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

Subsidiaries of Registrant



|                                       |  |               
|-------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|Name                                   |  | Jurisdiction  
|iPass (U.K.) Limited                   |  | United Kingdom
|iPass France SAS                       |  | France        
|iPass Deutschland GmbH                 |  | Germany       
|iPass Holdings PTY LTD                 |  | Australia     
|iPass Asia Pte LTD.                    |  | Singapore     
|iPass Japan Kabushiki Kaisha           |  | Japan         
|iPass India Private Limited            |  | India         
|iPass Ltd.                             |  | Israel        
|GoRemote Internet Communications, Inc. |  | Delaware      
|GoRemote International Corporation     |  | Delaware      
|Safe3w, Inc.                           |  | Delaware      
|Mobile Automation, Inc.                |  | Delaware      
|Worldwide Axcelerant Group             |  | Delaware      
|Axcelerant, Inc.                       |  | Delaware      
|MNS Holdings LLC                       |  | Delaware      
|Managed Network Services LLC           |  | Delaware
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 22, 2019

No. 04-19-00053-CR

Robert GARCIA, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR13227

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion for Leave to file Brief is hereby GRANTED. The Appellant’s 

brief is deemed filed.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of July, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3389 

To repeal the Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund and to deposit existing 

amounts in such Fund into the Treasury, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2013 

Mrs. CAPITO (for herself, Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mr. WESTMORELAND, 

Mr. COTTON, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. 

DUFFY, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. POSEY, and Mr. PITTENGER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To repeal the Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund and 

to deposit existing amounts in such Fund into the Treasury, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘CFPB Slush Fund 

5 Elimination Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FUND. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1017 of the Consumer Fi8 nancial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5497) is 

9 amended— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3389 IH

1 (1) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘and in the 

2 Civil Penalty Fund established under subsection 

3 (d)’’; and 

4 (2) by amending subsection (d) to read as fol5 lows: 

6 ‘‘(d) PENALTY FUNDS DEPOSITED INTO THE GEN7 ERAL FUND.—If the Bureau obtains a civil penalty 

8 against any person in any judicial or administrative action 

9 under Federal consumer financial laws, the Bureau shall 

10 deposit the amount of the penalty collected into the gen11 eral fund of the Treasury.’’. 

12 (b) FUNDS DEPOSITED IN TREASURY.—The Board 

13 of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall deposit 

14 all amounts in the Consumer Financial Civil Penalty Fund 

15 into the general fund of the Treasury. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ORDER STRIKING AND UNFILING DOCUMENT(S)

The Court has independently determined that the document(s) below should be stricken and unfiled. Accordingly, it is ordered 

that the document(s) is/are stricken from the record of this case, and the Clerk is directed to note on the docket that the 

document(s) has/have been unfiled.

DATE U.S. DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY

Judge:

Case Number: Style:

Date:

*******************

 1. A civil cover sheet must be filed with the complaint. See LR 3.1(a) or LR 3.2(c).

 2. The document(s) must be in proper form. See LR 10.1 or LCrR 49.3.

 3. The signature of the attorney of record, which includes a party proceeding pro se, is required on each 

A(n) has been filed by

 and is considered deficient in the area(s) noted below:

document filed. See FED. R. Civ. P. 11(a), FED. R. Crim. P. 49(d), LR 11.1(b), or LCrR 49.5(b).

 5. Each separate document contained therein must be identified. See LR 5.1(c) or LCrR 49.2(c).

 4. A completed certificate of service is required. See FED. R. Civ. P. 5(d) or FED. R. Crim. P. 49(d).

 6. The motion RUUHVSRQVHmust include:

 brief in support of motion. See LR 7.1(d), LR 56.5(a), or LCrR 47.1(d).

 certificate of conference or inability to confer. See LR 7.1(b) or LCrR 47.1(b).

 proposed order. See LR 7.1(c) or LCrR 47.1(c).

 documentary or non-documentary evidence in a separate appendix. See LR 7.1(i) or LR 56.6.

a.

b.

c.

d.

See LR 15.1(a) and (b). If the motion for leave to amend is filed on paper, the motion must be 

accompanied by an original and second copy of the proposed amended pleading that is neither attached to the 

motion nor made an exhibit to the motion. See LR 15.1(a).

 7. A motion for leave to amend must have a copy of the proposed amended pleading attached as an exhibit.

 8. A motion for continuance of a trial setting must be signed by the party as well as by the attorney of record. 

See LR 40.1.

 10. Additional copies are required. See LR 5.1(b) or LCrR 49.2(b).

 9. An attorney seeking pro hac vice admission must apply for admission on an approved form and pay the 

 11. The attorney filing the pleading is not admitted to practice in this district. See LR 83.7 or LCrR 57.7.

applicable fee. See LR 83.9(b) or LCrR 57.9(b).

 12. The document requires a separately signed certificate of interested persons. See LR 3.1(c), LR 3.2(e), 

 13. Other:

LR 7.4, LR 81.1 (a)(3)(D), or LR 81.2.

U S DISTRICT/MAG

June 9, 2022

O'Connor June 9, 2022

4:22-cv-308 Harris v. Cenlar FSB et al.

Joint Scheduling Report

the Parties

✔

Does not specify whether a jury demand has been made. 

Case 4:22-cv-00308-O Document 6 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 52
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**SHAWN D. HANSLEY,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 117 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 23rd day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
PUT NOTICE/COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
                        WORDWIDE WIRELESS NETWORKS, INC.

     The undersigned hereby certifies, with respect to shares of Common Stock of
Wordwide  Wireless  Networks,  Inc.  (the "Company") issuable in connection with
this  Put  Notice and Compliance Certificate dated _____________ (the "Notice"),
delivered  pursuant to Article II of the Private Equity Line of Credit Agreement
dated  as  of  June  ___,  2000  (the  "Agreement"),  as  follows:

1.     The  undersigned  is  the  duly  appointed  President  of  the  Company.

2.     The  representations  and  warranties  of  the  Company  set forth in the
Agreement are true and correct in all material respects as though made on and as
of  the  date  hereof and all SEC Documents are as represented in Section 4.5 of
the  Agreement.

3.     The  Company  has  performed  in  all material respects all covenants and
agreements  to  be  performed by the Company on or prior to the date of this Put
Notice  and  has  complied  in  all  material  respects with all obligations and
conditions  contained  in  the  Agreement.

4.     The  Investment  Amount  is  $___________.

5.     The  Threshold  Price  per  share  is  $  ___________.

The  undersigned has executed this Certificate this ____ day of ________, _____.


                                    WORDWIDE  WIRELESS  NETWORKS,  INC.


                                    ____________________
                                    President


<PAGE>
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 163

Concerning the release of the American hostages in Somalia and United

States Armed Forces withdrawal.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 7, 1993

Mr. CAMP submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Concerning the release of the American hostages in Somalia

and United States Armed Forces withdrawal.

Whereas the goal in sending United States Armed Forces to

Somalia, to allow food to reach the starving, has been

accomplished;

Whereas on May 4, 1993, the United Nations assumed oversight of peacekeeping operations in Somalia;

Whereas 4,700 United States Armed Forces personnel have

been deployed to Somalia under Operation Restore Hope

since December 1992, and 27 Americans have been killed

while serving there;

Whereas American servicemen are currently being detained

against their will as hostages in Somalia; and
2

•HCON 163 IH

Whereas United States Armed Forces should be withdrawn

from Somalia as safely and expeditiously as possible:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 President should obtain the release of the members of the

4 United States Armed Forces who are hostages in Somalia

5 and prepare a plan for the immediate withdrawal of

6 United States Armed Forces from Somalia.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JAMALLE DONNTAI GIBSON,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:22-CV-00173-P

DAVID C HAGERMAN ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

The United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order Recommending 

Dismissal and returned the case to this Court. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff 

timely objected to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. ECF No. 18. 

After reviewing the Recommendation, the Court fully ADOPTS the 

reasoning in the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 17) and OVERRULES

Plaintiffs’ Objection (ECF No. 18).

It is therefore ORDERED that this case is dismissed without

prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s orders. As such, 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) and Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Default Judgment (ECF No. 28) are both denied as moot. 

SO ORDERED on this 30th day of November, 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00173-P Document 30 Filed 11/30/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 164
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-290-CV

H. ROSS PEROT, JR., 	APPELLANTS

ALLIANCE HERITAGE MUSEUM, 

AND HILLWOOD DEVELOPMENT 

GROUP, L.P.	

	V.

HUGHES & LUCE, L.L.P., 	APPELLEES

AND STEPHEN G. GLEBOFF	

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

	FROM THE 352ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellants H. Ross Perot, Jr., Alliance Heritage Museum, and Hillwood Development Group, L.P., plaintiffs below, attempt to appeal from the trial court’s order granting the motion to transfer venue of Appellees Hughes & Luce and Stephen G. Gleboff, defendants below.  In their motion to transfer venue, Appellees contended that

•	Tarrant County is not a proper county and no basis exists mandating or permitting venue in Tarrant County;

•	A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Appellants’ claims did not occur in Tarrant County, contrary to Appellants’ petition; and

•	The principal offices of Appellees are in Dallas County, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Appellants’ claims occurred in Dallas County, making venue proper in Dallas County.

Appellees requested that the case be transferred to Dallas County in its entirety.  Alternatively, if the Tarrant County trial court found that at least one but not all of the Appellants established proper venue in Tarrant County, Appellees requested the transfer of the claims of those Appellants who had not independently established proper venue in Tarrant County.  Appellees did not request the transfer of the claims of any Appellant who had established proper venue in Tarrant County.

	The trial court ordered that the cause be transferred to Dallas County in its entirety.  Consequently, the trial court necessarily found that venue is improper in Tarrant County as to all parties.  The trial court did not reach the alternative question of whether a party “independently” established venue.2  Accordingly, no interlocutory appeal lies from the trial court’s order.3  We therefore grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction.										 							   PER CURIAM 

PANEL D:	DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  November 2, 2006
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10729

____________

Priscilla A. Ellis, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

United States of America; Michael Caravajal, Federal 

Bureau of Prisons Director, 

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CV-992

______________________________

Before Elrod, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Priscilla A. Ellis, federal prisoner # 03260-180, moves to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the district court’s denial of her 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion and her motion to reconsider 

the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. These motions were filed following the 

dismissal of her civil rights action for failure to timely comply with the district 

court’s order to file an amended complaint using the court’s prisoner civil 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 19, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10729 Document: 00516616238 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2023
No. 22-10729

2

rights form. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Ellis’s IFP motion challenges the

district court’s determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See 

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into 

whether the appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal 

involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not 

frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation 

omitted). 

In her appellate filings, Ellis largely discusses the merits of her 

constitutional claims and mentions that she did not file an amended 

complaint because she did not receive the order requiring her to do so. 

However, even assuming her allegation to be true, Ellis had ample 

opportunity to seek to comply with the district court’s order when she 

learned of it shortly after the court imposed deadline. However, she did not 

seek to comply then or in the ensuing 10 months leading to this appeal. Ellis

does not make the requisite showing that she has a nonfrivolous issue for 

appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, her motion to proceed 

IFP is DENIED, and her appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 

117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 

1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 

537 (2015). Ellis is WARNED that if she accumulates three strikes, she will 

not be permitted to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while 

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless she is under imminent danger 

of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

Case: 22-10729 Document: 00516616238 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: 

REAPPOINTMENT TO THE 

PENNSYLVANIA LAWYERS FUND FOR 

CLIENT SECURITY BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES AND DESIGNATION OF 

VICE-CHAIR

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 81

CLIENT SECURITY APPOINTMENT 

DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8

th day of February, 2023, Bruce S. Zero, Esquire, Lackawanna 

County, is hereby reappointed as a member of the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client 

Security Board of Trustees for a term of three years commencing April 1, 2023 and is 

designated as Vice-Chair, effective that date.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MONICA LYNN § 

MacCONNELL McREYNOLDS, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00194-O-BP

§

BELL TEXTRON, INC., §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

in this case. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for 

review.1 The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District Judge adopts the Findings and Conclusions 

of the Magistrate Judge as the District Court’s. 

The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 51) is therefore GRANTED; Plaintiff’s claims under 

The Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, and for personal 

injury, defamation, and emotional distress are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Final 

Judgment shall issue.

SO ORDERED on this 9th day of March, 2023. 

1 On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Objection to Defendants Notion that the Plaintiff Pay Court Costs 

(ECF No. 75). On March 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant’s Objections and Responses to 

Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission (ECF No. 76). Also on March 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Statement of 

Understanding of Employment History with Defendant (ECF No. 77). Having reviewed these submissions, 

and even after construing them generously, Sama v. Hannigan, 669 F.3d 585, 599 (5th Cir. 2012), the Court 

does not interpret any of them as an objection to Magistrate Judge Ray’s February 2, 2023 Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation (ECF No. 74).

Case 4:22-cv-00194-O Document 78 Filed 03/09/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 453
#### Ex parte DANIELS.

No. 26084.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

Relator, an inmate of the penitentiary, filed his original application for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.

It is shown from the record herein that he was convicted on November 6, 1939, in Cause No. 13,643, in the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County of felony theft and repetition of offenses under Article 63, P.C., and sentenced to life imprisonment.

 An examination of the indictment reveals that the primary offense was charg*587ed to have been committed on September 16, 1939. The two prior convictions alleged were as follows:

1. Felony theft alleged to have been committed on August 30, 1935, which resulted in a conviction in the District Court of Jones County on September 16, 1935.

2. Felony theft alleged to have been committed on August 26, 1935, which resulted in a conviction in the District Court of Tarrant County on October 28, 1935.

It is apparent therefrom that the Jones County offense was not committed subsequent to the Tarrant County conviction, and, therefore, such conviction cannot constitute the basis for prosecution as a third offender under Article 63, P.C. See Square v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 154 S.W.2d 852, and cases there cited.

It is further apparent therefrom that the indictment is sufficient to charge the relator as a second offender under Article 62, P.C.

The punishment in the instant case, provided for by Article 62, P.C., is ten years.

Relator has served in excess of ten years and is therefore entitled to discharge. Ex parte Pruitt, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 438, 141 S.W.2d 333.

The writ is granted, and the relator is ordered discharged.
;i 

07/29/201 0 10:58 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS @l008/009 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION /:;" 2 J 2010 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. "• - ^ DQO^^- J 

In the Matter of Marcus Wilson 

2009EA150078 

Judge Not Assigned 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby notifies the United States 

Department of Transportation, Office of Hearings, and the Respondent, pursuant to 

14 C.F.R. § 13.204(b), that it shall be represented in the above-stated action by tlie 

following attorney: 

Robert Spitzer 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Telephone: 718 553-3278 

Facsimile: 718 995-5699 

All commiinications, notices, pleadings or documents are respectfully requested to 

be forwarded as follows: 

Robert Spitzer 

Federal Aviation Adminisn-ation 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

:: J 

c:5 
07/29/2010 10:58 FAX 2024935142 FAA * DMS 12009/009 

Telephone: 718 553-3278 

Facsimile: 718 995-5699 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Coimsel 

By: W/ '^^ZZ' Dated: 

Robert Spitzer 

'la 15 z:i 

Attorney 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

1 hereby certify that on this day copies of the foregoing Notice of Appearance were 

placed in tlie United States mail, postage prepaid. Certified Mail - Return Receipt 

Requested addressed as follows: 

Marcus Wilson 

9575 Upland Street 

Spring VaUey, CA 91977 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy) 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Room 2014 

Date: 

JUL 1 6 2010 \ ^ ^.e> ^ 

JoMT^aher 

Mafmgement & Program Analyst 

Office of Regional Covinsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434