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

AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIESSUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Name
    
    Jurisdiction in which
      incorporatedTempress
      Systems, Inc.
    
    State of
      TexasTempress
      Holdings B.V.
    
    The
      NetherlandsTempress Systems
      B.V.
    
    The
      NetherlandsTempress
      Manufacturing B.V.
    
    The
      NetherlandsTempress
      Engineering B.V.
    
    The
      NetherlandsTempress Onroerend Goed
      B.V.
    
    The
    NetherlandsP.R. Hoffman
      Machine Products, Inc.
    
    State of
      ArizonaBruce
      Technologies, Inc.
    
    State of
      MassachusettsBruce
      Technologies Europe GmbH
    
    Federal Republic
      of GermanyR2D Ingenierie
      SAS
    
    France


---
No. 84945 

ED 

JUL 13 20 

EL 

OLE 

BY 

[1 -= 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

RESIGNATION OF PAUL M. MEADOR, 

BAR NO. 4121. 

HIEF DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RESIGNATION 

This is a joint petition by the State Bar of Nevada and attorney 

Paul M. Meador for his resignation from the Nevada bar. 

SCR 98(5) provides that Nevada attorneys who are not actively 

practicing law in this state may resign from the state bar if certain 

conditions are met. The petition includes statements from state bar staff 

confirming that no disciplinary, fee dispute arbitration, or client security 

fund matters are pending against Meador; and that he is current on all 

membership fee payments and other financial commitments relating to his 

practice of law in this state. See SCR 98(5)(a)(1)-(2). 

Bar counsel has recommended that the resignation be 

approved, and the Board of Governors has approved the application for 

resignation. See SCR 98(5)(a)(2). Meador acknowledges that his 

resignation is irrevocable and that the state bar retains continuing 

jurisdiction with respect to matters involving a past member's conduct prior 

to resignation. See SCR 98(5)(c)-(d). Finally, Meador has submitted an 

affidavit of compliance with SCR 115. See SCR 98(5)(e). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 64001, 

1,1,- 110 2 7 
The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). 

Accordingly, we approve attorney Paul M. Meador's resignation. SCR 

98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted. 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Paul M. Meador 

Executive Director 

Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A Mfatiz 

2
(Reap. Dec. 9110)

#### Border Brokerage Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 05-6580, etc.

(Decided March 26, 1958)

*Lawrence & Tuttle; Barnes, Richardson & Colhurn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Ceorge Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The merchandise in these consolidated appeals consists of certain machinery exported from Canada and entered at the port of Blaine, Wash.

At the trial, the case was submitted upon the following agreement entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> Me. King. As to certain X-ray surface diamond drill and parts thereof indicated on the invoices with the symbol “XR” with or without other symbols or numerals, that such merchandise was exported from Canada to the United States; that on or about the date of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption in Canada or for export to the United States; that on or about the date of exportation, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale in the United States.

> We further offer to stipulate that the cost of production of such merchandise, that such cost as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the invoice unit price, less 10 *%.*

> Me. Fitzgibbon: That is agreed to by the Government.

> Judge Wilson: Let the stipulation show on the record.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis of value for the merchandise in issue, and that said value is represented by the invoice unit prices, less 10 per centum trade discount in each case.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2313 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2313

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on camel hair, processed 
             beyond the degreased or carbonized condition.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 2012

 Mr. Lieberman introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on camel hair, processed 
             beyond the degreased or carbonized condition.

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

SECTION 1. CAMEL HAIR, PROCESSED BEYOND THE DEGREASED OR CARBONIZED 
              CONDITION.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.20 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to camel hair, processed beyond 
the degreased or carbonized condition) is amended by striking the date 
in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. v. United States

No. 6231.

Invoice dated Sonneberg, Germany, January 16, 1939.

Certified January 18, 1939.

Entered at Seattle, Wash., March 17, 1939.

Entry No. 3805.

(Decided November 15, 1945)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant. »

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

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

> It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the court, that the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission included in the appraisement of the items identified on the invoices with XX and initials CK of Examiner Carlisle King, are in all material respects the same as the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission specified in the invoices relating to glass ornaments, novelties, and figures covered by reappraisements 113038-A, 113040-A, and 113468-A of the F. W. Woolworth Co. and "passed upon by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co. et al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, wherein the court held that “A purchasing commission, charged for the handling of merchandise, is not a proper part of dutiable value.”

> It is further stipulated and agreed that on the date of exportation of the merchandise involved in the instant appeal identified on the invoice with XX and the initials CK of Examiner Carlisle King, articles such and similar thereto were freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary *451course of trade for exportation to the United States at the entered values, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that the record in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co. et al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, be incorporated as part of the record in the instant appeal to reappraisement.

> .The instant appeal is abandoned as to all merchandise other than the aforementioned items marked and initialed by the Examiner Carlisle King, and the said reappraisement appeal is submitted for decision on this 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 items of merchandise identified on the invoices with XX and the initials CK of Examiner Carlisle King, and that such values are the entered values.

The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20480]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision
[AC-20; OTS No. 0800]


Pioneer Bank, a Federal Savings Bank, Baker City, Oregon; 
Approval of Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby given that on July 23, 1997, the Director, 
Corporate Activities, Office of Thrift Supervision, or her designee, 
acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the application of 
Pioneer Bank, a Federal Savings Bank, Baker City, Oregon, to convert to 
the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available 
for inspection at the Dissemination Branch, Office of Thrift 
Supervision, 1700 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20552, and the West 
Regional Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, Pacific Telesis Tower, 1 
Montgomery Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94104.

    Dated: July 30, 1997.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Nadine Y. Washington,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20480 Filed 8-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
#### Clarinda Grant *versus*Annaniah Dodge.

Tlio wife shall not be endowed when the husband is seized but for an instant, though a continued seizin, however short, entitles her to dower.

If the tenant would defeat the demandant’s claim of dower the burden is upon him to prove that the deed and mortgage relied on constituted one transaction.

This is an action of Dower.

Tlio facts in the case were agreed by the parties, from which it appears that,

The premises in which dower is claimed were conveyed to Wiliam Grant, then the husband of plaintiff, December 24, 1847, by one Michael Walton, and that said Grant *reconveyed the same to said Walton in mortgage, on the same day, to secure the payment of a note for forty-seven dollars eighty cents, papable January*1, 1849.

William Grant conveyed the premises by deed of quit claim to defendant, August 27, *1851,*and on the game day one Barzilla Hopkins paid and took up the note secured by the aforesaid mortg-age, Grant to Walton, and Sophronia Walton on the same day gave to defendant a quit claim deed of the premises, and on August 25, 1851, Barzilla Hopkins gave the defendant a warrantee deed of the premises. William Grant gave Barzilla Hopkins a deed of the premises, January 3, 1851. The plaintiff did not. release her dower in any of the deeds. William Grant died, and the plaintiff seasonably demanded her dower. If in the opinion of the court the action is maintainable upon the foregoing statement, defendant is to be defaulted and plaintiff have judgment, otherwise plaintiff is to be nonsuit.

*N. H. Hubbard,*counsel for the plaintiff.

*C. H. Pierce,*counsel for the defendant.

Hathaway, J.

When the husband is seized, for an instant, of this seizin the wife shall not be endowed, but if he con*490tinue seized, for any portion of time, however short, the wife is entitled to dower. The seizin for an instant is where the husband, by the same act, or by the same conveyance, by which he acquires the seizin, parts with it. Holbrook v. Phinney, 4 Maine, R., 666; Stanwood v. Dunning, 14 Maine R., 290; Gammon v. Freeman, 31 Maine R., 243.

The demandant’s husband, William Grant, became seized, by virtue of his deed from Walton. On the same day that he received his deed, he reconveyed the premises, in mortgage, to secure the payment of a note, which may have been for the purchase money, or for something else.

The mortgage may have been executed when he purchased the land and received his deed, or subsequently.

If the tenant would defeat the demandant’s claim of dower, the burden is upon him to prove that the deed and mortgage constituted one transaction, which the facts agreed do not show, and when a case is presented on facts agreed, any fact which might be pertinent to the question submitted, and does not appear, is presumed not to exist.

*Tenant defaulted.*

Tenney, C. J., and Rice, J., concurred; Cutting, J., and Goodenow, J., concurred in the result; Appleton, J., did not concur.
(Reap. Dec. 9934)

#### William E. Phillips Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 2839, etc.

(Decided March 1, 1961)

*Stein & Shostalc (Marjorie M. Shostalc*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*William, H. Orriolc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *(Sheila N. Ziff*and *Richard, E. FitzGibbon,*trial attorneys), for the defendant.

JOHNSON, Judge:

The merchandise involved in these appeals for reappraisement, consolidated at the trial, consists of sterling silver cigarette lighters imported from Mexico from June 14,1944, through June or July 1945. In each of the entries covered by the appeals, the merchandise was entered at a unit value of 18 pesos per lighter and appraised at a unit value of 25 pesos per lighter.

These cases have been submitted on the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> Miss Shostak : Plaintiff now offers to stipulate that with respect to those entries which involve merchandise exported from Mexico on or after October 20, 1944, that there had been a drop in the foreign value, by reason of a reduction in the price at which the merchandise was freely offered for sale in the principal market of the country of exportation for home consumption from the 25 peso price at which the merchandise was appraised to the 22 peso price which became effective on that date; and that with respect to all of the entries which cover merchandise exported after that date that the 22 pesos was the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption.

> Me. FitzGibbon : That is agreed to.

> Miss Shostak: Plaintiff further offers to stipulate that the export value was not higher.

> Me. FitzGibbon : That is agreed to.

> *617Miss Shostak : And plaintiff submits.

> 'Me. FitzGibbon : Defendant submits.

> Miss Shostak : May the record show that with respect to any of the entries which coyer merchandise exported before the date of October 20, 1944 that plaintiff abandons all of its claims.

> Judge Johnson : Very well. Case is submitted.

On tbe agreed facts, I find that foreign valne, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the sterling silver cigarette lighters involved herein which were exported from Mexico on or after October 20, 1944, and that such value is 22 pesos per lighter.

As to all other items, the appeals, having been abandoned, are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25753-25754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10011]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Office of 
Biotechnology Activities; Recombinant DNA Research; Notice of a Meeting 
of an NIH Blue Ribbon Panel

    There will be a meeting of the NIH Blue Ribbon Panel to advise on 
the Risk Assessment of the National Emerging Infectious Diseases 
Laboratories (NEIDL) at Boston University Medical Center. The meeting 
will be held on Friday, May 16, 2008, at The Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts Bureau of State Office Buildings, State House, Gardner 
Auditorium, 24 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02133, from 
approximately 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Discussions will include the charge to the Panel and the process 
and framework for deliberations. There will also be time allotted on 
the agenda for public comment. Sign up for public comment will begin at 
approximately 8 a.m. on May 16, 2008. In the event that time does not 
allow for all those interested to present oral comments, anyone may 
file written comments using the address below.
    To file written comments or for further information concerning this 
meeting contact Ms. Laurie Lewallen, Advisory Committee Coordinator, 
Office of Biotechnology Activities, Office of the Director, National 
Institutes of Health, Mail Stop Code 7985, Bethesda, MD 20892-7985, 
301-496-9838, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aac6cfddcbc6c6c6cbeac5ce84c4c3c284cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d0bcb5a7b1bcbcbcb190bfb4febeb9b8feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed above in 
advance of the meeting. Any interested person may file written comments 
with the panel by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name,

[[Page 25754]]

address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or 
professional affiliation of the interested person.
    An agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be 
posted on the agency's Web site: http://www.nih.gov/about/director/acd/index.htm.
    Background information may be obtained by contacting NIH OBA by e-
mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9df2fffcddf2f9b3f3f4f5b3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d1beb3b091beb5ffbfb8b9ffb6bea7">[email protected]</span></a>

    Dated: April 29, 2008.
Amy P. Patterson,
Director, Office of Biotechnology Activities.
 [FR Doc. E8-10011 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 23.2**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-41995 of HalifaxCorporation and subsidiaries on Form S-8 pertaining to the Halifax Corporation 1994 Key EmployeeStock Option Plan and Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan of our report dated June 14, 2004(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related to theadoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other IntangibleAssets, effective April 1, 2002), with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of HalifaxCorporation as of March 31, 2004 and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the two years in the period then endedappearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Halifax Corporation and subsidiaries for the yearended March 31, 2005./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPMcLean, Virginia
#### William C. EVANS, Jr., Appellant, v. Ann Shoemaker CORBIN, Appellee.

No. EE-23.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 1977.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1977.

L. William Graham of Dell, Graham, Willcox, Barber, Ryals & Henderson, Gainesville, for appellant.

Anderson E. Hatfield, III, Gainesville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon considering the briefs, the record and oral argument, we find no reversible error.

Accordingly, the orders appealed are affirmed.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
10.1


 


 


 


 


 


September 4, 2007


 


 


James Schermerhorn


130 Crawford Road


Downingtown, PA 19335


 


Dear Jim:


 


                On behalf of the
Board of Directors, we are pleased to offer you the following retention
incentive opportunity based on your continued employment with the Bank on the
terms outlined below:


 


                1.             If you remain employed in your
present position through the last day of the month in which you attain age 65,
we will pay you a retention incentive of $130,000, less applicable tax
withholding. Such payment will be made in a lump sum not later than thirty (30)
days after the date you become entitled to payment.


 


                2.             If, prior to the scheduled payment
date, you terminate employment by reason of your death or disability (as
defined below) or if we terminate your employment without cause (as defined
below), we will pay you (or your estate) the retention incentive amount not
later than thirty (30) days after your termination date.


 


                3.             Notwithstanding anything in this
letter to the contrary, we reserve the right to terminate your employment for
cause (as defined below) at any time, in which case you will not be entitled to
any retention incentive payment.


 


                4.             You agree that amount of the
retention incentive will not be considered for purposes of determining your allocation,
contribution or benefit under any other plan or program sponsored by Fox Chase
Bank


 


                5.             For purposes of this letter, the
terms “cause” and “disability” shall have the same meaning as under the Fox
Chase Bancorp, Inc. 2007 Equity Incentive Plan.


 


                We believe this
incentive opportunity is well deserved and is a reflection of the fact that you
have been integral to the successful operation of Fox Chase Bank.  Please acknowledge your acceptance of the
terms and conditions described in the letter in the place provided below.


 


	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Thomas M. Petro

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Thomas M. Petro

  
	
   

  	
  President & CEO

  



Accepted and Agreed


 


	
  /s/ James Schermerhorn

  	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  Date: September 6, 2007
**Docket No. FAA -**  **2013 -**  **1066**
# C_2015138EN.01001501.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 February 2015 — Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion v European Commission

(Case C-564/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeals - Article 340, first paragraph, TFEU - Contractual liability of the European Union - Article 272 TFEU - Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Contracts relating to the Ontogov, FIT and RACWeb projects - Eligible costs and amounts advanced by the Commission - Declaratory action - No vested and current interest in bringing proceedings))

(2015/C 138/18)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion (represented by: V. Khristianos and S. Paliou, dikigori)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Conte and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Drakakakis, avocat)

Other party 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 Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Planet AE Anonimi Etairia Parokhis Simvouleftikon Ipiresion and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.

1

---