied a mixed motive standard because

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-60303 Document: 00514667962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2018N o. 17

- 60303

2 membership in a particular social group need not be the sole reason for her persecution and (2) there was not substantial evidence to support the finding that she was being persecuted due to a personal dispute. Generally, we have authority to revie w only the decision of the BIA but will consider the IJ’s decision if it influenced the determination of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales , 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the BIA agreed with the IJ’s findings and conclusions , the IJ’s findings are reviewable. See Enriquez

- Gutierrez v. Holder , 612 F.3d 400, 407 (5th Cir. 2010)

. We review f

indings of fact for substantial evidence , and we review rulings of law de novo. See Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009) ; Zhu , 493 F.3d at 594

. Contrary to Chavez

- Lopez’s assertion that the IJ and BIA applied the
wrong legal standard to her claims for asylum and withholding of removal , the record reveals that the IJ at least implicitly considered the mixed motive test and explicitly concluded that Chavez

- Lopez’s membership in a particular social group was not a central reason for her persecution. Moreover, such claim s will fail if the persecution is based on a purely personal motive and there is no nexus to a recognized ground. See Thuri v. Ashcroft , 380 F.3d 788, 792

- 93 (5th Cir. 2004). Substantial record evidence supports the IJ’s and the BIA’s conclusion that Chavez

- Lopez’s persec ution was the result of a personal business dispute. See i d. at 792

- 93. Chavez

- Lopez has not demonstrated that the evidence compels reversal of the BIA’s finding that she was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. See Chen v. Gonzales , 470 F. 3d 1131, 1134

- 38 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, her petition for review is DENIED. Case: 17-60303 Document: 00514667962 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2018
§ 38.10-10 Cargo piping—TB/ALL. ( a ) The piping shall be designed for a working pressure of not less than the maximum pressure to which it may be subjected but in no case less than the design pressure of the cargo tanks. In the case of piping on the discharge side of the liquid pumps or vapor compressors, the design pressure shall not be less than the pump or compressor discharge relief valve setting; or, provided the piping is not protected by relief valves, the design pressure shall not be less than the total discharge head of the pump or compressor.
( b ) Piping subject to tank pressure shall be seamless drawn steel or electric resistance welded steel. Pipe used in refrigerated tank systems shall be of a material which is suitable for the minimum service temperature to which it may be subjected, according to the requirements of part 56 of subchapter F (Marine Engineering) of this chapter.
( c ) Piping shall be provided with adequate support to take the weight of the piping off valves and fittings and to prevent excessive vibration and stresses on tank connections.
( d ) For nonpressure vessel type tanks, the cargo handling arrangements and piping shall provide for emptying of a damaged tank, including cargo contained by a secondary barrier.
[CGFR 66-33, 31 FR 15269, Dec. 6, 1966, as amended by CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18807, Dec. 18, 1968]
§ 169.247 Fire fighting equipment. ( a ) At each inspection for certification and periodic inspection and at such other times as considered necessary, all fire extinguishing equipment must be inspected to ensure it is in suitable condition. Tests may be necessary to determine the condition of the equipment. The inspector must verify that the following tests and inspections have been conducted by a qualified servicing facility at least once every 12 months: ( 1 ) Portable fire extinguishers and semi-portable fire extinguishing systems must be inspected and maintained in accordance with NFPA 10 (incorporated by reference, see § 169.115) as amended here: ( i ) Certification or licensing as fire extinguisher servicing agency by a state or local authority having jurisdiction will be accepted by the Coast Guard as meeting the personnel certification requirements of NFPA 10 for annual maintenance and recharging of extinguishers.
( ii ) Monthly inspections required by NFPA 10 may be conducted by the owner, operator, person-in-charge, or a designated member of the crew.
( iii ) Non-rechargeable or non-refillable extinguishers must be inspected and maintained in accordance with NFPA 10; however, the annual maintenance need not be conducted by a certified person and can be conducted by the owner, operator, person-in-charge, or a designated member of the crew.
( iv ) The owner or managing operator must provide satisfactory evidence of the required servicing to the marine inspector. If any of the equipment or records have not been properly maintained, a qualified servicing facility must perform the required inspections, maintenance procedures, and hydrostatic pressure tests. A tag issued by a qualified servicing organization, and attached to each extinguisher, may be accepted as evidence that the necessary maintenance procedures have been conducted.
( 2 ) All parts of the fixed fire extinguishing systems must be examined for excessive corrosion and general condition. Table 169.247(a)(1) of this section provides detailed inspection and test requirements of fixed systems.
( 3 ) Piping, controls, valves, and alarms on all fire extinguishing systems must be checked to be certain the system is in operating condition.
( 4 ) The fire main system is operated and the pressure checked at the most remote and highest outlets.
( 5 ) Each firehose is subjected to a test pressure equivalent to its maximum service pressure.
( b ) [Reserved]
Table 169.247(a)(1)—Fixed Systems
Type of system
Test Carbon dioxide or HALON 1301
Weigh cylinders. Recharge if weight loss exceeds 10 percent of weight of the charge.
[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48295, July 22, 2016]
**DISTRIBUTORSHIP AGREEMENT**

 

**THIS DISTRIBUTORSHIP AGREEMENT**(this “Agreement”) is made and entered into this 27 day of February, 2009 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Aura Systems, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal offices in Los Angeles, California (“Company”), and WePower LLC, a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal offices in Los Angeles, California (the “Distributor”).

 

RECITALS

 

A.    Company has designed, invented and developed a unique, integrated electromagnetic mobile power generation system capable of delivering on-demand both AC and DC power for numerous end-uses, including without limitation, industrial, commercial, recreational and military applications as further described on Exhibit A attached to this Agreement (the “AuraGen”).

 

B.        The AuraGen is the subject of substantial proprietary information, including but not limited to patents, trademarks, trade secrets, know-how, and confidential information owned by the Company.

 

C.        Distributor has acquired the rights to a patented vertical wind turbine that is used to generate electricity using wind power.

 

D.        Distributor is engaged in the business of developing and marketing energy solutions around the world, including without limitation wind energy solutions.

 

F.        The Company wishes to appoint Distributor as its exclusive commercial distributor for all applications in the Field of Use worldwide and is willing to grant a limited right to Distributor to use, service and manufacture the AuraGen in strict accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein and Distributor wishes to be so appointed.

 

Accordingly, in consideration of their mutual covenants and obligations contained herein, and the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom, Company and Distributor (collectively the “Parties”), intending to be legally bound, do hereby covenant and agree as follows:

 

**ARTICLE**1. DEFINITIONS

 

1.1       Aura Proprietary Rights. The term “Aura Proprietary Rights” means all Aura Technology, Aura Trademarks, data, inventions, information (including, without limitation, Confidential Information of Company), processes, know-how, trade secrets, sketches, prototypes, notebooks, papers, drawings, formulae (including copies or extracts thereof) and similar intellectual property rights which Company has or may hereafter develop and which are necessary or useful for the development, manufacture, or sale of the Products or any components of the Products. Further, Aura Proprietary Rights shall include all analyses, specifications, proposals, reports or other information, data or documents (whether in raw, preliminary or final form) and all inventions, discoveries, modifications and improvements, whether or not

 

*OC 286,372,449v1 2-20-09*

 

----
Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”), as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rick
      Berry, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





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





2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/
                          RICK BERRYRick
                            Berry
                          Chief
                            Financial Officer


August
      9,
      2007




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and will be retained by Sanders Morris Harris
      Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
#### Porter C. Kingsburg and George Daniels, *Appellants, v.*George W. Earle and William S. Earle, Respondents.

Motion for leave to go to the Court of Appeals denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2359 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2359

To ensure parity between the temporary duty imposed on ethanol and tax 
                      credits provided on ethanol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2009

Mr. Engel (for himself and Mr. Bartlett) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure parity between the temporary duty imposed on ethanol and tax 
                      credits provided on ethanol.

    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 ``Imported Ethanol Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. ETHANOL TAX PARITY.

    Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
and semiannually thereafter, the President shall reduce the temporary 
duty imposed on ethanol under subheading 9901.00.50 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States by an amount equal to the 
reduction in any Federal income or excise tax credit under section 
40(h), 6426(b), or 6427(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
take any other action necessary to ensure that the combined temporary 
duty imposed on ethanol under such subheading 9901.00.50 and any other 
duty imposed under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
is equal to, or lower than, any Federal income or excise tax credit 
applicable to ethanol under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                                 <all>
```
**Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 October 2012 — Ellinika Nafpigeia and Hoern v Commission**

**(Case T­-466/11)**

Action for annulment — State aid — Shipbuilding — Aid granted by the Greek authorities to a shipyard — Measures implementing the Commission’s decision finding the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering that it
be repaid — Inadmissibility

1.                     *Proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute
— Application initiating proceedings not sufficiently clear and precise — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General
Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 19-22)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Date on which national authorities communicated
the contested measure to the applicant — Precise knowledge of the contents — Action brought after expiry of the time-limit
— Inadmissibility (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(2)) (see paras 24-26)*

3.                     *Proceedings — Measures of organisation of procedure — Request for production of documents — Documents constituting the contested
decision — Documents not identified by the applicant — Inadmissibility of the application (Rules of Procedure of the General
Court, Arts 44(1)(c), 64 and 65) (see paras 28, 29)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission letter C(2010) 8274 final of 1 December 2010 relating to ‘State aid case CR 16/2004 — Implementation of the negative Decision with recovery concerning State aid in favour of [the company Ellinika Nafpigeia AE] — Invocation by Greece of Article 346 paragraph 1(b) TFEU and proceedings under Article 348 paragraph 1 TFEU’, as supplemented by the documents and other material on the file of which the applicants became partially aware in June 2011. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | There is no need to adjudicate on the application by Nafpigikes kai viomichanikes epicheiriseis Elefsinas for leave to intervene. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | The applicant for leave to intervene, Nafpigikes kai viomichanikes epicheiriseis Elefsinas, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending October 28, 2006

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                         | End of Comment Period                                  
|----------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|HNB BANCORP INC   | 3A1            | HNB Bancorp, Inc, Halifax, PA, to form a bank holding company by acquiring 100% of the voting shares of Halifax National Bank, Halifax, PA, pursuant to Section 225.17 of Regulation Y. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | Not applicable
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,087
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,087
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,020,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,798
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,258
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,001,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,020,226
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (96,829)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (96,829)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (96,829)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (96,829)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.011)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.011)


</TABLE>
#### Valentine Walter, *Appellant, v.*Conrad Stein and Alexander Stein, *Respondents*.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, with costs to abide event. Opinion by

Daniels, J.