alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF TRANSPRO, INC.

                  The following sets forth a list of all the subsidiaries of
TransPro, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and the State or other
jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of each

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                    NAME                                                      JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION OR
                                                                                         ORGANIZATION
                                                                                         ------------
<S>       <C>                                                                <C>
          Allen Heat Transfer Products, Inc.                                               Delaware
          AHTP II, Inc.                                                                    Delaware
          CROWN CREW CAB, INC.                                                             Delaware
          GO/DAN Industries (1)                                                            New York
          GO/DAN de Mexico, SA de C.V. (2)                                                  Mexico
          Radiadores GDI, SA de C.V. (2)                                                    Mexico
          TransPro Indus Ltd.                                                              Mauritius
          Crown-VMS Canada, Ltd.                                                        Ontario, Canada
          EVAP, Incorporated                                                                 Texas
          A/C Plus, Incorporated                                                             Texas
</TABLE>

(1)      GO/DAN Industries, a New York general partnership, is jointly owned by
         Allen Heat Transfer Products Inc. and AHTP II, Inc.

(2)      A wholly-owned subsidiary of GO/DAN Industries.
#### In re the MARRIAGE OF Cecilia Moore BENJAMIN, and Mark Franzen, Appellee. Appeal of Anne L. ALLAMAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Cecilia Moore Benjamin.

No. 85CA0958.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

June 11, 1987.

Caren Brandt Winters, Boulder, for ap-pellee.

Thomas J. Gillooly, Boulder, for appellant.

STERNBERG, Judge.

The decedent (wife) had filed an action seeking dissolution of her marriage to ap-pellee Franzen. Temporary orders relating to custody, visitation, maintenance and child support had been entered when wife died. Her personal representative moved the trial court for an award of attorney fees. The court dismissed that claim and the personal representative appeals the denial of attorney fees. We affirm.

The personal representative concedes that, while there is a split of authority concerning the liability of a husband for a deceased wife’s attorney fees, in Colorado the case of *Greer v. Greer,*110 Colo. 92, 130 P.2d 1050 (1942) has decided the issue adversely to her. There, it was held that:

> “[W]hen the wife dies during the penden-cy of the action, any proceeding based on the liability of the husband for the wife’s counsel fees abates on her death.”

*Greer,*a separate maintenance case, was decided under a predecessor statute to the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act, but we are aware of no provisions of the Uniform Act which could be construed as a legislative overruling of the quoted rule.

Section 14-10-119, C.R.S., authorizes a court to order one party in a dissolution of marriage action to pay the attorney fee of the other, after considering the financial resources of both parties. The purpose of this provision is to equalize the status of *533parties to the dissolution proceeding. *In re Marriage of Franks,*189 Colo. 499, 542 P.2d 845 (1975). An award of attorney fees to a deceased wife’s attorney would in no way foster the objective of insuring the equality of the parties in litigating the issues in the dissolution of marriage case. *Greer v. Greer, supra.*

*Sarno v. Sarno,*28 Colo.App. 598, 478 P.2d 711 (1970) does not require a different result. In that case, the wife had died following entry of orders making property dispositions; thus, her estate could proceed to recover on those matters that had been determined prior to her death. Here, on the other hand, there had been no award of attorney fees prior to the wife’s death.

Judgment affirmed.

SMITH and BABCOCK, JJ., concur.
**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 Jaguar Acquisition Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 (the
“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I, James S. Cassano, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and





2. The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





By:
                /s/
                James
                  S.
                  Cassano
                
                Dated:
                  February
                  13, 2007James
                    S. Cassano
                  Chief
                      Financial Officer
                    (Principal
                      Accounting and Financial Officer)
## SERVE D JUL Y 19 , 201 1 U.S . DEPARTMEN T OFTRANSPORTATIO N ••"VvM'V^'-npTATi n OFFIC EOFHEAR1>JG

S •'

V •^JF^'OPFRAT[ON S 

### WASHINGTON , D C '" " "' ' ' '

^ 'i m JU L n P ?:

• 3 1 [ N TH EMATTERO F CORNERSTON EAVIATION , IN C FA A DOCKE T NO . [T O B EASSIGNED ]

(Civi l Penall y Action ) FDM S NO . FAA-2011-048 9 NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor e designate da s Cas e No . 2011NM070042 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e Law Judg e RichardC . Goodwin . Al l future pleading s and othe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve don th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an

dth e othe r

person s on th e attache dServic e List .

Ronni e A . Chie f Administrate Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFDM S No . FAA-2011-048 9 (Civi l Penall y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2WIOO0 ' ON ECOP Y Susa n J . Horstman , Chie f Executiv e Office r Cornerston e Aviation , Inc. , Responden t 33 7 Nort h237 0 West//13 0 Sal t Lak e City , UT84 I 1 6 TEL : 801-355-224 4 Jeffre y M . Harper , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W . Renton , W A 9805 7 TEL : 425-227-216 1 FAX ; 425-227-100 7 fh e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEI2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

Service wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r service i n perso n o r b y expeditedcourier, us

e (li e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 60

0 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigli i Building—Suit

e 2 W1000 , Washington , D

C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 . - 9 -
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clarence Clemmons, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered February 20, 1990, convicting him of attempted arson in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilt in that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to start a fire and damage the complainant’s car. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the conviction. After having an argument with the complainant, the defendant told her that he was going to burn her car. The complainant and two others then observed the defendant pour gasoline on the tire and hood of the complainant’s car and put a flaming cigarette lighter, which was extinguished by the wind, near the gasoline three times. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s contention that the jury charge with respect to the issue of intent was confusing and misleading is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Bryant,*122 AD2d 220; *People v Flores,*113 AD2d 899) and, in *724any event, is without merit. Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1874 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on titanium dioxide. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

Mr. CASEY 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 titanium 

dioxide. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TITANIUM DIOXIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9903.27.06 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 titanium dioxide) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/09’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1874 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Golden Century Technologies Corporation - Exhibit 10.5





Exhibit 10.5 - Amendment Consulting Agreement dated August
  1, 2006 between Golden Century 

                          
  Technologies Corporation and Ms. Li Yang

CONSULTING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

This Amendment Agreement is made and entered into effective as
  of the 1st day of August, 2006, between GOLDEN CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
  a US company, (the "Company") and Li Yang (the “Consultant”).

WHEREAS:

	 	2. 	 The parties entered into an agreement dated August 1,
        2005, that both parties agree to amend.



THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES THAT in consideration of the
  premises and mutual covenants contained in this Agreement and other good and
  valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
  the parties, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:

	 	4. 	 The term of the August 1, 2005, consulting agreement
        is hereby extended for an additional one year term.

	 	 	 
	 	5. 	 The payment to the Consultant by the Company is hereby
        changed from CAN$30,000 into US$30,000 for the term.

	 	 	 
	 	6. 	 This Agreement is to be considered a part of the Original
        Agreement.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed and
  delivered this Agreement as of the date first written above.

	GOLDEN CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES 	THE CONSULTANT 
	CORPORATION 	  
	  	  
	/s/ Hong Yang 	   /s/ Li Yang 
	Hong Yang, President & Director 	   Li Yang
# L_2006365EN.01008601.xml

| 21.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 365/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 365/86

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 19 December 2006

on the granting of the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance beyond 1 January 2007 to the Republic of El Salvador

(2006/978/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 980/2005 of 27 June 2005 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | By Commission Decision 2005/924/EC (2) of 21 December 2005, El Salvador has been included in the list of developing countries which qualify for the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance, provided for in Regulation (EC) No 980/2005, for the period 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2008. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By Commission Decision 2005/924/EC (2) of 21 December 2005, El Salvador has been included in the list of developing countries which qualify for the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance, provided for in Regulation (EC) No 980/2005, for the period 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2008.

| (2) | Pursuant to the said Regulation, the granting of the special incentive arrangement beyond 1 January 2007 to countries faced with specific constitutional constraints to the ratification of a maximum of two of the 16 conventions listed in Part A of Annex III to the same Regulation is subject to a Council Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to the said Regulation, the granting of the special incentive arrangement beyond 1 January 2007 to countries faced with specific constitutional constraints to the ratification of a maximum of two of the 16 conventions listed in Part A of Annex III to the same Regulation is subject to a Council Decision.

| (3) | In accordance with the same Regulation, the Commission submitted on 29 November 2006 a report to the Council on the compliance by El Salvador with its commitments under that Regulation and proposing a continuation of the special incentive arrangement beyond 1 January 2007, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with the same Regulation, the Commission submitted on 29 November 2006 a report to the Council on the compliance by El Salvador with its commitments under that Regulation and proposing a continuation of the special incentive arrangement beyond 1 January 2007,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Sole Article

The Republic of El Salvador shall continue to benefit from the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance provided for in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 980/2005, from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2008.

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2006.

For the Council

The President

J. KORKEAOJA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 169, 30.6.2005, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 337, 22.12.2005, p. 50.

2

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS
AMERICAN COIN MERCHANDISING, INC.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-98888) on Form S-8 of American Coin Merchandising, Inc. of our report dated
February 25, 1997, relating to the balance sheets of American Coin
Merchandising, Inc. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related
statements of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in
the December 31, 1996, annual report on Form 10-KSB of American Coin
Merchandising, Inc.


                                           /S/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                                      
                                               KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Boulder, Colorado
March 27, 1997
# L_2006062EN.01001801.xml

| 3.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 62/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 62/18

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 374/2006

of 2 March 2006

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 20th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) and in particular the second indent of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 of 15 July 2005 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2005/2006 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 of 15 July 2005 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2005/2006 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 20th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 the maximum amount of the export refund shall be 30,713 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 March 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 March 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 185, 16.7.2005, p. 3.

2

---
STYLE v. RE: Case No. 15-0196 COA #: 12-13-00035-CV CYNTHIA KAY LYLES AARON JORDAN, ET AL. 

### fILed'incourtofappeals 19thCourtofAppealsDistrict 

# Is

FILECOPY DATE: 4/14/2015 TC#: 2011-115 Today the Supreme Court of Texas granted the second 

### motion for extension of time to file petition for review under Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f) in the above-referenced case. The petition for review is due to be filed no later than 

### April 29, 2015. Further requests for extensions of time for this filing will be disfavored. MS. CATHY S. LUSK CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS 1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 354 TYLER, TX 75702
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0740. MONTE GALE SALYER v. THE STATE.

A jury found Monte Gale Salyer guilty of multiple offenses, including child

molestation. The trial court denied Salyer’s motion for new trial on September 18,

2015, and Salyer filed a notice of appeal on November 4, 2015. We lack jurisdiction.

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the

order on appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice

of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Couch

v. United Paperworkers Intl. Union, 224 Ga. App. 721 (482 SE2d 704) (1997). 

Because Salyer filed his notice of appeal 47 days after entry of the order he seeks to

appeal, it is untimely. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction.

We note, however, Salyer’s contention that the trial court’s order was not

mailed to him until October 13, 2015, and that he received the order on October 19,

2015. To the extent that Salyer was not given timely notice of the trial court’s ruling,

his remedy is to petition the trial court to vacate and re-enter the order as a means of

correcting the problem. See Cambron v. Canal Ins. Co., 246 Ga. 147, 148-149 (1)

(269 SE2d 426) (1980). The re-entry of the order begins anew the time for filing a

notice of appeal. See id.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/08/2016

January 08, 2016
# L_2006051EN.01001101.xml

| 22.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 51/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 51/11

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 307/2006

of 21 February 2006

amending Regulation (EC) No 80/2006 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the Community market of rye held by the German intervention agency

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 80/2006 (2) opens a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the Community market of rye held by the German intervention agency. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 80/2006 (2) opens a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the Community market of rye held by the German intervention agency.

| (2) | In view of market requirements and the quantities held by the German intervention agency, Germany has informed the Commission that its intervention agency intends to increase the amount put out to tender by 50 000 tonnes. In view of the market situation, the request made by Germany should be granted. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In view of market requirements and the quantities held by the German intervention agency, Germany has informed the Commission that its intervention agency intends to increase the amount put out to tender by 50 000 tonnes. In view of the market situation, the request made by Germany should be granted.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 80/2006 should be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 80/2006 should be amended accordingly.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 80/2006, ‘50 000 tonnes’ is replaced by ‘100 000 tonnes’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 February 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 14, 19.1.2006, p. 5.

2

---