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

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES ANDTHEIR COUNTRY OR STATE OF****INCORPORATION/OPERATION**

  

| **•** |   | iProcure, Inc.                                     |   | Delaware            |   |
|------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems International, Inc.             |   | Delaware            |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream FSC, Inc.                               |   | U.S. Virgin Islands |   |
| **•** |   | SQL Group, B. V.                                   |   | The Netherlands     |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems, BV                             |   | The Netherlands     |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems (UK), Ltd.                      |   | The United Kingdom  |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream, SA                                     |   | France              |   |
| **•** |   | SQL System Participates, BV                        |   | The Netherlands     |   |
| **•** |   | SQL Systems Deutschland, GmbH                      |   | Germany             |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems, GmbH                           |   | Germany             |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Insta Holding GmbH                      |   | Germany             |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems GmbH & Co. KG               |   | Germany             |   |
| **•** |   | Asystum Participations, BV                         |   | The Netherlands     |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems Ireland Ltd.                    |   | Ireland             |   |
| **•** |   | Sikasso Pte Ltd.                                   |   | Singapore           |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems Pte Ltd.                        |   | Singapore           |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems Co., Ltd.                       |   | China               |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems Pte Ltd.                        |   | Japan               |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems Pty Ltd.                        |   | Australia           |   |
| **•** |   | Computec Sistemas S.A.                             |   | Argentina           |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems de Mexico S.A. de C.V.          |   | Mexico              |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Servicios Mexicanos, S. de R.L. de C.V. |   | Mexico              |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems do Brasil Ltda.                 |   | Brazil              |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems de Chile SRL                    |   | Chile               |   |
| **•** |   | Perville, SA                                       |   | Uruguay             |   |
| **•** |   | Datastream Systems Latinamerica SRL                |   | Uruguay             |   |
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 14 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 14

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Federal laws 
 regarding the taxation of State and local government bonds should not 
           be changed in order to increase Federal revenues.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Combest submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Federal laws 
 regarding the taxation of State and local government bonds should not 
           be changed in order to increase Federal revenues.

Whereas, in South Carolina v. Baker, the Supreme Court of the United States 
        ruled that Congress may tax interest on State and local government 
        bonds;
Whereas these bonds are an important source of revenue for State and local 
        governments in order to finance public projects, such as new roads, 
        bridges, and schools;
Whereas the taxation of interest on State and local government bonds would 
        severely impair the ability of these governments to finance such 
        projects; and
Whereas, historically, Congress has respected the important role of these bonds 
        in funding public projects by refraining from taxing the interest on 
        such bonds: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
Federal laws regarding the taxation of State and local government bonds 
should not be changed in order to increase Federal revenues.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32.1  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the
Annual Report of Endocardial Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James W. Bullock, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  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.   /s/ James W. BullockJames W. BullockChief Executive OfficerMarch 15, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1999             OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999             APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                               0                 115,185
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0               1,189,768
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                  43,900
<INVENTORY>                                          0               3,489,287
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0               4,928,504
<PP&E>                                               0               4,775,452
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0               3,212,691
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0               6,635,255
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                 741,647
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                  21,308
<OTHER-SE>                                           0               5,304,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0               6,635,255
<SALES>                                      2,439,288               4,831,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,439,288               4,831,459
<CGS>                                        1,544,905               3,064,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  592,174               1,186,407
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,000                   6,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,662                  25,567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                290,289                 564,607
<INCOME-TAX>                                   119,700                 232,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   170,589                 332,507
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08                     .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08                     .16
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 209 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 209

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a two-
thirds vote to waive any rule of the House of Representatives, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 1993

Mr. Royce submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a two-
thirds vote to waive any rule of the House of Representatives, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Resolved, (a) That clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) It shall not be in order in the House to waive any point of 
order or to agree to any order or resolution reported from the 
Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of any bill or 
resolution that waives any point of order against that bill or 
resolution or against its consideration, unless the waiver or the 
resolution or order is approved by not less than two-thirds of the 
Members voting, a quorum being present.''.
    (b) The last sentence of clause 4(b) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives is amended by inserting before the period the 
following: ``; nor shall it report any rule or order which would waive 
paragraph (e)''.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      
JOHNSTON INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

The weighted average number of common and common share equivalents on a primary
basis are as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                ----------------------------
                                                                                APRIL 3,           APRIL 4,
                                                                                 1999                1998
                                                                               ---------           ---------
<S>                                                                            <C>                 <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding                                        10,722              10,743

Shares issued from assumed exercise of
     incentive stock options(1)(2)                                                    --                  --

Shares issued from assumed exercise of
     nonqualified stock options(1)(2)                                                 --                  --
                                                                                --------            --------

Weighted average number of common and common
     equivalent shares outstanding as adjusted                                    10,722              10,743
                                                                                ========            ========



Net loss                                                                        $ (1,747)           $   (935)
                                                                                ========            ========

Net loss per common share:

     Basic and diluted                                                          $   (.16)           $   (.09)
                                                                                ========            ========
</TABLE>


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

(1)      Shares issued from assumed exercise of options included the number of
         incremental shares which result from applying the "treasury stock
         method" for options.

(2)      For the three months ended April 3, 1999 and April 4, 1998, common
         shares from assumed exercise of stock options are not presented as they
         are antidilutive due to net losses.


                                       22
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 206 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 206

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 30, 1993.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2150) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for the United 
States Coast Guard, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. After general 
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries now printed in the 
bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
by title rather than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. Points 
of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
failure to comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10462

Summary Calendar

 

REYNALDO T. RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION ,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CV-1724-Y

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

July 12, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Reynaldo T. Rodriguez, Texas inmate #835093, moves for a

certificate of appealability from the district court’s dismissal

without prejudice for lack of exhaustion of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition. The motion for COA is DENIED AS MOOT because Rodriguez

did not timely file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1); Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S.

56, 61 (1982) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is

“mandatory and jurisdictional”). We are without jurisdiction
No. 01-10462.

-2-

over the appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(1). Accordingly, the

appeal is DISMISSED.

COA DENIED AS MOOT; APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION.
#### Jere O. HUXFORD, Appellant, v. Mary Louise HUXFORD, Appellee.

No. L-446.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 19, 1970.

A. K. Black, Lake City, for appellant.

Ernest A. Sellers, of Airth, Sellers & Lewis, Live Oak, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant husband seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered in favor of his wife, appellee herein, by which she is granted separate maintenance unconnected with divorce.

The first two points on appeal question the sufficiency of the evidence to sup*869port the judgment awarding both temporary-alimony pendente lite and separate maintenance. Appellant failed to testify in his own behalf, nor did he adduce any evidence in opposition to the proof submitted by ap-pellee in support of her complaint. Our review of the record reveals substantial evidence supporting the issues raised by the pleadings on which the trial court based its findings and conclusions.

Appellant’s last point challenges the correctness of the trial court’s order denying his motion for a continuance of the final hearing because of his alleged physical and mental incapacity and inability to attend the hearing. It is our view that the trial court’s offer to continue the final hearing on the condition that appellant agree to stay all further proceedings in the divorce action brought by him against appellee in the State of Georgia until the conclusion of the case sub judice was eminently fair, and the court’s denial of appellant’s motion for continuance prompted by his refusal to agree to the condition imposed by the trial court did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

In our review of the issues presented for decision we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. It is not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be' disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed error or that the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous.1 The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.

1

. Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson (Fla.App.1965), 177 So.2d 50; Stoller v. Jaffe (Fla.App.1961), 125 So.2d 310.
#### William Gene NULL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-381.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 21, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Ruth SILVERN, Petitioner, v. Stanley SILVERN, Respondent.

No. 42391.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 11, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 261 So.2d 872.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), the undersigned officer ofSOURCECORP, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:



|Date: March 31, 2006 |  | /s/ED H. BOWMAN, JR.Ed H. Bowman, Jr. President and Chief Executive
Officer
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).

---



QuickLinks
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Allen ANDERSON v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, State of Louisiana.

No. 62612.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Allen Anderson applying for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
# Official Journal C 379A/10 N

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 379A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6310 November 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 379A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6310 November 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 379 A/01 | Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) — Angers (France) — Publication of a vacancy for the function of President (Temporary Agent — Grade AD 14) — COM/2020/20052 | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2020/C 379 A/01

Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) — Angers (France) — Publication of a vacancy for the function of President (Temporary Agent — Grade AD 14) — COM/2020/20052

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### SAMUEL G. SMITH’S CASE.

An insolvent discharged on a judge’s order for want of indemnity to the county, cannot be again imprisoned in the same case.

Kent,

April term, 1844.

Habeas corpus. The sheriff returned that the defendant was in custody on a writ of ca. sa. at the suit of Thatcher & Coleman.

*555The defendant was rendered by his special bail in this suit after judgment and fi. fa. returned nulla bona ; ca. sa. returned non est, and sci. fa. issued. He was afterwards discharged under a judge’s order for indemnity to the county, under section six of the act concerning insolvent prisoners, *(Dig.*312,) and forthwith arrested again under an alias ca. sa. in the same case. The application was now for his discharge under said section, which provides that a person discharged from imprisonment pursuant thereto, shall not be again arrested “ upon the same process.”

The argument of *Bates, jr.,*for the petitioner was,

that this imprisonment, being in the same suit, was a second imprisonment on the same *process,*taking the term in a general sense.

*Mr. Frame,*

replied that the imprisonment on the ca. sa. was not on the same process from which the defendant was discharged; that he was not before imprisoned on any process, but on the surrender of his bail and commitment of the judge.

*The Court*

said that the narrow construction which regards the meaning of the term “ process,” as applicable merely to the writ, would defeat the object of the law. Neither can it mean similar process; for it would be idle to suppose the legislature meant to discharge a debtor from one writ, and allow the creditor to imprison him on an alias, in the same case. It is said the defendant was not imprisoned on the first occasion by virtue of any process, being surrendered by his special bail. But he cannot be said to be committed by the bail. He is in on the commitment by the judge on the surrender; and is in custody by virtue of process in this suit. Even the bail piece may be properly regarded as process for this purpose. The meaning of the law is, that after the rule is made on a creditor to give security to indemnify the county against the support of his debtor, and he refuses to do so, he shall not be permitted to imprison him again in the same suit.

Petitioner discharged.
#### Gordon E. HALL and Deloris K. Hall, his wife, Appellants, v. A. Oliver McEACHERN et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1077.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 28, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.