alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                       ANSWERTHINK CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
                             LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES

                                                           JURISDICTION OF

ANSWERTHINK, INC.                                              FLORIDA

SUBSIDIARIES

UbiComs EOOD                                                   Bulgaria
Scott Mednick & Associates                                     California
AnswerThink Florida, Inc. f/k/a UbiComs, Inc.                  Delaware
Net Cube of Delaware f/k/a Anzen Corporation                   Delaware
THINK New Ideas, Inc.                                          Delaware
UbiCube Acquisition Corp.                                      Delaware
UbiCube Group, Inc.                                            Delaware
CFT Consulting, Inc.                                           Florida
GCSB Acquisition Corporation                                   Florida
Epic Acquisition Corporation                                   Florida
Infinity Consulting Group, Inc.                                Indiana
NetComs Entertainment, Inc.                                    Maine
NetComs USA, Inc.                                              Maine
Advis Acquisition Corporation                                  Massachusetts
Legacy Technology, Inc.                                        Massachusetts
Delphi Partners, Inc.                                          New Jersey
Net Cube of New Jersey f/k/a Office of the Future              New Jersey
On Ramp, Inc.                                                  New York
SD Goodman Group, Inc.                                         New York
The Hackett Group, Inc.                                        Ohio
triSpan, Inc.                                                  Pennsylvania
Group Cortex, Inc.                                             Pennsylvania
NetComs Europe Limited                                         United Kingdom
NetComs Entertainment, Ltd.                                    United Kingdom
RDI UbiComs Limited                                            United Kingdom
No. 47732.

#### Protests 980946-G, etc., of Toronto Pipe Line Co. (Great Falls).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

There being no objection on behalf of counsel for the Government, the motion to dismiss was granted.
#### Wendy L. Kern, Appellant, v City of Rochester et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. John P. McMenemy, Nonparty Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[700 NYS2d 320]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied in part plaintiffs motion for a protective order. The court, “because of its obvious familiarity with the matter, has broad discretion to supervise the discovery process and was in the best position to determine what is material and necessary’ *(Jackson v Dow Chem. Co.,*214 AD2d 827, 828). In view of the allegations in the complaint, the court reasonably determined that the conduct and activities of plaintiff both outside and within the workplace during her employment were relevant to the defamation cause of action and the alleged injury to plaintiffs profession, reputation and standing in the community. The disclosure permitted by the court was properly limited to evidence “material and necessary in the * * * defense of’ that cause of action (CPLR 3101 [a]). The court also properly exercised its discretion in denying those parts of plaintiffs cross motions seeking disqualification of the law firm representing nonparty witness Lieutenant John P. McMenemy *(see, Rich v Hackel,*205 AD2d 316, 317) and sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130 *(see, Scaccia v MacCurdy,*239 AD2d 942). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J. — Discovery.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.
No. 6173.

#### L. GRUNEWALD CO., LTD., vs. MISS GEORGIA EVANS.

Syllabus.

The depositary cannot withhold the' thing deposited for a debt due on account, distinct from the deposit.

Appeal from the Civil District Court, for the Parish of Orleans, Division “A,” No. 97,441. Hon. T. C. W. Ellis, Judge.

Dinkelspiel, Hart *&*Davey, for plaintiff and appellant.

Sneed & Purser, for defendant and appellee..

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Plaintiff, domiciled in the City of New Orleans, sold to defendant, a resident of the Parish of Tangipahoa, a piano valued at $750.00, on the purchase price of which there was unpaid in November, 1910, a balance of $140.00.

About that time the piano was damaged in a fire and by agreement with the Insurance Company was sent to plaintiff to be repaired.

Plaintiff did the repair work, and was paid for. it; but refused to return the piano unless the balance of the purchase price, then overdue, should be paid.

The repairs having been finished and paid for, plaintiff remained a simple bailee or depositary, whose plain duty it was to restore the piano at once. It was without .right whatsoever to withhold the piano on pretense of a debt due on an account distinct from the deposit. C. C., 2956. Its doing so was a clear breach of duty and an unwarranted invasion of defendant’s rights.

*353Opinion and decree, June 26th, 1914.

Rehearing refused, July 17th, 1914.

Writ denied, October 26th, 1914.

Tliis invasion of her rights was aggravated by the fact that she was obliged to leave her own domicile and litigate with plaintiff at the domicile of the latter for a period of nearly four years, during .all of which she has been deprived of her piano, her only source of pleasure.

The trial Judge allowed defendant damages at the rate of $5.00 per month, as the rental value of the piano, although the evidence would justify double that amount. He also allowed $175.00 punitory damages.

We will not disturb his .award.

However he reached it the total amount allowed by him is less than $500.00 for wantonly invading defendant’s rights, persistently depriving her of her property for more than four years, and compelling her to come to another jurisdiction to vindicate her rights. We think the allowance proper.

But the trial Judge failed to allow plaintiff proper interest on its own claim. This will be corrected.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be amended by striking therefrom the words “up to November 1st, 1910, only, and not since” and substituting in lieu thereof the words “until paid,” and as thus amended the judgment is affirmed; appellee to pay the costs of this appeal.

Amended and affirmed.
No. 45325.

#### Protests 717279-G, etc., of Alms & Doepke Co. et al. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.
#### Miguel A. VALENTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-653.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 21, 1998.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Sandra S. Jaggard, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See State v. DiGuilio,*491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
# C_2017104EN.01000202.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Duravit AG, Duravit SA, Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-609/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 31 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 104/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Duravit AG, Duravit SA, Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA (represented by: U. Soltész and C. von Köckritz, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt), Council of the European Union

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Duravit AG, Duravit SA and Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Duravit AG, Duravit SA and Duravit BeLux SPRL/BVBA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, David Savitsky, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report (this "annual report") on Form 10-K of ATC
Healthcare, Inc.;

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;

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

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  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:

        (a) designed such  disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to
ensure that  material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including  its
consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

        (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
and  presented in this report our  conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of the
disclosure  controls and  procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
report; and

        (c)  disclosed  in this report any change in the  registrant's  internal
control over financial  reporting that occurred during the  registrant's  fourth
Fiscal  quarter  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

        (a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls  over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably  likely to adversely
affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,  summarize  and report
financial information; 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.


Date: May 25, 2007

                                /s/ DAVID SAVITSKY
                                --------------------------------------------
                                David Savitsky
                                Chief Executive Officer
# C_2012319EN.01001301.xml

| 20.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/13

---

Action brought on 20 August 2012 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (EUROPE IP ZONE)

(Case T-369/12)

2012/C 319/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: American Express Marketing & Development Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: V. Spitz, A. Gaul, T. Golda, and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1451/2011-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1451/2011-2;

| — | In the alternative, amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1451/2011-2, and rule that the appeal is justified; and |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2012 in case R 1451/2011-2, and rule that the appeal is justified; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EUROPE IP ZONE’ for services in class 42 — Community trade mark application No 9488032

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 (the Report), I, Craig A. Knock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: November 8, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Craig A. Knock                                                                                                                      
|                       |  |  |  | Craig A. Knock Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer Principal Accounting Officer Iowa
Telecommunications Services, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6058

MOSES BARNES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; STEPHEN D. MULLER; MIKE EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-75-1) Submitted: May 23, 2000 Decided: June 23, 2000 Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moses Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the magistrate judge relied upon Green v. French, 143 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 1998), denial of habeas corpus relief was still correct under the standards announced in Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. , , 2000 WL 385369, *28 (U.S. Apr. 18, 2000) (No. 98-8384). 2 PER CURIAM:Moses Barnes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistratejudge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Barnes v. North Carolina Attorney Gen. , No. CA-99-75-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 21, 1999). * 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
# C_2014184EN.01002304.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/23

---

Order of the President of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of 10 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-96/13) (1)

1

2014/C 184/36

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Tenth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.

1

---
No. 47742.

#### Protests 683078-G, etc., of Miller Bros. Hat Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of “8-Bu. paper hats,” known as harvest hats, and that they are the same as those in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), the claim at only 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32
 
 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 Sonoma Valley Bancorp (the ACompany@) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the AReport@), we, Sean C. Cutting, Chief Executive Officer and Mary Dieter Smith, Chief Financial Officer, 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 to the best of our knowledge:
 
 (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.
 
 
 Dated:
March 30, 2010

/s/Sean C. CuttingSean C. CuttingPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Dated:
March 30, 2010

/s/Mary Dieter SmithMary Dieter SmithExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer and Principal  Accounting Officer)
09-5224-pr

Torres v. Ercole

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A

SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED

BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. 

WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY

MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE

NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY

OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York,

on the 13th day of April two thousand eleven,

Present: RALPH K. WINTER,

ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

PETER W. HALL,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________________________

IVAN TORRES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 -v- 09-5224-pr

 

ROBERT ERCOLE,

Respondent-Appellee.

 

Appearing for Appellant: Eunice C. Lee, (Richard M. Greenberg, on the brief), Office of the

Appellate Defender, New York, NY.

Appearing for Appellee: Alyson J. Gill, Assistant Attorney General, (Barbara D.

Underwood, Solicitor General and Roseann B. MacKechnie,

Deputy Solicitor General for Criminal Matters, on the brief), for

Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney General, New York,

NY. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

(Berman, J.).
2

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. 

Appellant appeals from an order of the Southern District of New York (Berman, J.)

denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant contends that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel as a result of his attorney’s failure to obtain suppression of a statement

made shortly before his arrest. The district court denied habeas relief and this appeal followed. 

We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated in the district court’s thoughtful and

comprehensive opinion. 

We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without

merit. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district court hereby is

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
No. 48878.

#### Protest 43966-K of F. W. Woolworth Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 47099 the protest was sustained.
#### Steven D. FRICKE and Cheryl Fricke, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. Lynnette GRAY, Appellee-Defendant.

No. 49A02-9705-CV-00281.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

April 28, 1999.

*1288James C. Spencer, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellants.

Peter A. Schroeder, Ellen White Quigley, Norris, Choplin & Schroeder, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

RATLIFF, Senior Judge

In their petition for rehearing, the Frickes contend that we have misstated the record with regard to the admission of the Frickes’ income tax returns. They claim that the evidence erroneously was admitted over an objection based upon relevance and a motion in limine with respect to fraud.

The record does reflect that the trial court ruled on one of their motions in limine that evidence of fraud and arson would not be admitted at trial because Gray had not affirmatively pleaded those defenses pursuant to Ind.Trial Rule 8(C). Our discussion of that issue appears in section VI of the opinion. However, the trial court specifically ruled on a motion in limine that income tax return evidence would be admitted at trial.

In our discussion of the admission of the income tax return evidence, in section II of the opinion, we correctly stated what the record reflects. The objection to the income tax return evidence at trial was “in addition to the uh, previous objection also, violation of Motion in Limine.” (R. 552). The previous objection was one based on relevance. While we acknowledge that the Frickes did argue in their brief that the objection made was relevance and a violation of a motion in limine with respect to fraud, Appellant’s Brief at 16, our statement of the record and the section of our opinion dealing with it is correct. The objection made was a general objection which does not preserve error for appellate review. Further, the objection relating to a violation of a motion in limine was not a specific objection, in that it did not identify which motion in limine was violated or the subject covered by the motion, i.e., fraud, arson, or income tax returns.

Petition for rehearing denied.

STATON, J., and DARDEN, J., concur.