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

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC

|Subsidiary Name                                                                             |  | State/Country
of Organization
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|DIV Capital Corporation                                                                     |  | Delaware                     
|DTS Aviation Services LLC                                                                   |  | Nevada                       
|DynCorp Aerospace Operations LLC                                                            |  | Delaware                     
|DynCorp Aerospace Operations (UK) Ltd.                                                      |  | United Kingdom               
|DynCorp (Aust.) Pty. Limited                                                                |  | Australia                    
|DynCorp International FZ-LLC                                                                |  | United Arab Emirates         
|DynCorp International Private Limited                                                       |  | Singapore                    
|DynCorp International Services LLC                                                          |  | Virginia                     
|DynCorp International Services GmbH                                                         |  | Germany                      
|Dyn Marine Services LLC                                                                     |  | California                   
|Dyn Marine Services of Virginia LLC                                                         |  | Virginia                     
|Global Linguist Solutions LLC                                                               |  | Delaware                     
|Global Nation Building LLC                                                                  |  | Delaware                     
|Services International LLC                                                                  |  | Delaware                     
|Worldwide Humanitarian Services LLC                                                         |  | Delaware                     
|Worldwide Recruiting and Staffing Services LLC (f/k/a DynCorp International of Nigeria LLC) |  | Delaware                     

---



QuickLinks
(Reap. Dec. 11104)

#### Manhattan Novelty Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 878730.

(Decided November 18, 1965)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Judge:

The following appeal for reappraisement is before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> That the merchandise covered by the above appeal for reappraisement consists of guitars exported from Japan subsequent to February 27,1958.

> That the guitars are not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958; and that the said merchandise was entered for consumption subsequent to February 27,1958.

> That the issues and facts involved herein are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Manhattan Novelty Corp.*v. *United*States, Reap. Dec. 10888, wherein it was held that a buying commission paid to Hiraoka & Co., Ltd. by the plaintiff is a nondutiable item; and that the record in said case may be incorporated in and made a part of the record herein.

> That on or about the date of exportation of the said merchandise, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold, or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the appraised value, less the buying commission, as stated on the invoice.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above appeal for reappraisement may be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in *692question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value is the appraised value, less the buying commission, as stated on the invoice.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6798
LONNIE MCDONOVAN GHOLSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-94-909-N) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 5, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lonnie McDonovan Gholson, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Gholson v. Angelone , No. CA-94-909-N (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 1996). We dispensewith 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.

DISMISSED
# Tonya Hoover

**U.S. Fire Administration**
Deputy Administrator

Tonya Hoover is currently serving in the role of Deputy Fire Administrator at the United States Fire Administration (USFA).

As the senior career federal fire official, she is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the USFA. This includes the annual training of over 100,000 first responders at and through the National Fire Academy (NFA); the National Fire Incident Reporting System, which documents and analyzes 27 million fire department emergency responses a year; the USFA’s fire prevention, public information and public education programs; and the 26 campus buildings and the grounds of the historic National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg, Maryland. She was named to this position in February 2020.

Chief Hoover is an accomplished executive with more than 20 years of management experience in both local and state government. She has successfully worked at high levels of government in developing and implementing fire protection, fire prevention, fire training and community risk reduction programs.

From May 2017 to January 2020, Chief Hoover served as the superintendent of the USFA’s NFA, which focuses on enhancing the ability of fire and emergency services and allied professionals to deal more effectively with fire and related emergencies. She currently serves in the position until a new superintendent is named.

From July 2009 to July 2016, Chief Hoover served as the California State Fire Marshal, where she was responsible for statewide fire prevention, fire service training, pipeline safety, code and regulations development, and analysis and implementation. She was the California assistant state fire marshal from September 2007 to June 2009. Previously, Chief Hoover served as a fire marshal/battalion chief for a local fire department and was a deputy campus fire marshal for the University of California at Berkeley. Chief Hoover served on the board of directors for the National Fire Protection Association and the International Fire Service Training Association and continues to engage with the International Code Council.

Chief Hoover received her MBA in Business and Human Resources from the University of Phoenix in 2006 and a Bachelor of Science in Technical Education, specializing in Fire Protection and Safety, from Oklahoma State University in 1985. She holds an associate degree in Fire Protection Engineering Technology (also from Oklahoma State University) and possesses a California lifetime teaching credential for fire science.

Last updated November 12, 2021

Return to top
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF VIASOFT, INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              Jurisdiction
                                                                                   of
                                                                              Incorporation
                                                                              -------------
<S>                                                                         <C>
VIASOFT International, Inc.                                                     Delaware

         VIASOFT U.K. Limited*                                                  England

         VIASOFT International GmbH*                                            Germany

         VIASOFT Pty. Ltd.*                                                     Australia

         VIASOFT Benelux, S.A.*                                                 Belgium

         ANASAZI Holdings GmbH*                                                 Germany

                  VALIANT Holdings GmbH*                                        Germany

                  Rottger & Osterberg Software
                   Technik GmbH*                                                Germany

                           R&O (UK) Ltd.*                                       England

                           R&O Inc.*                                            Delaware

VIASOFT de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                                                 Mexico

VIASOFT (FSC), Ltd.                                                             Barbados
</TABLE>

         *Subsidiaries denoted with an asterisk are indirect subsidiaries of
VIASOFT, Inc. and are owned directly by the subsidiary under which its name is
listed.
October 5, 1955

No. 59340.

Suit 4805.

#### Morganite, Inc. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1573 reversed June 28, 1955. C. A. D. 595.
# L_2022067EN.01011201.xml

| 2.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 67/112 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 67/112

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 59 of 28 February 2022
  )

On page 6, entry 675, under the heading ‘Identifying information’:

for:

‘DOB: 21.4.1964

POB: Lviv, Russian Federation

Gender: Male’,

read:

‘DOB: 21.4.1964

POB: Lviv, Ukrainian SSR, (now Ukraine)

Gender: Male’.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 28 , 2013

N o. 04

- 12

- 00816

- CV

Daniel A. BASS,

Appellant

v.

COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- CI

- 19911

The Honorable Mollee Bennett Westfall, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant's second request for reporter's record is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the s aid

court on this 28th day of August, 2013

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 12(A)

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                  SALTON, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        39 WEEKS
                                          ENDED
                                         3/30/02                               YEAR ENDED
(THOUSANDS, EXCEPT RATIOS)             (UNAUDITED)      2001         2000         1999         1998         1997
------------------------------------   -----------    --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
<S>                                    <C>            <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Fixed Charges

  Interest and amortization of debt
  issuance costs on all indebtedness     $ 33,343     $ 39,043     $ 31,102     $ 15,864     $  7,336     $  4,967

  Add interest element implicit in
  rentals                                   2,955        3,724        1,923        1,158          521          394
                                         --------     --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
    Total fixed charges                  $ 36,298     $ 42,767     $ 33,025     $ 17,022     $  7,857     $  5,361

Income
  Income before income taxes             $ 51,563     $ 73,846     $146,903     $ 53,863     $ 32,186     $  6,400
  Add fixed charges                        36,298       42,767       33,025       17,022        7,857        5,361
                                         --------     --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
  Income before fixed charges and
  income taxes                           $ 87,861     $116,613     $179,928     $ 70,885     $ 40,043     $ 11,761
                                         ========     ========     ========     ========     ========     ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges           2.42         2.73         5.45         4.16         5.10         2.19
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12


                      [The Concours Group, Inc. letterhead]





[date]


[name and address]


Dear             :
     ------------

We look forward to the opportunity of having you work with us on The Human
Resources Concours. This letter is just to review our conversations on the ways
we will work together.

We would like you to play three roles:

o        Participating regularly in meetings of the HR Concours, the next of
         which is _______________. We would look to you to be an active
         participant in the discussion and to serve as an adjunct member of
         Concours staff, providing continuity across programs and helping us to
         deepen relationships with program members.

o        Being a team member on HR-oriented Re.sults(sm) research projects (one
         remaining in 1999, beginning in September). Each project involves
         participation in two workshops and a brainstorming day, plus lending
         your experience as we shape the project and develop its results. Each
         project will take around 6 days of your time.

o        Working with Lynn to identify HR executives who might be interested in
         participating in the HR Concours or individual Re.sults(sm) projects.

In addition, we would like to add you to our advisory board, the group of
outside experts and good friends of Concours who advise us on research topic
selection and other issues, and who participate regularly in our programs. The
advisory board includes Jim Cash, Jim Wetherbe, Dave Ulrich, Martin Bresler,
Judy Bardwick, Peter Cochrane and Cliff Ehrlich. We are in the process of
enlisting several more.

The compensation structure for your work with us will be:

o        Participating in HR Concours events - $1000/day.

o        Participating in research and all other activities on behalf of
         Concours - $3000/day.

o        Referral fees of 10% of the membership fee for introducing a new member
         to the HR Concours, and $1000/company for introducing new members to
         Re.sults(sm) projects



<PAGE>   2

         (beyond the two projects that are part of their HR Concours
         memberships).

o        Grant of an option on 5000 shares of Concours Group stock (at the
         current option price of $5.00) in recognition of your joining our
         advisory board.

o        Of course, we reimburse all travel expenses.

We hope this arrangement is attractive to you, not only financially (which we
realize is a minor consideration), but more importantly in terms of meeting your
interests and availability. The HR Concours is an exciting (and strategic)
extension of our services, and we very much look forward to and appreciate your
help in making it a success.

Best regards,



Ronald P. Christman, Ph.D.                             Lynn D. Keehan, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer                                Executive Vice President

LDK/em

Agreed to and accepted:


-----------------------------
Name


-----------------------------
Date
Before the Second Division,

March 21, 1961

No. 65312.

#### Chain Bike Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/13798, etc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Opinion filed December 31, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

____________

Nos. 11-15-00303-CR & 11-15-00304-CR

____________

AMBER DAWN RUSSELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 118th District Court

Howard County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 14568 & 14569

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Amber Dawn Russell, entered into a plea agreement with the 

State and pleaded guilty to two offenses of delivery of a controlled substance. In 

each case, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment in accordance with the 

terms of her plea agreement at confinement for two years in a state jail facility, to 

run concurrently. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the 

appeals. 
2

This court notified Appellant by letters dated November 24, 2015, that we 

had received information from the trial court that Appellant waived her right of 

appeal in each case and that these are plea-bargain cases in which Appellant has no 

right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). We requested that Appellant 

respond and show grounds to continue the appeals. Appellant has not filed a 

response. 

Rule 25.2(a)(2) provides that, in a plea bargain case in which the punishment 

does not exceed the punishment agreed to in the plea bargain, “a defendant may 

appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled 

on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” The 

documents on file in each of these appeals reflect that Appellant entered into a plea 

bargain, that her punishment was assessed in accordance with the plea bargain, that 

Appellant waived her right to appeal, and that the trial court denied Appellant’s 

request for permission to appeal. The trial court’s certifications were signed by

Appellant, Appellant’s counsel, and the judge of the trial court. The trial court 

certified in each case that Appellant has no right of appeal. The documents on file 

in this court support the trial court’s certifications and show that Appellant waived 

her right of appeal in both cases. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). Accordingly, we must dismiss these appeals without further action. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2006).

Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

December 31, 2015

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
No. 60321.

protest 267317-K (New York).

#### Aero Sea Shipping Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

An examination of the papers in the case showing that the protest was not filed within the 60-day period provided by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, the protest was dismissed as untimely.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code
  (i)
    
    The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Technology Solutions Company.
 Date:  August 15, 2005
    By:
    /s/ MICHAEL R. GORSAGEMichael R. GorsageChief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 303 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 303

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 12, 2000

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives 
         and a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, April 
13, 2000, or Friday, April 14, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, for morning-
hour debate, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified 
to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns 
at the close of business on Thursday, April 13, 2000, or Friday, April 
14, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by 
its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned 
until noon on Tuesday, April 25, 2000, or such time on that day as may 
be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to 
recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 12, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------




We consent to the use in this  registration  statement  of our report dated July
10, 2003 on the financial  statements for Rub A Dub Soap,  Inc. as of the period
from  inception  (September  28,  2001)  to May 31,  2003,  May 31,  2002 and to
references to our firm as accounting and auditing experts in the prospectus.



Denver, Colorado
September 9, 2003

                                                           /s/Comiskey & Company
                                                        PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION