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




**List
of Subsidiaries of Capital Lease Funding, Inc (the
“Company”)**





**Entity**
    **State
      Of Incorporation**
      **Or**
      **Formation**





Caplease,
      LP
    DelawareCLF
      OP General Partner LLC
    DelawareCLF
      Ridley Park LP
    DelawareCLF
      Ridley Park GP LLC
    DelawareCLF
      VA Ponce LLC
    DelawareCLF
      1000 Milwaukee Avenue LLC
    DelawareCLF
      555 N Daniels Way LLC
    DelawareCLF
      Bobs Randolph LLC
    DelawareKDC
      Busch Boulevard LLC
    DelawareColumbia
      Pike I, LLC
    DelawareCLF
      Parsippany LLC
    DelawareCaplease
      Credit LLC
    DelawareEVA
      LLC
    DelawareCaplease
      Investment Management LLC
    DelawareCaplease
      CDO 2005-1, Ltd.
    Cayman
      IslandsCaplease
      CDO 2005-1 Corp.
    DelawareCaplease
      Services Corp.
    Delaware





The
Company is also the sole beneficiary of two Delaware business
trusts:





WG-Investors
Trust


CA
Portsmouth Investment Trust
# C_2013141EN.01001102.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/11

---

Action brought on 4 February 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-60/13)

2013/C 141/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, L. Flynn, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by refusing to make available the sum of £ 20 061 462,11 in relation to duties on imports of fresh garlic covered by erroneous binding tariff information, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 8 of Decision 2000/597/EC (1) and Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1150/2000 (2).; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by refusing to make available the sum of £ 20 061 462,11 in relation to duties on imports of fresh garlic covered by erroneous binding tariff information, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 8 of Decision 2000/597/EC (1) and Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1150/2000 (2).;

1

2

| — | order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the Commission claims that the United Kingdom authorities caused a loss of traditional own resources by issuing Binding Tariff Information documents without due care which allowed imports of fresh Chinese garlic outside quota. The Commission considers that, where there has been an administrative error and consequently own resources were unduly not established, the EU must be credited with the equivalent of the amount of own resources lost. Accordingly, the United Kingdom authorities should have made available to the Commission the total amount of customs duties involved, which is estimated at £ 20 061 462,11, as well as the interest due on late payments under Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000.

---

(1)  2000/597/EC, Euratom: Council Decision of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities' own resources

1

OJ L 253, p. 42

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources

2

OJ L 130, p. 1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 39470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16900]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7514]

Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to the Central Government of 
Uzbekistan

    Pursuant to Section 7086(c)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Division F, 
Pub. L.111-117), as carried forward by the Full-Year Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2011 (Div. B, Pub. L. 112-10) (``the Act''), and 
Department of State Delegation of Authority Number 245-1, I hereby 
determine that it is important to the national interest of the United 
States to waive the requirements of Section 7086(c)(1) of the Act with 
respect to Uzbekistan and I hereby waive such restriction.
    This determination shall be reported to the Congress, and published 
in the Federal Register.

    Dated: June 24, 2011.
Thomas Nides,
 Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2011-16900 Filed 7-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-31-P
```
#### United States *v.*Swift & Co.

No. 7875.

Entry No. 178.

(Decided August 30, 1950)

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Eugene R. Piehrell*for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the canned corned beef 24/1’s, Premium Label, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, was $1.60 per dozen tins, less 47/100% non-dutiable charges, or $1.59248 per dozen tins, net, packed.

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

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case 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 canned corned beef 24/1’s, Premium Label, and that such value was $1.60 per dozen tins, less 47/100 per centum nondutiable charges, or $1.59248 per dozen tins, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1




2008 Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers




	 	 	 	 	 
	Name and Title	 	Salary	 
	Edward A. Keible, Jr.
	 	$	386,000	 
	President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 
	Brett W. Wallace
	 	$	251,000	 
	Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
	 	 	 	 
	John J. Mikulsky
	 	$	282,000	 
	Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19742]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-2894-000]


PanEnergy Power Services, Inc.; Notice of Succession

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on June 27, 1997, PanEnergy Power Services, Inc. 
tendered for filing a Notice of Succession of all its applicable rate 
schedules and supplements thereto by PanEnergy Trading and Market 
Services, L.L.C.
    Any person desiring to be heard to protest said filing should file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before July 31, 1997. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make Protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acitng Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19742 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DESARAE DENARDO MARION, a/k/a Ray, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00273-LMB-1; 1:09−cv−00106) 

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 24, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Desarae Denardo Marion, Appellant Pro Se. LeDora Knight, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Desarae Denardo Marion seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marion has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with 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
### Fw: Response to your edits from page 104 to the end of the draft NOx SOx proposal Jan King to: Sherry Russell 07/12/2011 09:14 AM 

### Jan King Regulatory Development and Policy Analysis Group phone: (919) 541-5665 fax: (919) 541-2664 Mailcode: C404-05
----- Forwarded by Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/12/2011 09:10 AM -----

From: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US To: "Laity, James A." <James

_ A.

_ Laity@omb.eop.gov> Cc: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet McCabe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ginger Tennant/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich Scheffe/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Randy Waite/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 07/11/2011 03:43 PM Subject: Response to your edits from page 104 to the end of the draft NOx SOx proposal 

### Jim -- Please find attached our response to the edits you sent us on the rest of the draft NOxSOx proposed rule (from about page 104 to the end).

Karen Martin, Ph.D. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. EPA (C504-06) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 phone: (919) 541-5274 fax: (919) 541-0237 martin.karen@epa.gov Lydia Wegman 07/11/2011 03:02:47 PM Jim, Please find attached our response to the e... From: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US To: "Laity, James A." <James

_ A.

_ Laity@omb.eop.gov> Cc: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ginger Tennant/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rich Scheffe/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 07/11/2011 03:02 PM Subject: Response to your edits on the first 104 pages of the draft NOx SOx proposal 

### Jim, Please find attached our response to the edits you sent us on Thursday evening to the first 104 pages of the draft NOx/SOx proposed rule. We are continuing to work on the responses to the remainder of your comments and plan to get those to you before our 4 PM meeting. Thanks. [attachment "NOxSOx 7-11-11-compare 6-16 to 7-11v5.docx" deleted by Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US]
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors Amtech Systems, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-09917, 333-10117, 333-47098 and 333-131044) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-09911, 333-09909, 333-46086, 333-76812 and 333-103101, 333-09911 and 333-131051 ) on Form S-8 of Amtech Systems, Inc. of our report dated January 10, 2005, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows of Amtech Systems, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2004, which report appears in the September 30, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Amtech Systems, Inc.

|                | /s/ KPMG LLP |
|---------------------|--------------|
|                |              |
|                |         |
|                |         |
| Phoenix,   Arizona  |         |
| December 21,   2006 |         |
Case No. 14,040.

#### TILGHMAN v. HARTELL et al.

[1 Wkly. Notes Cas. 52.]

Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 24, 1874.

Patents — Sale op Machine — License to Use— Injunction.

[NOTE. See Case No. 14.039, and 99 U. S. 547.]

This was a motion for preliminary injunction upon a bill hied for alleged infringement of letters patent No. 108,408, granted to the complainant [Benjamin C. Tilghman] October IS, 1870, for “improvement in cutting and engraving stone, metal, glass, etc. (the sand-blast process). In the fall of 1873, complainant furnished defendants [Harteli and Letchworth] with machines for operating under the said patent, and sent bills for same and for expenses incurred in putting them up. Bill was not paid until March, 1874, complainant meanwhile accepting monthly payments of royalty according to a schedule furnished with machines. In March complainant requested defendants to sign a license wherein was reserved the privilege of changing royalties. Defendants refused, whereupon they were notified to cease operations. The bill and affidavit averred that the machines had been furnished and royalty accepted upon the faith of defendants’ promise to sign license. Defendants denied promise, and averred simple agreement for an exclusive license to manufacture in Philadelphia, on terms fixed by schedule furnished with machines.

Mr. Harding, for complainant,

argued that complainant’s patent was for a process, and hence sale of machines would not amount to a license; admitting the general principle that sale of patented machines carried license to use same; also that the exclusive right to manufacture claimed by defendants amounted to an assignment or interest in the patent, which the statute requires shall be in writing.

Mr. Connolly, with whom was Letch-worth, for defendants, maintained that a revocable right to manufacture, grantee not having right to permit others to manufacture, was a license and not an assignment, and hence need not be in writing; that patent, which contains claims for mechanical parts, was not purely a patent for a process, but for a machine as well, and hence sale of machines gave license to vendee to use them, and that complainant, suing merely for amount of license, and there being a direct issue on a question of fact, viz., license or no license, there existed no equity for an injunction.

THE COURT

(McKENNAN, Circuit Judge)

refused the injunction.
REGISTRATION

 83222-10 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 *Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
18
19 *Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
20
21
22 *Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
23
24
25
26 *Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Pages 42-43 - *Confidential Statements of Formula may be entitled to confidential treatment*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

Date/Time: February 9 , 2016 / 1 :00 p .m.

– 2 :00 p .m.

Subject: Paraquat Dichloride Meeting Minutes . OPP Meets with Technical

Registrants of Paraquat Dichloride to Discuss the Relevance of Certain

Proposed Mitigation Measures

.

From: Marianne A. Mannix, Chemical Review Manager

Re

- evaluation M anagement and Implementation Branch III

Pesticide Re

- evaluation Division (7508P)

Participants: Kelly Sherman (EPA), Tracy Perry (EPA), Marianne Mannix (EPA),

Nancy Fitz (EPA), Jonathan Becker (EPA), Monty Dixon (Syngenta),

John Abbott (Syngenta), K.C. Li n (Sinon), Todd Denofreo (ADAMA) , Jan

Stechmann (Helm Agro), Rebecca Hargadine (Source Dynamics), Cheryl

Wagner (Sharda and Willowood), Larry Miller (Sinon and US Raymat )

Meeting Minutes:

EPA met with the technical registrant s of paraquat dichloride on February 9 , 201 6 to

evaluate the initial set of mitigation measures to determine whether all of them were

relevant given the new proposed mitigation measures. The technical registrants

participated in the meeting through a conference line. During the meeting, EPA and the

registrants discussed specific label amendments and the previously proposed packaging

change s. The Ag ency and the registrants will meet o n February 16 th to discuss the

paraquat specific training material component of the mitigation proposal.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

WILLIAM LEVERANCE FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0412 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

Respondent. 

FAA CASE NO. 2013S0150060 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW COMPLAINT 

The Complainant, by and through the undersigned attorney, hereby requests pursuant to Section 

13.215 of the Board's Rules of Practice [14 CFR 13.215] that the law judge approve withdrawal 

of the Complaint in the above-referenced matter. 

The parties reached settlement of this matter on November 6, 2014. As a result, the 

Complainant respectfully requests that its Complaint be withdrawn and this matter closed. 

Respectfully submitted this 1 ih day ofNovember 2014. 

Senior Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the Motion for Leave to Withdraw Complaint has been sent via 

facsimile and Federal Express to: 

The Honorable I.E. Sullivan 

DOT, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(FAX) (202) 366-7536 

and Federal Express to: 

William Loren Leverence 

3000 Clarcona Rd. #426 

Apopka, FL 32703 

and 

William Loren Leverence 

1 031 Saddle back Ridge Rd. 

Apopka, FL 32703 

and the original and one copy via Federal Express to: 

Hearing Docket 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Legal s 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Dated
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-21-00029-CR

No. 02-21-00030-CR

No. 02-21-00031-CR

No. 02-21-00032-CR

No. 02-21-00033-CR

No. 02-21-00034-CR

No. 02-21-00035-CR

No. 02-21-00036-CR

No. 02-21-00037-CR

No. 02-21-00038-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 1584122D, 1584132D, 1584137D, 1584140, 1584146, 

1584148D, 1584152, 1608585D, 1608823D, 1530955D

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

ASHLEE NICOHL JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant has moved to dismiss her appeals. Because we have not yet decided 

these cases, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: April 29, 2021
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00348-CR

Jacob KLEIN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR2866

Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

MODIFIED to delete the assessment of attorney’s fees against appellant Jacob Klein. As 

modified, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED.

SIGNED February 4, 2015.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
No. 45326.

#### Protests 650711-G, etc., of H. S. Grattan Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case No. 5,649.

#### GRACE et al. v. AMERICAN CENT. INS. CO.

[7 Reporter, 388: 1 8 Ins. Law J. 95.]

Circuit Court, E. D. New York.

Oct., 1878.2

Insurance — Option to Cancel — Notice bv Agent.

Where a policy authorized the company to terminate it at any time by giving notice of cancellation: *Held,*that a statement made by the agent of-the company, that upon return of the policy he would cancel it, or a mere wish expressed to have it cancelled, was not a sufficient notice of cancellation: but if the agent by words or acts conveyed' to the insured a knowledge of a cancellation at the time, there was a sufficient notice.

Action [by William R. Grace and others against the American Central Insurance Company of St. Louis] on a policy of insurance for loss by fire. The policy contained a clause authorizing the company to terminate the policy at any time by notice of cancellation. A written notice was not required, nor was it necessary that the policy should be returned in order to effect a cancellation. The question in the case was one of notice.

W. Britton, for plaintiffs.

G. W. Parsons, for defendants.

2

 [For subsequent proceedings in supreme court, see note at end of case.]

BENEDICT, District Judge

(charging jury). By this contract the parties have agreed that a notice of cancellment shall put an end to it. The question of fact is, whether there was notice of the cancelling of the policy given by Carroll, who acted for the company, to Anthony, who for the purposes of this question must be taken to be the agent of the plaintiffs. Counsel on the part of the plaintiffs insists that I should decide, as matter of law, that there was no notice given; but it seems to me that it is proper for the jury to consider what was said and done by Mr. Carroll and Mr. Anthony in regard to cancelling the policy, and say as a matter of fact whether or no Mr. Carroll gave Mr. Anthony notice that that was the end of that policy. If you should come to the conclusion that what Mr. Carroll said amounted to this, that upon returning the policy he would cancel it, then that would not be a notice of cancellation sufficient to terminate the contract. Cancellation can be effected without returning the policy, but if all that Mr. Carroll did was to express a wish to have the policy cancelled, that would not be cancelling the policy. The question is, whether he did or said what conveyed to Anthony knowledge of a cancellation of the policy by him at that time. If he gave such notice, then the defendants are entitled to a verdict. If he did not, then the plaintiffs are entitled to a verdict.

[The jury rendered a verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which was denied. Case No. 5,648. The judgment of the circuit court was reversed in 109 U. S. 278, 3 Sup. Ct. 207.]