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

SUBSIDIARIES

THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF THE COMPANY'S SUBSIDIARIES:

|NAME                                             |  | ORGANIZED UNDER LAWS OF
|------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dataskills, Inc.                                 |  | Massachusetts          
|Keane Federal Systems, Inc.                      |  | Delaware               
|Keane Canada, Inc.                               |  | Canada                 
|169963 Canada, Inc.                              |  | Canada                 
|Keane Securities Corporation                     |  | Massachusetts          
|Keane Australia Pty Ltd.                         |  | Australia              
|Keane Australia Micropayment Consortium Pty Ltd. |  | Australia              
|Keane UK Ltd.                                    |  | United Kingdom         
|Keane Ltd.                                       |  | United Kingdom         
|Keane Care, Inc                                  |  | Washington             
|Keane India Holdings, Inc.                       |  | Delaware               
|Keane Mauritius Ltd. One                         |  | Mauritius              
|Keane Mauritius Ltd. Two                         |  | Mauritius              
|Keane India Ltd.                                 |  | India                  
|Keane Worldzen, Inc.                             |  | Delaware               
|Keane Inc. PAC                                   |  | Delaware               
|Keane Foundation, Inc.                           |  | Massachusetts          
|Keane Delaware Corporation                       |  | Delaware               
|Keane General Partnership                        |  | Massachusetts          
|Keane Massachusetts, LLC                         |  | Massachusetts          

---



QuickLinks
No. 54053.

#### Star Notion & Trimming Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 545408-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA J. SANDEN, )

) CIV. S-04-2062 GEB GGH

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) ORDER

MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary, )

Department of Agriculture, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On May 17, 2005, a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order was

filed in this case. Today it was brought to my attention that the

Scheduling Order was not served on Plaintiff because her counsel has

not submitted a pro hac vice application to practice in this District

as required by Local Rule 83-180(b)(2). Since Plaintiff’s counsel has

not sought to be admitted to practice as Plaintiff’s counsel pro hac

vice, this action is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court

is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff’s counsel by

mail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02062-GEB-GGH Document 13 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 8673)

Entry No. W-06470.

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

(Decided October 10, 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 merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above, with the exception of the merchandise, Item T5149 contained in cases No. 737/746 and Item T5151 contained in cases 750/754 and 755/756, inclusive, purchased from Ono Rubber KK of Tokyo, 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 additions made to meet the advances by the Appraiser in similar eases covering the non-dutiable so-called (P. O. B.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage added by the importer on entry.

> 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 *530the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, except the merchandise item T5149 contained in cases No. 737/746 and item T5151 contained in cases 750/754 and 755/756, inclusive, purchased from the Ono Rubber KK of Tokyo, and that such values were the appraised values, less additions made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering the nondutiable so-called (f. o. b.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling, and lighterage; added by the importer on entry.

Insofar as the appeal relates to the merchandise item T5149 contained in cases No. 737/746 and item T5151 contained in cases 750/754 and 755/756, inclusive, purchased from the Ono Rubber KK of Tokyo, it is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 58557.

protests 192163-K, etc. (New York).

#### Paul A. Straub & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 10 percent under paragraph 1547 (a), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476); and (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 20 percent under said paragraph of the tariff act.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER JAMES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1574 FCD PAN P

vs.

J. SOLIS, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file and serve a traverse. Good

cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s July 13, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve a traverse. 

DATED: July 26, 2006.

/mp

jame1574.111

Case 2:04-cv-01574-FCD-KJN Document 19 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 1
hifr-ex102_437.htm



Exhibit 10.2

 

SECOND AMENDMENT

to Tenth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement

(Stanton/Brady/Celeste Lease)

September 29, 2016

 

This Second Amendment to the Tenth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement (the “Second Amendment”) between Sharyland Distribution and Transmission Services, L.L.C. (“Lessor”) and Sharyland Utilities, L.P. (“Lessee”) is executed and delivered on September 29, 2016 and is effective as of September 22, 2016.  Capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined will have the meanings assigned to such terms in the S/B/C Lease (as defined below).

 

WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee are Parties to a Third Amended and Restated Lease Agreement (Stanton/Brady/Celeste Assets) dated as of December 31, 2015 (as amended from time to time in accordance with its terms, the “S/B/C Lease”);

 

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2016, the Parties executed the Tenth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement (Stanton/Brady/Celeste Lease) effective as of January 1, 2016 (the “Tenth Amended Supplement”);

 

WHEREAS, on June 20, 2016, the Parties executed the First Amendment to the Tenth Amended Supplement in order to update the ERCOT Transmission Rate Allocation effective as of June 13, 2016; and

 

WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to further amend the Tenth Amended Supplement as set forth herein.

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree to the following:

 

1.Amendment.  The table titled “ERCOT Transmission Rate Allocation” is hereby amended by deleting the table in its entirety and replacing the same with the following:

 

ERCOT Transmission Rate


	
Allocation:
	
before June 20, 2013:  0%

	
 
	
between June 20 and October 17, 2013:  6.9%

	
 
	
between October 17 and February 25, 2014:  3.4%

	
 
	
between February 25 and May 1, 2014:  8.5%

	
 
	
between May 1 and October 3, 2014:  8.3%

	
 
	
between October 3, 2014 and March 31, 2015:  7.3%

	
 
	
between April 1, 2015 and October 31, 2015:  10.5%

	
 
	
between November 1, 2015 and June 13, 2016:  17.8%

	
 
	
between June 13, 2016 and September 22, 2016:  20.4%

	
 
	
starting on September 22, 2016:  17.6%




 

2.Continuing Effect.  Except as expressly amended by this Second Amendment, the provisions of each of the S/B/C Lease and the Tenth Amended Supplement are and shall remain in full force and effect.

[Signatures on Following Page]


Stanton Brady Celeste Lease

 



The Parties have executed this Second Amendment as of the date set forth above.

 

 


	
 
	
SHARYLAND UTILITIES, L.P.




 


	
 
	
By:/s/ Greg Wilks

	
 
	
Name:Greg Wilks

	
 
	
Title:Chief Financial Officer




 

 


	
 
	
SHARYLAND DISTRIBUTION &

	
 
	
TRANSMISSION SERVICES, L.L.C.




 


	
 
	
By:/s/ Brant Meleski

	
 
	
Name:Brant Meleski

	
 
	
Title:Chief Financial Officer




 

Stanton Brady Celeste Lease
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 

Jeffrey Marshall,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1694 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

Sheriff Gary R. Stanton,

et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoMarch 14, 2005, plaintiff requested an extension of time to

file and serve objections to findings and recommendations. Since

the court had made no findings and recommendations as of that

date, plaintiff’s request is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: May 12, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01694-LKK -EFB Document 24 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 1
GOVERNORGREGAEEOTTSeptember18,2015Ms.JanetG.McCabeAssistantAdministratorOffrceofAirandRadiationU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency1200PennsylvaniaAvenue,NVy'Washington,D.C.20760DearMs.McCabe:PursuanttoSection107(d)oftheFederalCleanAirAct,pleasefindtheattachedproposedsulfurdioxidedesignationsfromDr.BryanW.Shaw,ChairmanoftheTexasCommissiononEnvironmentalQuality.Sincerely,GregAbbottGovernorGA:jzkAttachmentPosrOrHcrBoxl2429AusrrN,TEXAS7871L512-463-2000(VorcE)Dt/.tT-L-'l.FoRRELAYSEnvlcss
No. 58036.

protests 192216-K, etc. (New York).

#### H. Z. Bernstein Co., Inc., and Herman Antin Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of resistors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 57045, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY JACKSON SEELEY

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1800 DFL CMK P

vs.

TERSEA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel,

brings this action against defendants alleging violations of his First Amendment rights and of

his statutory rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). 

Currently before the court is defendants’ “Request for Judicial Notice of Complaint Plaintiff

Served on Defendants.” (Doc. 93). 

On March 10, 2005, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to file an amended

complaint, and directed the clerk to file the proposed amended complaint submitted by plaintiff

on March 7, 2005. The March 7, 2005 complaint was fifteen pages long. In the March 10, 2005

order, the court directed the Clerk of the Court to send plaintiff, among other things, USM-285

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 94 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 3
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

forms and a copy of the March 7, 2005 amended complaint. Plaintiff was to complete the forms

and return the forms and copies of the complaint to the court for service. Plaintiff submitted the

documents on March 21, 2005. 

The complaint which plaintiff submitted for service and which was served on

defendants was the March 7, 2005 fifteen page amended complaint plus an additional eighty-one

pages of attachments. Defendants have now submitted the compliant and the attachments which

were served on them and have requested judicial notice. 

Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court takes

judicial notice of the complaint which was served on defendants. Further, the court finds that the

complaint served on defendants is the operative complaint in this proceeding. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted;

2. The complaint served on defendants is the operative complaint in this action;

and

3.. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the complaint which was served on

defendants, which is attached to Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice of the Complaint

Plaintiff Served on Defendants” (doc. 93) as exhibit 1, parts A and B.

DATED: February 9, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 94 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 2:04-cv-01800-DFL-CMK Document 94 Filed 02/10/06 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas E. Mills, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AMP Productions,
Ltd.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)     presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5.     I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

6.     I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

November 13, 2009



By /s/ Thomas Mills
Thomas E. Mills
President,  Chief  Executive  Officer,
Chief  Financial  Officer,  and
Principal Accounting Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SARAH L. MAY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 20

- 35306

D.C. No. 3:19

- cv

- 05393

- MLP

ORDER *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Michelle L. Peterson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 5, 2021

Seattle, Washington

Before: CHRISTEN and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and SILVER, * * District

Judge.

The Commissioner’s unopposed motion to vacate the district court’s

judgment affirming the Commissioner’s final decision and to remand this case to

the district court is granted

. Dkt. No. 43. The district court’s judgment is therefore

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

* * The Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, United States District Judge for the

District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

vacated, and we remand to the district court with instru ctions to remand the case to

the agency for further proceedings consistent with Carr v. Saul , 141 S. Ct. 1352

(2021).

VACATED and REMANDED.
(Reap. Dec. 8632)

Entry No. 5167, etc.

#### Naumes Forwarding Service *v.*United States

(Decided August 31, 1956)

*Wallace & Schwartz*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been *491limited, by stipulation between tbe parties, to “sewing machines, sewing machine heads or parts of sewing machines exported from Germany” that are covered by the entries listed in said schedule “A.”

These appeals are before me on an agreed set of facts, sufficient to establish that cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for appraisement, and that such statutory value for the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is the appraised value, less the amount added under duress, and I so hold.

As to all other merchandise covered by these appeals for reappraisement, they have been abandoned, and are, therefore, dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
66°E

65°45'E

65°30°E

‘
U

é-|_2

Jo.
- ——99“.8fSs]s]5 5] 2 === —<—=—

aes ee . ae 5
N for al 2
pe : :
4 > |
i \ 4 a* ! '
ape, UTE RS : ier
Rede ey | eX ! ‘=
ns .TM ~ 7 ie ( =. » 4 &! te
=) oul 4 , * Ree | 3y y
— Se a ~ m a =$-----} re ae en ees em ee = ne! ats * =a
| ae Pe > 4 bs *
. . » ; ; i i aS
x : 1 a. i] " |
ms 1 s. ‘ a a
\ H —— 3 +t = LV
% ‘em : i] i
pesell sie, } \ Po -, \ “eo r - ~y \. 7 , a i Hi t \
fom] Se fam] i=) oS i=) oO
So So i=) i=) So i=) So
S S S S S oS S
S S S ra) S S o
ae) N — Or [@)) co zt
de) CO se) CO = Ln LO =— Lf
op) > ise) isp) O> ise)

32°45'N

10 KILOMETERS

5 MILES

Image quadrant or tile

Peak

A

L_

EXPLANATION

City, town, or village
Province boundary

O

—-— Stream, mostly intermittant

— Road
Before Judge Watson,

March 14, 1968

No. R68/20.

reappraisements R65/11140, etc. (New York).

#### Mantell Export Co. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and merchandise involved herein are the same in all material respects as those in *Mantell Export Company*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 662, R.D. 11290), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, was the proper basis for the determination of the value of the unlacquered second-quality wooden coat hangers and that such value in each case was $99 per thousand, less the pro rata share of the items of ocean freight and marine insurance as invoiced.
No. 64147.

protests 59/12166, etc. (New York).

#### Distilled Brands, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*458Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as-manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 56440.

protests 478567-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Great Western Mercantile Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 75-6844.

#### Benavides *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.