alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT      21**

**SUBSIDIARIES**

| **Legal                  name**                                 | **Jurisdiction                  of incorporation** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                            |                                               |
| NDS                  Limited                                    |  Great                  Britain               |
| News                  Datacom Limited                           |  Great                  Britain               |
| NDS                  Technologies Israel Limited                |  Israel                                       |
| NDS                  Americas, Inc.                             |  Delaware                                     |
| NDS                  Asia Pacific Limited                       |  Hong                  Kong                   |
| Orbis                  Technology Limited                       |  Great                  Britain               |
| NT                  Media Limited                               |  Great                  Britain               |
| Digi-Media                  Vision Limited                      |  Great                  Britain               |
| NDS                  Asia Pacific Pty Limited                   |  Australia                                    |
| NDS                  Marketing Israel Limited                   |  Israel                                       |
| NDS                  Beijing Information Technology Company     |  China                                        |
| NDS                  Denmark A/S                                |  Denmark                                      |
| NDS                  Technologies France SAS                    |  France                                       |
| NDS                  Services Pay-TV Technology Private Limited |  India                                        |
| SVP                  LA LLC                                     |  Delaware                                     |

----
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 18, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1777

Lower Tribunal Nos. 20-363-A-K, 21-21-A-K

________________

Katherine Supp,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark Wilson, Judge.

Katherine Supp, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Natural Resources Conservation Service—Tennessee 

# AGENCY:

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Tennessee, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of proposed changes in the Tennessee NRCS Field Office Technical Guide, Section IV, for review and comment. 

# SUMMARY:

It has been determined by the NRCS State Conservationist for Tennessee that changes must be made in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide, specifically in practice standards Residue and Tillage Management, Mulch Till; Residue and Tillage Management, No-till/Strip Till/Direct Seed; and Residue and Tillage Management, Ridge Till to account for improved technology. These practice standards can be used in conservation systems designed to treat highly erodible cropland. 

# DATES:

Comments will be received for a 30-day period commencing with the date of this publication. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Inquire in writing to Kevin Brown, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 675 U.S. Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee 37203, telephone number (615) 277-2531. Copies of the practice standards will be made available upon written request. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996                           ( print page 13080)                        states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS state technical guides used to perform highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Tennessee will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Tennessee regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made to the subject practice standards.                 

Dated: March 8, 2007. 

Kevin Brown, 

State Conservationist.

 [FR Doc. E7-4961 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14


John Keighley
Diependaalselaan 317
1215 KG Hilversum


Naarden, 4th May 2001


Dear John,

This is to confirm your compensation package as discussed with Klaus Besier
(CEO) and Paul McDermott (CFO) recognizing you as a top performer, key and
senior manager:

Effective as of your most recent "merit date":

-    Base Salary (including Dutch vacation allowance (Function) 350.000. - (45%
     increase);

-    Bonus opportunity 30% of Base Salary;

-    Severance in the event of a Change of Control and your job is eliminated
     (double trigger) equal to 6 months Bases Salary and 10% vesting of stock
     options;

-    Additional stock option grant of 20,000 shares at ($2 - $1.6 - I need to
     verify the date in March and strike price).

We hope this conveys our sincere appreciation of the contribution you make and
the workload you carry intentionally.



Kind regards,
FirePond Europe B.V.


Sandra te Riele
HR Manager Europe & Asia
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 00-202 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EXTRADITION 

 Treaty Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and SAINT LUCIA 

Signed at Castries April 18, 1996 

 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 SAINT LUCIA 

 Extradition 

Treaty signed at Castries April 18, 1996; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate July 30, 1997 (Treaty Doc. 105-19, 

 105th Congress, 1st Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 October 14, 1998 (Senate Executive Report No. 105-23, 

 105th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 October 21, 1998; 

Ratified by the President January 20, 1999; 

Ratified by Saint Lucia December 31, 1999; 

Exchange of instruments of ratification at Washington 

 February 2, 2000; 

Entered into force February 2, 2000.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Ian T. Bothwell, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Rio Vista Energy Partners L.P.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) for the registrantand have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors:a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 21, 2007       /s/ Ian T. Bothwell Ian T. Bothwell,    Chief FinancialOfficer (Principal Accounting andFinancial Officer) of Rio Vista GP LLC,the general partner of Rio Vista EnergyPartners L.P.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Seifi Ghasemi, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
June 28, 2005

|/s/SEIFI GHASEMISeifi Ghasemi
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### Elizabeth Kitchen, Plaintiff, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.) Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc., Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v Delta Airlines, Inc., Fourth-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 167]

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered January 4, 1994, which *sua sponte*amended a prior order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about October 1, 1993, to dismiss fourth-party defendant Delta Airlines, Inc.’s cross claims as moot, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

In the order entered on or about October 1, 1993, the IAS Court granted fourth-party defendant Delta Airlines’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the fourth-party complaint and further awarded it judgment on its cross claims. Delta thereafter moved for an order amending this order to direct the clerk of the court to schedule an inquest to assess damages. In response, the court issued the "supplemental order” from which fourth-party plaintiff Anthony Grace & Sons ("Grace”) is attempting to appeal.

The appeal must be dismissed. Grace did not timely perfect its appeal from the first order (22 NYCRR 600.11 [a] [3]) and concedes that the "supplemental order” now appealed from is a "resettled order”. We also note that Grace was not aggrieved by the modification made in the resettled order. Since the resettled order had no effect upon the issues appealable by Grace arising from the original order, the time to appeal must be measured from the original order, rendering Grace’s present appeal untimely (see, *L.J.B. Corp. v City of New York,*182 *196AD2d 485, *lv denied 80*NY2d 755). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, J'J.
No. 56022.

protests 144665-K (B), etc. (New York).

#### Jahan Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
31 May 2013
U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Re Exemption No. 8801 docket number FAA-2006-26103 Dear Sir/Madam: rization granted in reference docket be extended.
March 2, 1950

No. 54102.

#### Hide Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 136990-K.

Abstract 53989. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

PATRICK CHARLES THOMAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30294

D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00038-DLC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2015** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Patrick Charles Thomas appeals from the district court’s judgment awarding

restitution to the government in the amount of $162,865.36, following Thomas’s

guilty-plea conviction for conversion of secured property, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 658. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

FEB 24 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Thomas contends that the district court erred by awarding restitution based

on the value of properties converted by him because the government subsequently

forgave payment on the loans for which the properties served as collateral,

pursuant to a settlement reached in Keepseagle v. Vilsak. We need not reach this

issue because Thomas has admitted that he did not meet the requirements under the

Keepseagle settlement. The government has recently obtained a civil judgment

against Thomas, based on the court’s finding that Thomas made a fraudulent

Keepseagle claim. See United States v. Thomas, No. 4:13-cv-00094-BMM (D.

Mont. 2014). 

We have reviewed Thomas’s pro se supplemental brief and decline to

consider Thomas’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because the

record is insufficiently developed to evaluate that claim on direct appeal, and

Thomas’s legal representation was not so inadequate as to obviously deny his right

to counsel. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Thomas’s remaining contentions lack merit. 

AFFIRMED.

2 13-30294
No. 51067.

#### Protests 116689-K, etc., of Abbott Drug Co. et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Iíeefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 8269)

#### Medana Watch Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 760157, etc.

(Decided December 18, 1953)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiffs.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part of this decision, cover various importations of pocket watches and wrist watches which were appraised as entireties on the basis of foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938.

*431It is plaintiffs’ claim that the watchcases, watch movements, and leather straps, comprising the entireties, should have been separately appraised on the basis of cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)).

By written stipulation of the parties hereto, the following facts have been agreed upon:

(1) That there is no foreign or export value or United States value as those terms are defined in section 402 (c), (d), and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, *sufra,*for the cases and movements, comprising the pocket watches, and for the cases, movements, and leather straps, comprising the wrist watches, or for similar cases, movements, or leather straps.

(2) That pursuant to the principles stated in *United States*v. *Malhame & Co. et al.,*39 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 108, C. A. D. 472, the cases and movements, comprising the pocket watches, and the cases, movements, and leather straps, comprising the wrist watches, are separately subject to duty and separately subject to appraisement.

(3) That the invoiced unit prices of the said cases, movements, and straps, plus 15 percent, less 5 percent discount, plus packing, as invoiced, are equal to the cost of production as defined in section 402 (f), *supra.*

Upon the agreed facts, I find that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the watchcases, watch movements, and leather straps here involved, and that such value is the invoiced unit prices of said cases, movements, and straps, plus 15 percent, less 5 percent discount, plus packing as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

September 27, 1945

No. 50527.

#### Protests 93159-K, etc., of John Ambriola et al. (New York).

Keefe, Judge:

These cases involve the collector’s reliquidation of entries covering certain cheese concerning which this court directed the collector to reliquidate as to various specified items upon the basis of the weigher’s return of net weight, less 2)4 percent for tare of nonedible coverings, and to make refund of ail duties taken in excess. . The plaintiffs claim that the collector failed to follow the decision and judgment of this court in that the entries were reliquidated “no chaDge,” and a refund of duties was not made.

At the trial of these cases it was stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the respective parties as follows:

* * * that the protests enumerated above are directed against the reliqui-dation of the entries covered thereby “no change” and with no refund, despite the decision and judgment of this court on these same entries in *Santo Alioto & Sons, et al.*v. *United States,*Abstract 45155, Initial Protest No. 37876-K, wherein the court ordered:

* * * that the protests in this case, covered by Schedule “A” hereto attached, and made a part hereof are sustained as to the items marked “A” on the invoices and checked with the initials of the examiner, and the collector will reliquidate the entries upon the basis of' the weigher’s return of net weight less *2¡4*per centum for tare of nonedible coverings. In all other respects the protests are overruled.

The reliquidation of the entries herein involved is similar in all respects to that in *Bel Paese Sales Co. Inc.*v. *United States,*C. D. 932, wherein the court sustained the protest claiming that the collector failed to follow the decision and judgment of the court and directed the collector to reliquidate the entry and make refund of all duty taken in excess.

It is further stipulated that the records and judgments in *Bel Paese Sales Co. Inc.*v. *United States,*C. D. 932 and in *Santo Alioto & Sons et at*v. *United States,*Abstract 45155 be incorporated with the record in the protests enumerated above and the protests 'submitted on this stipulation.

Plaintiffs waive .the right to first docket call and further amendment of these protests.

*279In accordance with this stipulation and following the decision cited, wherein it was held that the collector had employed a method of calculation which deprived the importer of refunds rightfully due him under the judgment of this court, judgment will therefore be entered directing the collector to reliquidate the entries herein, refunding the duty established to have been taken in excess in accordance with our decision and judgment in *Santo Alioto & Sons et al.*v. *United States,*Abstract 45155. *
Before the First Division,

April 26, 1946

No. 51047.

#### Petition 6536-R of Golding Bros. Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Appeals for reappraisement were filed, and in order to support the claim that a foreign market value existed, a representative of petitioner went to Belgium in 1939 for the purpose of securing information, but because of conditions prevailing in Europe at that time,- this was impossible. The *266appeals were thereupon abandoned and this petition subsequently filed. At the hearing a witness for the petitioner testified that he purchased the merchandise in issue and before making entry conferred with representatives of the appraiser; that it was mutually agreed that the entries in this petition would be considered as test cases; and that he cooperated fully with the appraiser’s office in furnishing requested information as to selling price in order to aid the appraiser in establishing United States value. From the record it was held that the entry of this merchandise was made without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or to misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.