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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                       LIST OF WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES
                         RATIONAL SOFTWARE CORPORATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                       Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----                                       -----------------------------
<S>                                        <C>
Rational Software Holdings LLC             Delaware
Rational Software Technology Corporation   Delaware
Rational Software SPC LLC                  Delaware
Rational International                     California
Rational Software Canada Co.               Canada
Rational Software Limited                  United Kingdom
Rational Software SARL                     France
Rational Software GmbH                     Germany
Rational Software B.V.                     Netherlands
Rational Software N.V.                     Belgium
Rational Software Nordic AB                Sweden
Rational Software Finland Oy               Finland
Rational Software Norway AS                Norway
Rational Software Denmark A/S              Denmark
Rational Software Schweiz GmbH             Switzerland
Rational Software s.r.l.                   Italy
Rational Software Austria GmbH             Austria
Rational Software Spain S.R.L.             Spain
Rational Software Ireland Limited          Ireland
Rational Holding SARL                      France
Attol Testware SA                          France
Rational Software Israel Ltd.              Israel
Rational Software Pty Ltd.                 Australia
Rational Software Pte Ltd.                 Singapore
Rational Software Korea Ltd.               Korea
Rational Software Corp. (India) Pvt. Ltd.  India
Rational Software New Zealand              New Zealand
Rational Software Greater China Ltd.       Hong Kong
Nihon Rational Software K.K.               Japan
Rational Software Sdn Bhd                  Malaysia
Rational Software Do Brasil Ltda.          Brazil
Rational Software S.A. de C.V.             Mexico
</TABLE>
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Exploration Drilling International Inc. - Exhibit 10.48






LOAN AGREEMENT 

between 

EDI Exploration Drilling International Holding GmbH

represented by the managing director 
Günter Thiemann 
Goethestrasse
59, 45721 Haltern am See 

- in the following referred to as
lender -

and 

EDI Exploration Drilling International GmbH 
represented by
the managing director 
Rainer Rotthäuser 
Goethestrasse 59, 45721 Haltern
am See 

- in the following referred to as
borrower -

§ 1 Granting of loan 

	1. 	The lender grants the borrower a
      loan in the amount of 


Euro 33,000.00 
(in words: Euro thirty-three thousand) 

	2. 	
      The loan will be paid out by transfer into the borrower’s
      account at the National-Bank, branch code 360 200 30, account 110
    5167.



§ 2 Interest, term and repayment of loan 

	1. 	
      The annual interest payable on the loan shall be 5.0
      %.

	 	 
	2. 	
      The term of the loan shall be 12 months, ending on
      13/09/2008.

	 	 
	3. 	
      The loan shall be repaid on 13/09/2008 into the lender’s
      account.



§ 3 Early repayment 

The borrower is entitled to repay the loan including
accumulated interest in one lump sum at any time, including before the end of
the term of the loan. A prepayment penalty shall not be due. 

1 




§ 4 Extraordinary right of cancellation 

The lender is entitled to recall the loan effective
immediately, if the borrowers’ financial circumstances deteriorate considerably,
thus putting the claim of repayment at risk. 

§ 5 Securities 

The borrower irrevocably transfers all of his claims as
managing director or shareholder (salary claims, profit distributions, new
shares issued, profit and loss transfers, liquidation proceeds, etc.) to the
lender. 

§ 6 Supplementary agreements, amendments, severability,
executed copies 

	1. 	
      There are no supplementary agreements. Amendments,
      additions as well as deletions of individual provisions of this agreement
      must be made in writing in order to be effective.

	 	 
	2. 	
      Should individual provisions of this agreement be
      invalid, the remainder of the agreement shall not be affected. In this
      case, the parties to the agreement are required to assume that a
      replacement provision has been agreed to, which fulfils the economic
      purpose of the invalid provision as much as possible.

	 	 
	3. 	
      This contract shall be issued in duplicate. The lender
      and the borrower shall each receive a copy signed by both parties to the
      agreement.




	Haltern, September 11, 2007 	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	Signature 	  
	___________________________________________	___________________________________________
	EDI Exploration Drilling International Holding GmbH 	EDI Exploration Drilling International GmbH
  
	Managing director, Günter Thiemann 	Managing director, Rainer Rotthäuser 
	- Lender - 	- Borrower - 


2
EXHIBIT 23

                       Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
Guest Supply, Inc.:


         We consent to incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements (File Nos. 2-89233, 2-89234, 33-22872,
33-63352 and 333-26709) on Form S-8 of Guest Supply, Inc. of our
report dated November 18, 1997, except as to the note on Long
Term Debt which is as of December 3, 1997, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Guest Supply, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of September 30, 1997 and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and
shareholders' equity and related schedule for each of the years
in the three-year period ended September 30, 1997, which report
appears in the September 30, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of
Guest Supply, Inc.




KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Short Hills, New Jersey
December 9, 1997

<PAGE>
Order filed January 18, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00927

- CV

____________ KIMBERLY WOODFORK , Appellant

V. BANK OF AMERICA, Appellee

On Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1018590



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due January 4, 2013

. No brief or motion for
extension of time has been filed.
Unless appellant submits h er brief, and a motion reasonably explaining why the brief was late, to the clerk of this co urt on or before February 19, 2013 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-13-2013

In Re: Nicholas Queen

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-2050

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Nicholas Queen " (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 684.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/684
CLD-242 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-2050

___________

IN RE: NICHOLAS QUEEN,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3:98-cv-02074)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

May 16, 2013

Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 13, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Nicholas Queen has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking that this Court 

enter an order directing the United States District Court for the Middle District of 

Pennsylvania to rule on Queen’s pending motion for relief from judgment filed on March 

11, 2013. 

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available in only the most extraordinary 

circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). 

“A petitioner seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus must have no other adequate 
2

means to obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and 

indisputable.” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). A district court has 

discretion in managing the cases on its docket. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 

810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). When a matter is discretionary, it cannot typically be said that a 

litigant’s right is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 

33, 35-36 (1980). Nonetheless, we have held that a writ of mandamus may be warranted 

where undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. Madden, 102 F.3d 

at 79. 

Queen has not demonstrated undue delay in this case. Queen’s motion was filed 

on March 11, 2013, and Queen’s petition for a writ of mandamus was filed on April 16, 

2013. Queen’s motion has been ripe for adjudication for a very short period of time, one 

that clearly does not rise to the level of undue delay and does not warrant our 

intervention. See id. 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition will be denied.
#### Wilbert LECOMPTE v. Joseph Edward REECE and Mrs. Helen Thibodaux Reece Fountain.

No. 11419.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 13, 1977.

Keith M. Whipple, Houma, for appellant.

Ted J. Borowski, Houma, for appellees.

Before LANDRY, EDWARDS and COLE, JJ.

COLE, Judge.

This appeal was fixed for argument and all attorneys of record were notified. At the time scheduled for argument, the appellant was not present or represented, nor had any brief been filed on behalf of appellant, nor had any motion been filed for continuance.

On authority of Rule VII, Section 5(b), this Court, ex proprio motu, considers this appeal as abandoned; therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be dismissed with prejudice.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
SECOND
      AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

    


    


    THIS
      SECOND AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is effective as of November 12, 2007,
      between Fuel Frontiers, Inc., a Nevada corporation and Kentucky Fuel Associates,
      Inc., a Kentucky corporation, collectively known as (the “Parties”)

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Parties mutually agree to amend the Development Agreement first entered
      into
      between the Parties on July 30, 2007:

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises contained herein and other good
      and
      valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby
      acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree that the Development Agreement be and
      the
      same hereby is amended as follows:

    


    1. Paragraph
      2(C) of the Development Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety
      as follows:

    


    “2.
      C. In
      consideration for each site located by KFA pursuant to the terms of this
      Agreement, and accepted by FFI for development, FFI agrees to pay KFA (7%)
      of
      the net pre-tax income of each CTL fuel production facility identified by KFA
      and developed by FFI for the entire lifetime of each production facility, to
      be
      distributed on a quarterly basis, within 30 business days of FFI and/or its
      parent company Nuclear Solutions, Inc.’s quarterly SEC filing. The computation
      of the quarterly net income shall be in accordance with GAAP accounting
      standards.”

    


    


    The
      Parties each hereby represents and warrants that they have full right, power
      and
      authority to enter into this Agreement and that the respective persons executing
      this Agreement are duly authorized to do so.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Agreement
      the day and year first above written.

     

    Dated
      this 12th
      day of
      November, 2007.

    


    
      	
              FUEL
                FRONTIERS, INC.

            	
              KENTUCKY
                FUEL ASSOCIATES, INC.

            
	 	 
	
              Patrick
                Herda /s/

            	
              Garry
                Sparks /s/

            
	
              
                
                  

                

              

            	
              
                

              

            
	
              By:
                Patrick Herda

            	
              By:
                Garry Sparks

            
	
              Title:
                Chairman & CEO

            	
              Title:
                President
September 1, 2016

Mr. Justin P. Healy Principal Real Urban Geographics LLC dba Real Geographics P.O. Box 1236 Bend, OR 97709

Re: FAA-2015-4936

Dear Mr. Healy:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and
have determined that we will con tinue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov , we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request. We have determined that your request requires further regulatory relief (T ier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federa l Register for public comments, if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final deci sion on your petition as s oon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,
/s/
Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21038]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
(SAMHSA); Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the SAMHSA Special Emphasis Panel II in August.
    A summary of the meeting may be obtained from: Ms. Dee Herman, 
Committee Management Liaison, SAMHSA Office of Extramural Activities 
Review, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 17-89, Rockville, Maryland 20857. 
Telephone: 301-443-7390.
    Substantive program information may be obtained from the individual 
named as Contact for the meeting listed below.
    The meeting will include the review, discussion and evaluation of 
individual contract proposals. This discussion could reveal personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals and 
confidential and financial information about an individual's proposal. 
This discussion may also reveal information about procurement 
activities exempt from disclosure by statute and trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information obtained from a person and 
privileged and confidential. Accordingly, the meeting is concerned with 
matters exempt from mandatory disclosure in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) 
(3),(4), and (6) and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Sec. 10(d).

    Committee Name: SAMHSA Special Emphasis Panel II.
    Meeting Date: August 12, 1997.
    Place: Residence Inn--Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Gatehouse 
Boardroom, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
    Closed: August 12, 1997, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Contact: Herman Diesenhaus, 7A102, Rockwall II Building, 
Telephone: 301-443-6575 and FAX: 301-480-3144.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.

    Dated: August 5, 1997.
Jeri Lipov,
Committee Management Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-21038 Filed 8-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Freddie PATE.

No. 60427.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 27, 1977.

In re: Freddie Pate applying for writ of certiorari.

Writ denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21935]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3841-000]


Cinergy Services, Inc., Notice of Filing

August 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 24, 1997, Cinergy Services, Inc. 
(Cinergy), tendered for filing a service agreement under Cinergy's Open 
Access Transmission Service Tariff (the Tariff) entered into between 
Cinergy and East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. (EK).
    Any person desiring to be heard or 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 August 26, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make the 
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.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21935 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21311]



[[Page 43325]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. OA97-691-000]


Southwestern Public Service Company, Notice of Filing

August 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 14, 1997, Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power 
Company (Cheyenne), Public Service Company of Colorado (PSColorado), 
and Southwestern Public Service Company (Southwestern) submitted a 
revised joint open access transmission tariff (Tariff). The Tariff, 
submitted in accordance with Order No. 888-A and the Commission's order 
in Docket No. ER96-2572-000, is intended to supersede the Cheyenne and 
PSColorado joint open access transmission tariff and the Southwestern 
open access transmission tariff.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 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 August 20, 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.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21311 Filed 8-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 3.23(b)

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-6300, 33-19372, 33-38928, 33-38925, 33-86726, 333-14607, and 333-29949
of Microfluidics International Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated
February 20, 1998, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Microfluidics
International Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1997.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 1998
#### J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Electric Machinery, Inc., and Honeywell, Inc., Petitioners, v. DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, an agency of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. GG-286.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 8, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1978.

Robert R. Feagin, Jr., of Holland & Knight, Lakeland, William J. Terry, Tampa, Woodie A. Liles, Tallahassee, and Patrick G. Emmanuel of Holsberry, Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon, Pensacola, for petitioners.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Bernard S. McLendon, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Thomas R. Brown, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners are contractors and suppliers for the new capitol construction project. They interpret their construction contract specifications as requiring they receive additional payment for work done by them on the capitol building security system. Schedule 16707 of that contract details the sophisticated security system to be used in the capitol. Petitioners, however, argue alternate bid number seven, which was rejected by the state, contemplated that additional work be done for the building monitoring system for both fire and security. The petitioners contended, and the hearing officer in the Section 120.57 hearing agreed, subsection (c) of the alternate bid was ambiguous and should be interpreted so as to exclude items in the building security subsystem found in schedule 16707, such ambiguity being construed against the drafter of the contract, the state. The Governor and Cabinet, sitting as agency head, rejected the recommended order of the hearing officer.

The final order held, and we agree, alternate bid number seven is not ambiguous; the petitioners were unreasonable in interpreting that clause to exclude any work item described in schedule 16707, and additional compensation should not be paid for the work in dispute. The agency head’s interpretation of the contract, being one of law and not of fact, did not reject or modify the findings of fact of the hearing officer. A review of the complete record was not necessary, nor need the final order of the reviewing agency state that the findings of fact in the recommended order were not based upon competent substantial evidence, *44or that the proceedings did not comply with the essential requirements of law, as required by Section 120.57(l)(b)9, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976). Cf. *McDonald*v. *Dept. of Banking and Finance,*346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The petition for review is

DENIED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
;

FAA1.00'H 2.5l..J

9. Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization" Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli CoHi Zhz}o1 -

Regional Airline Association Dave Lottercr "2../rz) rft -

Aircraft Ownel's & Pilots Association Robert Haclwlan 'rljn/cll .-

ATA Craig Fabian z-Idi'i ~
No. 99-7566.

#### Sleppy *v.*Ohio.

Ct. App. Ohio, Darke County. Certiorari denied.