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



Exhibit 21.1


Subsidiaries of OpenTV Corp.


As of December 31, 2005




|                                               |  |                             
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Name of the Subsidiary                         |  | Jurisdiction of Organization
|                                               |  |                             
|ACTV, Inc.                                     |  | United States (Delaware)    
|ACTV Entertainment, Inc.                       |  | United States (New York)    
|Advision LLC                                   |  | United States (Delaware)    
|BettingCorp. UK Ltd.                           |  | United Kingdom              
|Digital Adco, Inc.                             |  | United States (Delaware)    
|HyperTV Networks, Inc.                         |  | United States (Delaware)    
|Intellocity USA, Inc.                          |  | United States (Delaware)    
|Media Online Services, Inc.                    |  | United States (Delaware)    
|OpenGaming Ltd.                                |  | Israel                      
|OpenPlay (BVI) Ltd.                            |  | British Virgin Islands      
|OpenTV AG                                      |  | Switzerland                 
|OpenTV Japan KK                                |  | Japan                       
|OpenTV Australia Pty Ltd                       |  | Australia (New South Wales) 
|OpenTV (Cayman) Digital Solutions              |  | Cayman Islands              
|OpenTV Europe S.A.S.                           |  | France                      
|OpenTV Holding N.V.                            |  | Netherlands Antilles        
|OpenTV Holdings B,V.                           |  | The Netherlands             
|OpenTV Iberia SL                               |  | Spain                       
|OpenTV, Inc.                                   |  | United States (Delaware)    
|OpenTV Interactive Software (Beijing) Co. Ltd. |  | China                       
|OpenTV UK Limited                              |  | United Kingdom              
|OpenTV US Holdings, Inc.                       |  | United States (Delaware)    
|OpenTV US Investments, Inc.                    |  | United States (Delaware)    
|Spyglass, Inc.                                 |  | United States (Delaware)    
|Spyglass Integration, Inc.                     |  | United States (Delaware)    
|Static 2358 France S.A.S.                      |  | France                      
|Static 2358 Holdings Limited                   |  | United Kingdom              
|Static 2358, Inc.                              |  | United States (California)  
|Static 2358 Limited                            |  | United Kingdom              
|Wink Communications, Inc.                      |  | United States (Delaware)    
|4G Media Ltd.                                  |  | British Virgin Islands      
|4G Media Ltd.                                  |  | Turks and Caicos
No. 61354.

protests 298076-K and 300468-K (New York).

#### Trans World Shipping Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4587 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4587

   To amend the Public Health Service Act to include rural emergency 
  hospitals in the definition of a covered entity for purposes of the 
         drug discount program under section 340B of such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2024

  Mr. Peters introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Public Health Service Act to include rural emergency 
  hospitals in the definition of a covered entity for purposes of the 
         drug discount program under section 340B of such Act.

    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 ``Rural 340B Access Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. INCLUDING RURAL EMERGENCY HOSPITALS AS COVERED ENTITIES FOR 
              PURPOSES OF THE DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service 
Act (42 U.S.C. 256b(a)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
                    ``(P)(i) An entity that is a rural emergency 
                hospital (as defined in section 1861(kkk)(2) of the 
                Social Security Act) that is owned or operated by a 
                unit of State or local government, is a public or 
                private non-profit corporation that is formally granted 
                governmental powers by a unit of State or local 
                government, or is a private non-profit rural emergency 
                hospital that has a contract with a State or local 
                government to provide health care services to low 
                income individuals who are not entitled to benefits 
                under title XVIII of the Social Security Act or 
                eligible for assistance under a State plan under title 
                XIX of such Act.
                    ``(ii) In the case of an entity that meets the 
                requirements described in clause (i) after the date of 
                enactment of the Rural 340B Access Act of 2024, such 
                entity shall not be considered to be a covered entity 
                for purposes of this paragraph unless such entity was, 
                as of the date of enactment of the Rural 340B Access 
                Act of 2024, a covered entity under subparagraph (L) of 
                this paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 64878.

#### Hedaya Importing Co., Inc., and Shalom & Co.,

protests 60/17363 and 60/17369 (New York).

*370Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ornamented articles, not wearing apparel, in part of machine-made lace, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59783, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8657)

Entry No. 04054.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided September 26, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the mer-*514ehandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above, with the exception of one case of Miniature Paper Parasols marked T53259, at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value less the addition made to meet the advances by the Appraiser in similar cases covering so-called non-dutiable (F. O. B.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Reap-praisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, except one case of miniature paper parasols marked T53259, and that such value was the appraised value, less the addition made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering so-called non-dutiable (f. o. b.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling, and lighterage.

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it related to one case of miniature paper parasols marked T53259.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Shum Mukherjee, certify that:

1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K/A of OpenTV Corp. for the period ended December 31, 2009; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report.

Date: April 8, 2010



/s/ Shum MukherjeeChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 413 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 413

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the rate of the 
    excise tax on the repurchase of corporate stock, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 14, 2023

  Mr. Brown (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. 
Reed, Mr. Lujan, and Ms. Baldwin) introduced the following bill; which 
        was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the rate of the 
    excise tax on the repurchase of corporate stock, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Stock Buyback Accountability Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO TAX ON REPURCHASE OF CORPORATE STOCK.

    (a) Increase in Rate of Tax.--Section 4501(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``1 percent'' and inserting 
``4 percent''.
    (b) Modification of Adjustments.--Section 4501(c)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The amount'' and inserting the following:
                    ``(A) In general.--The amount'', and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) Exception for stock issued to covered 
                employees.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to so much 
                of the fair market value of any stock issued or 
                provided to an employee who is a covered employee 
                (within the meaning of section 162(m)(3)).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--
            (1) Rate.--The amendment made by subsection (a) section 
        shall apply to repurchases (within the meaning of section 
        4501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) of stock after 
        the date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Adjustments.--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
        shall apply to stock issued or provided after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
NO

. 12

- 15

- 00054

- CV

IN THE

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

T YLER , TEXAS

_________________________

S ABRE E NERGY C ORPORATION , S ON C O H OLDINGS , LLC,

V

AN W. M OUNTS AND E DWIN W ESLEY S ANO

v.

W ELL -P RO S ERVICE S , L.P.

_________________________

Joint Motion to Abate Appeal

A ll parties, jointly, move the Court to abate this appeal, while the parties

finalize a settlement.

1. The appeal has been perfected, but the appellate record is not yet

complete.

2. Subsequent to a mediation ordered by this Court, the parties have agreed

to resolve all their differences. ACCEPTED
12-15-00054-CV
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS
5/11/2015 9:58:44 AM
CATHY LUSK
CLERK3. The settlement is currently execut ory , and should be finalized within 60

days. In the meanwhile, the appellants desire to preserve their appellate

rights, but without incurring further appellate expenses in the int erim.

4. Upon the settlement’s final execution, the parties intend to ask this

Court for entry of further orders as contemplated in the settlement

agreement.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the parties jointly ask the Court

to abate this appeal for 60 days, o r until such time as the parties’ settlement has been

consummated. The parties further request all other relief that this motion may

authorize.

This 11 th day of May, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

RAMEY & FLOCK, P.C. 100 East Ferguson, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 597

- 3301

Facsimile: (903) 597

- 2413

/s/ Greg Smith

G REGORY D. S MITH
State Bar No. 18600600 gsmith@rameyflock.com

A NDREW S. S TINSON
State Bar No. 24028013 andys@rameyflock.com

P AUL G ILLIAM
State Bar No. 07938700 paulg@rameyflock.com

Joint Motion to Abate Appeal Page 2Attorney s for Appellant s

/s/ Kyle Kutch

K

YLE K UTCH Attorney at Law

State Bar No. 11770543 211 East Tyler Street, Suite 600

- G Longview, TX 75601 Telephone: (903) 236

- 8788

Facsimile: (903) 236

- 0015 kyle@kutchlaw.com

Attorney for Appellee

Joint Motion to Abate Appeal Page 3
Exhibit
      32.1




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 General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Commission on February 12, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Zuo Sheng Yu, Chief Executive
      Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and




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




Date:
        February 12, 2007
 /s/
                  Zuo Sheng YuBy:
                  Zuo Sheng YuTitle:
                  Chief Executive Officer and
                  President
1 

### Medina, Dayana

From: Medina, Dayana

Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 4:02 PM

To: McCorkle, Mark

Subject: AECC Bailey and McCellan

Hi Mark,

Thank you for working with us and with AECC to address our concerns regarding the BART analysis for the two units at

Bailey and McClellan. We appreciate the December 23, 2013 response from AECC that was forwarded to us.

EPA believes we can propose approval of the recommended SO2 BART decision for the AECC Bailey and McClellan units.

However, footnote 7 explains that the cost estimate provided by the vendor for the base case fuel oil (i.e., No. 6 fuel oil

with sulfur content between 1.0

– 2.0%) is between $16.00/MMBtu

‐ $16.50/MMBtu, but tables 5

‐ 9 and 5

‐ 10 list the

estimated cost of the base case fuel as $4.68/MMBtu for Bailey and $5.70/MMBtu for McClellan. The $4.68/MMBtu and

$5.70/MMBtu estimates are what was used to calculate the cost of switching from the base case fuel to fuel oil with a

lower sulfur content. AECC has clarified that $4.68/MMBtu and $5.70/MMBtu were used in the calculations because this

was the actual price paid for the fuel oil currently stored at the two plants when it was purchased several years ago.

However, since AECC used these old cost numbers for the base case fuel oil and current cost estimates of lower sulfur

fuel oil to calculate the cost of switching from the base case fuel to lower sulfur fuel, the cost of fuel switching has been

overestimated. Because the BART limit won’t apply until the current supplies of fuel oil are depleted, new purchases will

be subject to today’s higher price. ADEQ should ensure that the cost analysis reflects updated costs of the base case

fuel, as was done for the other fuel scenarios evaluated.

We have no further comments regarding the PM and NOx BART analyses for the Bailey and McClellan units.

Thank you,

Dayana Medina

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division

Air Planning Section (6PD

‐ L)

214

‐ 665

‐ 7241
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financials contained in the body of the accompanying Form 10-K and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financials statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000051124
<NAME> AMERICAN BANKNOTE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           17323
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    63850
<ALLOWANCES>                                       986
<INVENTORY>                                      41686
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                136290
<PP&E>                                          372663
<DEPRECIATION>                                  113939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  503536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            80170
<BONDS>                                         293215
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           211
<OTHER-SE>                                       54830
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    503536
<SALES>                                         336359
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                336359
<CGS>                                           229812
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   298411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (212)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               32762
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5398
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1435)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3840
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (5589)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1749)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)


</TABLE>
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4479 

To require training on the Constitution of the United States for commissioned 

officers of the Armed Forces. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2024 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself and Mr. KAINE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require training on the Constitution of the United States 

for commissioned officers of the Armed Forces. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Constitutional Orienta5 tion Military Mandate Amplifying National Duty Act of 

6 2024’’ or the ‘‘COMMAND Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4479 IS

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRED TRAINING ON CONSTITUTION OF THE 

2 UNITED STATES FOR COMMISSIONED OFFI3 CERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

4 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact5 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure 

6 that all newly commissioned officers of the Armed Forces 

7 receive training on the Constitution of the United States 

8 prior to reporting to their first operational assignment. 

9 The training shall include— 

10 (1) education on the centrality of the Constitu11 tion to the commitment officers make to serve in the 

12 Armed Forces; 

13 (2) emphasis on the loyalty of officers to the 

14 Constitution; and 

15 (3) instruction on certain aspects of the Con16 stitution relevant to military service, including— 

17 (A) civil-military relations; 

18 (B) separation of powers; and 

19 (C) restrictions on the domestic use of 

20 military force. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Patrick Ronald Holley, 

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1425 GEB PAN P

vs. Order

California Department of

Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoFebruary 10, 2005, plaintiff moved for a temporary

restraining order and preliminary injunction but did not serve

the papers upon defendants (who have appeared). Plaintiff states

prison officials confiscated unspecified documents and refused

plaintiff’s request for free photocopy service. It is

accompanied by a letter requesting the court serve the motion on

defendants.

Subsequent filings by plaintiff (viz., March 30, 2005, 102-

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 41 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

page motion to compel; April 28, 2005, 5-page reply re motion to

compel; May 10, 2005, 7-page motion to file supplemental

pleading) bear proof of service upon defendants. Accordingly,

the court infers the problem was isolated or has been cured. 

There is nothing to suggest how claimed confiscation of documents

impacts plaintiff’s ability to pursue this action. 

In these circumstances, the court will not entertain

plaintiff’s request for emergency injunctive relief. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s February 10, 2005, motion for a

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is denied

without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to serve it on

defendants.

So ordered.

Dated: May 31, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 41 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 2