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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                   LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF OPEN SOLUTIONS INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Subsidiary                                         Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Formation
----------                                         ------------------------------------------

<S>                                                            <C>
Maxxar Corporation                                             Delaware

Open Solutions RDS Technologies, Inc.                          Delaware

Wildcat Acquisition Corp.                                      Delaware

Open Solutions BIS, Inc.                                       Delaware

BIS LP, Inc.                                                   Delaware

BISYS Information Solutions Holdings I, Inc.                   Delaware

BISYS Information Solutions Holdings II, Inc.                  Delaware

BISYS Information Solutions L.P.                               Delaware

BISYS Document Solutions, LLC                                  Delaware

re:Member Data Services, Inc.                                  Indiana

6259936 Canada, Inc.                                           Federal Canada

Open Solutions Datawest, Inc.                                  Federal Canada

Open Solutions DTS, Inc.                                       British Columbia, Canada

Open Solutions Canada, Inc.                                    Ontario, Canada

Open Solutions Canada (partnership)                            Ontario, Canada

TCS (Canada) Ltd.                                              Ontario, Canada

Open Solutions Software Services Private Limited               Delhi, India
</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2014

t0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148391

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148391

COA: 317920 

Wayne CC: 12-003606-FH

LOVE L. MORRISSETTE, III,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 20, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Draft Emissions Inventory TSD Bill Maxwell to: Cortney_Higgins 03/04/2011 04:36 PM Cc: RobertJ Wayland, Marc Houyoux

Cortney --

Attached is the draft Emissions Inventory TSD and its appendix.

Thanks.

Proposed Toxics Rule Modeled Emissions TSD DRAFT 04mar2011.pdf Appendices 2016 Toxics Rule Modeled Emissions DRAFT 04mar2011.pdf

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt Bill Maxwell Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919-541-5430 FAX: 919-541-5450
OPEN PLAN SYSTEMS, INC.

          EXHIBIT 11 - Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Three Months Ended                         Six Months Ended
                                                                   June 30,                                 June 30,
                                                          2001                 2000                 2001                2000
                                                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                    <C>                  <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding
   during the period                                        4,337                4,403                4,338                4,403

Assumed exercise of options less
   assumed acquisition of shares                                -                    -                    -                    -
                                                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                       4,337                4,403                4,338                4,403
                                                    ===============================================================================


Net (loss) income used in computation                  $   (8,333)          $     (267)          $   (9,314)          $     (143)
                                                    ===============================================================================

(Loss)  per common share                               $    (1.92)          $     (.06)          $    (2.15)          $     (.03)
                                                    ===============================================================================

</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1664 

To amend section 5307 of title 49, United States Code, with respect to 

the treatment of communities as urbanized areas following a major disaster. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2017 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. KAINE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend section 5307 of title 49, United States Code, 

with respect to the treatment of communities as urbanized areas following a major disaster. 

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 ‘‘Relief for Recovering 

5 Communities Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF URBANIZED AREAS FOLLOWING A 

7 MAJOR DISASTER. 

8 Section 5307 of title 49, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1664 IS

1 ‘‘(i) URBANIZED AREAS FOLLOWING A MAJOR DIS2 ASTER.— 

3 ‘‘(1) DEFINED TERM.—In this section, the term 

4 ‘major disaster’ has the meaning given such term in 

5 section 102(2) of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 

6 (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)). 

7 ‘‘(2) URBANIZED AREA MAJOR DISASTER POPU8 LATION CRITERIA.—Notwithstanding section 5302, 

9 the Secretary shall treat an area as an ‘urbanized 

10 area’ for purposes of this section until the second 

11 decennial census conducted after a major disaster in 

12 such area if— 

13 ‘‘(A) the area was defined and designated 

14 as an ‘urbanized area’ by the Secretary of Com15 merce in the decennial census immediately pre16 ceding such major disaster, effective with the 

17 2000 decennial census; and 

18 ‘‘(B) the population of the area fell below 

19 50,000 as a result of such major disaster. 

20 ‘‘(3) POPULATION CALCULATION.—An area 

21 treated as an ‘urbanized area’ under this subsection 

22 shall be assigned the population and square miles of 

23 the urban cluster designated by the Secretary of 

24 Commerce in the most recent decennial census. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1664 IS

1 ‘‘(4) SAVINGS PROVISION.—Nothing in this sub2 section may be construed to affect apportionments 

3 made under this chapter before the date of the en4 actment of this subsection.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION ***

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of AirNet Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joel E. Biggerstaff,Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the UnitedStates Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
|                     | /s/ Joel E.  Biggerstaff                                              |   |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Joel E.  Biggerstaff                                                  |
|                     |                                                                  |
|                     | Title:  Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive  Officer and President |
|                     | (Principal  Executive Officer)                                        |
|                     |                                                                  |
| Date:  November 15, 2004 |                                                                  |

 

----

*Thiscertification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a -14(b) underSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed “filed”for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to theliability of that Section. This certification shall not be deemed to beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 orthe Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.

 

1

----
#### MITCHELL v. STATE.

No. 15297.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 26, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1932.

R. G. Robertson, of Port Arthur, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol ; punishment, confinement in the county jail for ninety days.

There is no contention but that appellant when arrested for a violation of a traffic ordinance had in his possession a pistol. The statement of facts is entirely in question and answer form. Chapter 34 of the Acts of the First Called Session of the 42d Legislature (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. arts. 2237-2239 and Note, and Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. art. 760) permits the preparation of statements of facts in question and answer form in civil cases, but by the terms of section 5 of said act it is especially provided that same is not intended to and shall not be construed as repealing, modifying, or amending article 760 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 7 of said act (Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. art. 760) provides, in so many words, a change in subdivision 1 of said article 760, in reference to a statement of facts in criminal cases, and states as follows; .“Provided that said statement of facts shall be in narrative form.” We cannot consider said statement of facts. We find in the record no bills of exception. The proceedings appear in all things to be regular.

The judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

In his motion for rehearing, appellant complains that we overlooked his defense, namely, his contention that he was a traveler, and did not therefore violate the- law m carrying a pistol.

In the original opinion it was pointed out that the purported statement of facts was in such condition that this court is not authorized to consider it; that is to say, it is entirely in question and answer form. The statute demands that it be in narrative form. See article 760, C. C. P. 1925; also, chapter 34, Acts of 42d Legislature, First Called Session (Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. art. 760). In the condition in which the record is found, this court has no official knowledge of the facts, and consequently must assume that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.

The motion is overruled.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 237 (Friday, December 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 77048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31293]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 72-9 and 72-20]


Department of Energy; Fort St. Vrain and Three Mile Island, Unit 
2, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations; Notice of Docketing of 
Materials Licenses SNM-2504 and SNM-2508 Amendment Applications

    By letter dated August 30, 2000, the U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE) submitted an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC or the Commission), in accordance with 10 CFR Part 72, requesting 
the amendment of the Fort St. Vrain (FSV) and Three Mile Island, Unit 2 
(TMI-2) independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) licenses, 
SNM-2504 and SNM-2508, respectively. The FSV ISFSI is located at Weld 
County, Colorado, and the TMI-2 ISFSI is located at Idaho Falls, Idaho. 
In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 73.21(h), DOE is seeking 
Commission approval to use a new plan for safeguards information 
protection for both ISFSIs. The requested changes do not appear to 
affect the design, operation, maintenance, or surveillance of the 
ISFSIs.
    These applications were docketed under 10 CFR Part 72; the ISFSI 
Docket No. for FSV is 72-9 and the Docket No. for TMI-2 is 72-20 and 
will remain the same for these actions. The amendment of both ISFSI 
licenses are subject to the Commission's approval and may take place 
under separate actions.
    The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, or 
his designee, will determine if the amendments present a genuine issue 
as to whether public health and safety will be significantly affected 
and may issue either a notice of hearing or a notice of proposed action 
and opportunity for hearing in accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(1) or 
take immediate action on the amendments in accordance with 10 CFR 
72.46(b)(2).
    For further details with respect to this application, see the 
application dated August 30, 2000, which is available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, One White Flint 
North Building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, or from the 
publicly available records component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). 
ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of November 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
E. William Brach,
Director, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 00-31293 Filed 12-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 23.2

             CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-13353, 333-35455, 333-45347, 333-39019, 333-34127, 333-23039, 333-70675,
333-75941, 333-89259, and 333-90181 on Form S-3 and 33-80343, 333-41491,
333-68549, and 333-75637 on Form S-8 of our report dated January 27, 2000,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of WAVO Corporation for the year
ended December 31, 1999.




/s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-----------------------------



Phoenix, Arizona
March 29, 2000


                                       82
#### In the Matter of Berenice T. Freiburger, Respondent, v Thomas Sobol, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, Appellant.

Kane, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Conway, J.), entered March 5, 1990 in Albany County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul respondent’s *818determination denying petitioner’s request for a public librarian’s professional certificate.

The issue to be resolved on this appeal is whether Supreme Court was correct in concluding that respondent’s refusal to grant petitioner a public librarian’s professional certificate was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. Respondent’s rules provide that in order to be granted such a certificate, an applicant must show satisfactory completion of the following: (1) a Bachelor’s degree, or its equivalent as determined by respondent, *and*(2) a full year’s program in an approved library school culminating in an appropriate degree or credential, or equivalent education, *and*(3) at least three years of acceptable experience *(see,*8 NYCRR 90.7 [a] [2]).

Admittedly, petitioner has not completed a one-year library school program, but asserts that she has documented an equivalent education. In support of her contention, she submitted to respondent a list containing a number of workshops and programs for which she had been awarded continuing education units (hereinafter CEUs). Respondent determined that the courses petitioner had taken, as well as her practical library experience, did not equal the course work she would have received in a full year’s education in an approved library school. This determination was founded in part by the conclusion that an "equivalent education” contemplated the issuance of college credits leading to a degree *(see, 8*NYCRR 50.1 [n]), and not CEUs.

It is axiomatic that courts do not have the power to substitute their judgment for that of the properly delegated administrative official, and where, as here, there is absent clear proof that the discretion of the administrative agency has been exercised arbitrarily, unfairly or capriciously, the courts are not to interfere *(see, Matter of Marburg v Cole,*286 NY 202, 208). In our view, the record clearly demonstrates a sound basis for the exercise of the discretion vested in respondent, as well as the interpretation of respondent’s own regulations. Accordingly, this court will not interfere *(see, Matter of Karasik v Board of Regents,*130 AD2d 923, *lv denied*70 NY2d 615). In light of the foregoing, Supreme Court erred in granting the petition.

Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, determination confirmed and petition dismissed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mercure, JJ., concur.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R I C HA R D S T R OU D, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. K . N E V I L L E , C o rr e c tio n s O f f ic e r , in i n d i v i du al cap aci ty, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 12- 56929 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 2 - c v - 0 6 2 1 4 - R- M RW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a nue l L . R e a l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d Jul y24, 2013 ** B e f o r e : A L A R C Ó N , C L I F T O N , a n dC A L L A H A N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . R i c ha r d S tr oud appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e to h is s a f

e tyin c o n n e c t i o n w i th a n a s s au l tb yo th e ri n ma t e s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED AU G 05 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 56929 2 § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o ad is m is s a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A . W ei lbu rg v. Sh a p i ro , 4 8 8 F. 3 d1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 5 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed S troud ’ s a ct i on because S troud fa i l ed to alleg e f

ac ts sh o w in g th at d ef

en d an t d isre g ar d ed an ex ce ss iv e r iskto S tro u d ’s s a f e ty . Se e Farm e rv . B r e nnan , 5 1 1 U .S . 8 2 5 , 8 3 7 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( c la im o f d e lib e r a te i nd i ff er ence re qu i re s s ho w i ng that“ the offi ci al[knew ] of and d i sr egar d[ed] an e x c e s s iv e r is kto in m a te . . . s a f e ty ” ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yd is m is s in g w ith o u t le a v e to a m e n db e c au s e a m e n d m e n t w o u ldh a v e b e e n f u tile . Se e A lbr e c ht

v . L und , 845 F . 2d 193, 195 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( di s m i s s a l w i thoutl e a ve t o a m e nd i s nota n abus e of di sc re t i on i f am endm entw ou l d b e f ut i l e) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng S tr oud’ s m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n b e c au s e S tr o u df a ile dto e s tab lis h a n yg r o u n df o rs u c h r e lie f

. See Sc h. D is t. N

o. 1J , Mul tnom ah Cnt

y . , O r . v . A CandS, I

nc , 5 F .3 d1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 2 - 6 3 ( 9 th C i r . 1993) ( s e tt i ng f

orth s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w a nd di s c us s i ng gr ounds f or r e c ons i de r a t i on) . AF F I RME D.
CONFIDENTIAL
PORTIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE
COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT. <?xml:namespace
        prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
        />
    
  Second Amendment Agreement Second Amendment Effective Date LILLY APNS
      Article 1.
  Article 2.
  Compounds  Compounds”  Compounds  Other Targets
  Article 3.
      Article
4.
      [***]THE CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OF THIS
      AGREEMENT HAS BEEN OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION
      PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR
  CONFIDENTIALITY.


Article
5.
    Article
6.
    Article
7.
    [***][***][***]
              [***][***]
              [***][***]
              [***][***]
              [***][***]
              [***][***]
              [***][***]
              [***][***]
              [***]
 Article
8.
  Annual
Sales


Article
9. Other Amendments 1994 Agreement”  "Davies Agreement”




Article
10. Effect on
Agreement




Article
11. Defined
Terms.




Article
12. Counterparts




















/s/Steven M. Pavl
























/s/Craig S. Taylor