alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

Radiant Systems Central Europe, Inc. 

Radiant Systems International, Inc. 

Estorelink.Com, Inc. 

RetailEnterprise, LLC 

Radiant Payment Services, LLC 

Radiant Systems Asia-Pacific Pty Ltd. 

Radiant Systems Retail Solutions PteLtd. 

Radiant Systems s.r.o. 

Radiant Systems Retail Solutions,S.L. 

Radiant Systems UK Limited 

Radiant Systems InternationalS.e.n.c. 

Radiant Systems International 2 S.e.n.c. 

RADSInternational S.a.r.l. 

Radiant Systems (Shanghai) Company, Ltd. 

RADS Australia Holdings Pty Ltd 

Quest Retail Technology Pty Ltd. 

Radiant Systems UK (II) Limited 

Hospitality EPOS Systems Limited 

Radiant Systems GmbH 

Orderman GmbH 

Orderman Iberica, S.L. 

Orderman UK Limited
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-50038

Summary Calendar

 

MIGUEL MARTINEZ-LOPEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE; R. D. MILES, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-00-CV-784-JN

- - - - - - - - - -

April 23, 2001

Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Martinez-Lopez appeals the district court’s denial of

his motion for immediate deportation and removal. He contends

that he is entitled to be immediately deported to Mexico because

he is a Mexican national, an order of removal has been entered

against him, and he has applied to be transferred to Mexico

pursuant to the Treaty on the Execution of Penal Sentences

between the United States and Mexico. Martinez is serving a 189-

month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to
No. 01-50038 

-2-

distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute five or

more kilograms of cocaine, and laundering monetary instruments.

Orders of removal generally may not be executed until after

an alien is released from prison. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B);

8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(4). Thus, Martinez’ assertion that the

existence of an order of removal against him requires his

immediate deportation is without merit. Additionally, section

1231 does not provide a private right of action to compel the

release or removal of an alien. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(4)(D). 

The Attorney General is vested with discretion to determine

whether to seek the transfer of an alien prisoner pursuant to the

Treaty on the Execution of Penal Sentences. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 4102. Martinez has cited no authority for compelling such a

transfer. In light of the fact that the receiving state, Mexico,

also must approve the transfer, the district court did not err in

determining that it lacked authority to order Martinez’

deportation. 

To the extent that Martinez seeks to raise new issues,

pertaining to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and an alleged

sentencing error under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), we do not consider these issues because they are raised

for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder

Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S.

1138 (2000).

AFFIRMED.
#### Wayne EDMONDS, Appellant, v. Harold ANDREWS, Sheriff of Weld County, State of Colorado, Appellee.

No. 84SA425.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Feb. 25, 1985.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Patrick Vance, Deputy State Public Defender, Greeley, for appellant.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. For-man, Sol. Gen., Peter Stapp, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for appellee.

ERICKSON, Chief Justice.

This habeas corpus appeal centers on whether Wayne Edmunds, the person designated in the extradition documents, is in fact Wayne Edmonds. In an effort to defeat extradition, the petitioner presented to the district attorney a number of membership cards, credit cards, and a driver’s license that included his picture. The documents were all admitted by stipulation (Exhibit B) at the habeas corpus hearing. The documents which the petitioner offered established that he lived in Springfield, South Dakota, that his last name, as set forth on the driver’s license and cards, was spelled with an “o” and not a “u,” and that he is known as Wayne Edmonds “Jr.” The respondent sheriff offered into evidence the petitioner’s statement relating to the alleged commission of the crimes in South Dakota, where the petitioner admittedly resided, and the district court admitted the statement.

The sufficiency of the extradition documents is conceded, apart from the different spelling of the name “Edmunds” and “Ed-monds Jr.” The sole issue is whether the extradition papers were sufficient to identify the petitioner in light of these differ-*326enees. The petitioner presented no evidence apart from Exhibit B. The district court ordered that the petitioner be extradited based upon our decisions in *Beverly v. Davis,*648 P.2d 621 (Colo.1982) and *Dilworth v. Leach,*183 Colo. 206, 515 P.2d 1130 (1973), in which we held that when two names are spelled differently but sound alike in their pronunciation, they are regarded as the same under the doctrine of *idem sonans.*

Even if the similarity of “Edmunds” and “Edmonds,” standing alone, is not enough to establish a prima facie showing of identity under *Davis*and *Leach,*because five of the seven documents presented by the petitioner identify him as “Wayne Edmonds *Jr.,"*other evidence supports the demand for extradition. In addition to the identification of the petitioner through the extradition documents, the district court admitted a statement made by “Wayne Edmunds” relating to the alleged offenses in South Dakota and acknowledging his role in kidnapping and transporting the victim from South Dakota to Colorado. The district court found that the statement was made by the petitioner, and this finding was not challenged by the petitioner at the habeas corpus hearing or on appeal. We conclude that the petitioner’s own admissions rebut any claim that he is not the same person sought to be extradited in South Dakota and are sufficient to establish identity for purposes of extradition. We therefore need not address the “Jr.” issue.

We affirm.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATIONS**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of CNX Gas Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Nicholas J. DeIuliis, President and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer) of the Registrant, certify that to my knowledge, based upon a reviewof the Report:     (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.Date:April 27, 2007       /s/ Nicholas J. DeIuliis         **Nicholas J. DeIuliis**    **President, Chief Executive Officer and Director**
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  By:
    /s/ Gary C. EvansGary C. Evans,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 15.4**

4 March 2016 

US Securities and ExchangeCommission 

100 F Street, N.E. 

Washington, DC 20549 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We are in agreement with the statementscontained in the section referenced as Item 16F on page 78 under the heading “External Auditor – Appointment of External Auditors at Annual General Meeting” of Smith & Nephew plc’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for theyear ended 31 December 2014. We have also read the section referenced as Item 16F on page 76 under the heading “External Auditor – Independence of External Auditor” of Smith & Nephew plc’s Annual Report onForm 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2015 and are in agreement with the statement in the first paragraph referring to change of external auditor therein. We have no basis to agree or disagree with other statements of the registrantcontained therein. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Ernst & Young LLP 

London, England
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2007 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2007

  To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-butyne-1,4-diol, polymer with 
(chloromethyl)oxirane, brominated, dehydrochlorinated, methoxylated and 
                          triethyl phosphate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-butyne-1,4-diol, polymer with 
(chloromethyl)oxirane, brominated, dehydrochlorinated, methoxylated and 
                          triethyl phosphate.

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

SECTION 1. 2-BUTYNE-1,4-DIOL, POLYMER WITH (CHLOROMETHYL)OXIRANE, 
              BROMINATED, DEHYDROCHLORINATED, METHOXYLATED AND TRIETHYL 
              PHOSPHATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      2-butyne-1,4-diol,  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        polymer with                                                       31/2011.......
                        (chloromethyl)oxi
                        rane, brominated,
                        dehydrochlorinate
                        d, methoxylated
                        (CAS No. 68441-62-
                        3) and triethyl
                        phosphate (CAS
                        No. 78-40-0)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3824.90.92)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David Glenn SKINNER.

No. 87-KK-2131.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Skinner, David Glenn; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish *460of DeSoto, llth Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 60695; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 19436-KW.

Denied.

MARCUS, J., would grant the writ.
Appendix 7 Dispersion Model Receptor RevisionsDispersion Model Receptor Revisions a nd Additions for the Secondary Lead Source Category

To estimate ambient concentrations for evaluating long-term exposures, the HEM-3 model uses the geographic centroids of census bl ocks (currently utiliz ing the 2000 Census) as dispersion model receptors. The census block cent roids are generally go od surrogates for where people live within a census block. A census bloc k generally encompasses about 40 people or 10- 15 households. However, in cases where a block ce ntroid is located on in dustrial property, or where a census block is large and the centroid is le ss likely to be representative of the block’s residential locations, the block centroid may not be an appropriate surrogate. For this source category, the table below contains each census bl ock for which we changed the centroid location because it was on facility property or was otherwise not representative of the residential locations

in the block.

Revised Census Block Centroid Locations:

Centroid Revisions Block ID NEI ID New Latitude New Longitude Comment

0304021027 N/A 33.146050 -96.825430 On plant property 0128002021 N/A 40.383634 -75.909407 On plant property 9890003042 N/A 31.7 91412 -85.979395 Not repr esentative of population
Exhibit32.2

Certification of Principal Financial OfficerPursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

I, Glenn J.Heiar, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the AnnualReport of Armor Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedDecember  31,  2006, fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Armor Holdings, Inc.

A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

Date: February  26,2007

|  | By:         /s/ Glenn J.Heiar             Name:    Glenn J. HeiarTitle:       Chief FinancialOfficer |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### Jean CHANGE, Appellant, v. Sam MATHIES and Nationwide Insurance, Appellees.

No. 4-86-1513.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 10, 1987.

Hans Feige of Feige & Cranmer, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellant.

David F. Crow of Paxton, Crow & Bragg, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee-Na-tionwide Ins.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand for a new hearing before the trial court for the purpose of determining the circumstances surrounding the appellant’s failure to substitute the estate, if any, of a deceased defendant in accord with the provisions of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260(a)(1). Our reversal is predicated upon the trial court’s erroneous conclusion that it was without discretion to consider appellant’s contentions. *50*See Stroh v. Dudley,*476 So.2d 230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

ANSTEAD, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
#### Charles L. SEABERRY v. Jimmy L. SMITH, Horace Mann Insurance Company and Sentry Insurance Company.

No. 89-C-0145.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1989.

Rehearing Granted in Part With Order Feb. 24, 1989.

In re Seaberry, Charles L.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-CA-0897; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 314-630.

Prior report: La.App., 534 So.2d 986.

Granted. The ruling of the appeals court of January 6, 1989 is set aside as being a substantial change to a definitive judgment. The stay order issued by the trial judge is set aside. Judgment of the court of appeal on November 16, 1988 is definitive.
#### SUCCESSION OF Charles Reed GRESHAM.

No. 87-C-1436.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Hartzell, Claire Stewart — Other; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-5770; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “K”, No. 79-10922.

Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 156.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO and MARCUS, JJ., would grant the writ.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 99
                           Forward-Looking Statements

The following factors, among others, could cause actual results to differ
materially from those contained in forward-looking statements made in this
report and presented elsewhere by management from time to time.

DEPENDENCE ON OTHERS: The Company's present growth strategy for development and
management of additional lodging facilities entails entering into various
arrangements with present and future property owners. There can be no assurance
that any of the Company's current agreements with property owners will be
continued, or that the Company will be able to enter into future collaborations.

CONTRACT TERMS FOR NEW UNITS: The terms of the operating contacts, distribution
agreements, franchise agreements and leases which relate to the Company's
lodging facilities are influenced by contract terms offered by the Company's
competitors at the time such agreements are entered into. Accordingly, there can
be no assurance that contracts entered into or renewed in the future will be on
terms that are as favorable to the Company as those under existing agreements.

COMPETITION: The profitability of hotels operated by the Company is subject to
general economic conditions, competition, the desirability of particular
locations, the relationship between supply of and demand for hotel rooms, and
other factors. The Company generally operates hotels in markets that contain
numerous competitors, and the continued success of the Company's hotels in their
respective markets will be dependent, in large part, upon those facilities'
ability to compete in such areas as access, location, quality of accommodations,
amenities, and cost.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND: During the 1980s, construction of lodging facilities in the
United States results in an excess supply of available rooms, and the oversupply
had an adverse effect on occupancy levels and room rates in the industry. The
current outlook for the industry indicates that the lodging industry may be
adversely affected in the future by (i) international, national and regional
economic conditions, (ii) changes in travel patterns, (iii) taxes and government
regulations which influence or determine wages, prices, interest rates,
construction procedures and costs, and (iv) the availability of capital.
#### STATE ex rel. Clarence SMITH v. Hon. Judge F. SHEA, Sect. “G”, Criminal District Court, Orleans Parish.

No. 87-KH-0716.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Smith, Clarence; applying for remedial writ; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. K 7073; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 298-874.

Prior report: La., 501 So.2d 240.

Granted. The district court is ordered to comply with this Court’s order of February 9, 1987 (No. 87-KH-0240) within 30 days.
<PAGE>   1
 

 

                              EXHIBIT NUMBER 23.2
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Board of Directors
VSI Enterprises, Inc.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement No. 33-44036 on Form S-8 dated November 14, 1991, Registration
Statement No. 33-44035 on Form S-8 dated November 14, 1991, Registration
Statement No. 33-55094 on Form S-3 dated November 25, 1992, Registration
Statement No. 33-56856 on Form S-8 dated January 8, 1993, Registration
Statement No. 33-72512 on Form S-8 dated December 3, 1993, Registration
Statement No. 33-81314 on Form S-8 dated July 7, 1994, Registration Statement
No. 333-728 on Form S-3 dated January 30, 1996, Registration Statement No.
33-85754 on Form S-3 dated January 30, 1996 (Post-Effective Amendment No. One),
Registration Statement No. 333-15123 on Form S-3 dated October 30, 1996,
Registration Statement No. 333-18237 on Form S-8 dated December 19, 1996,
Registration Statement No. 333-18239 on Form S-8 dated December 19, 1996,
Registration Statement No. 333-30597 on Form S-3 dated June 30, 1997 and
Registration Statement No. 333-44407 on Form S-3 dated January 14, 1998, of our
report dated February 21, 1997, relating to the 1995 and 1996 consolidated
financial statements of VSI Enterprises, Inc. and subsidiaries appearing in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997.



/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
March 20, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                         5
<LEGEND>                          This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Scotsman
                                 Industries, Inc. Condensed Balance Sheet (Unaudited) as of March 31, 1996 and
                                  Scotsman Industries, Inc. Condensed Statement of Income (Unaudited) for the Three
                                  Months Ended March 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
                                  financial statements.
<MULTIPLIER>                      1000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<CASH>                            14,883
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                     63,287
<ALLOWANCES>                      3,112
<INVENTORY>                       56,161
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  143,415
<PP&E>                            46,278
<DEPRECIATION>                    40,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    287,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             76,738
<BONDS>                           83,372
<COMMON>                          915
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       1,998
<OTHER-SE>                        112,169                    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      287,561
<SALES>                           85,533
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  85,533
<CGS>                             62,130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     62,130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                1,415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   6,965
<INCOME-TAX>                      3,346
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               3,619
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                      3,619
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                     0.34

</TABLE>