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

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

             NAME                   JURISDICTION              % OWNERSHIP
<S>                            <C>                            <C>

Symix Computer Systems, Inc.           Ohio                      100

Symix Systems, B.V.               The Netherlands                100

Symix France, SA                      France                     100


                     SUBSIDIARIES OF SYMIX COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.


Symix Systems (Ontario) Inc.          Canada                     100

Symix Computer Systems                Canada                     100
(Canada) Inc.

Symix Computer Systems          The United Kingdom               100
(UK) Ltd.

Symix Asia Company Ltd.              Thailand                    100

Symix Computer Systems               Hong Kong                   100
(Hong Kong) Ltd.

Symix Computer Systems               Singapore                   100
(Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Symix Computer Systems               Australia                   100
(Australia) Pty. Ltd.

Symix Computer Systems                Mexico                     100
(Mexico) S. De R.L. De C.V.


                                      55

<PAGE>

Symix New Zealand Ltd.             New Zealand                   100

Symix Computer Systems 
(Malaysia) Sdn Bhd.                 Malaysia                     100


                        SUBSIDIARIES OF SYMIX SYSTEMS, B.V.

Symix (U.K.) Ltd.               The United Kingdom               100


                    SUBSIDIARIES OF SYMIX SYSTEMS (ONTARIO) INC.

Visual Applications 
Software, Inc.                        Canada                     100

</TABLE>


                                      56
#### PRATHER v. STATE.

No. 17037.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 21, 1934.

John Morison, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

BATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for robbery; punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

Appellant was charged with robbing one Grinder by means of an assault, it being alleged that by said means appellant took from Grinder the sum of $22 in money. The undisputed facts establish that appellant and some others went t'o where Grinder was working at a beer garden, and appellant presented a pistol and compelled Grinder to deliver to him what money he had, amounting to two or three dollars. Appellant introduced no witnesses to dispute the state’s testimony. We ünd three bills of exception in the record.

Bill of exceptions No. 2 complains of the refusal of the court to allow appellant’s counsel to ask the prosecuting witness if he peddled whisky at said place of business. The question was clearly improper, but in any event it appears from the bill of exceptions that witness answered in the negative.

Bill of exceptions No. 3 complains of the refusal of the court to allow appellant’s counsel to ask the prosecuting witness if it was not a fact that some boys had come out there and took a slot machine, and that he was advised by certain people to claim they took some money off of him in order that a valid indictment "could be returned into court. The state objected to the question as being vague, indefinite, uncertain, and too general, and named no person or time. We see no error in the action of the court in sustaining the objection.

Bill of exceptions No. 4 complains of the refusal of a special charge, the substance of which was that, even though appellant did take the slot machine from the possession of Mr. Grinder, he could not be convicted unless the jury believed from the evidence that he also took other property. Appellant seems to proceed upon the assumption that the taking of a slot machine by robbery would constitute no offense. He also seems to overlook the fact that by the undisputed testimony in the record it is shown that appellant took money from Grinder at said time and place. There is no averment in the indictment that any slot machine was taken. The evidence makes out the state’s case, and, believing the matters complained of in the bills of exception to present no error, the judgment will be affirmed.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

 A-1 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4684 

APPENDIX A

 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

TO RULE 4684 (POLYESTER RESIN OPERATIONS) 

August 18, 2011 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

 A-2 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4684 

This page intentionally blank. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Final Staff Report: Rule 4684 August 18, 2011 

A-3 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4684 

APPENDIX A 

Summary of Significant Comments and District Responses for Final 

Draft Amendments to Rule 4684 dated May 9, 2011 

EPA Comments: 

No comments were received. 

ARB Comments: 

No comments were received. 

Stakeholder Comments: 

Containment Solutions Inc. (CSI) 

1. Comment: Containment Solutions Inc. (CSI) uses specialty polyester resins with 

strong corrosion resistant properties. Styrene is important to react with the resin to 

provide the cross-links that hook the molecules together. If the VOC content is 

reduced, there is a point where there will not be sufficient styrene molecules to 

complete all of the desired cross-links and the resulting composite will have 

substandard corrosion and mechanical properties. If the allowed maximum VOC 

limit is reduced too much by the pending rule change to Rule 4684, CSI will not be 

able to produce our products with our current process. (CSI) 

Response: Based on staff review of the SCAQMD limit history and the information 

provided in your email, the previously drafted VOC limits appear to be 

technologically infeasible. Staff now propose to match the current SCAQMD limit of 

48% for this specialty category. Please see the proposed rule language and final 

draft support for details. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Final Staff Report: Rule 4684 August 18, 2011 

A-4 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4684 

This page intentionally blank.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77687-77688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31510]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Data Collection Available for Public Comments and Recommendations

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 
notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to 
request approval on a new, and/or currently approved information 
collection.

DATES: Submit comments on or before February 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments regarding whether these information 
collections are necessary for the proper performance of the function of 
the

[[Page 77688]]

agency, whether the burden estimate is accurate, and if there are ways 
to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the 
collections, to Carol Fendler, System Accountant, Office of Investment 
Division, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 
6300.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Fendler, System Accountant, 202-
205-7759 or Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, (202) 295-7030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:   
    Title: Size Status Declaration.
    Form No.: 480.
    Description of Respondents: Small Business Investment Companies.
    Annual Responses: 4,200.
    Annual Burden: 700.

    Title: SBIC License Application Statement of Personal History and 
Qualification of Management.
    Form No's.: 415, 415A.
    Description of Respondents: Small Business Investment Companies.
    Annual Responses: 90.
    Annual Burden: 14,400.

    Title: Stockholder's Confirmation (Corporation) Ownership 
Confirmation (Partnership).
    Form No.: 1405.
    Description of Respondents: Small Business Investment Companies.
    Annual Responses: 600.
    Annual Burden: 600.

    Title: SBIC Financial Reports.
    Form No.: 468.
    Description of Respondents: Small Business Investment Companies.
    Annual Responses: 625.
    Annual Burden: 1,025.

    Title: Portfolio Financing Report.
    Form No.: 1031.
    Description of Respondents: Small Business Investment Companies.
    Annual Responses: 2,100.
    Annual Burden: 420.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 00-31510 Filed 12-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          35,090
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (720)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,599
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,439
<PP&E>                                       1,310,625
<DEPRECIATION>                               (109,334)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,446,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          181,209
<BONDS>                                        795,718
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           355
<OTHER-SE>                                     466,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,446,970
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,233
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   777
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,411
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,319
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,092
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,092
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 7 -00 091 -CR Le e J. Che r noff

, A ppe lla nt v . The State of Texas, App ellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 06- 276- K3 68 , HO NORAB LE B URT CARNES , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant’s moti on to withdraw his notice of appea l is gr anted. SeeTe x. R. A pp . P. 42.2(a) . The motion to issue the mandate is also grante d. The motion for additional time to file the repor ter’s r ecor d is dismi ssed. The a ppeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Jul y

26, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Table of Rules in ODEQ Division 12 (340-012-XXXX)

Changes Made, SIP Submittals, and EPA Proposed Disposition

Section Title submitted submitted

14-Jul-05 28-Aug-06

adopted adopted

9-Dec-04 2-Mar-06

0026 Policy X

0027 Rule Effective Date X - June 1, 2005 X - March 31, 2006

0028 Scope of Applicability X

0030 Definitions X

0038 Warning Letters, PreEnforcement Notices and 

Notices of Permit Violation

X

0040 [Renumbered to 0038] X

0041 Formal Enforcement Actions X

0042 [Renumbered to 0140] X

0045 Civil Penalty Determination 

Procedure

X

0047 [Renumbered to 0170] X

0048 [Renumbered to 0165] X

0049 [Renumbered to 0155] X

0050 [Renumbered to 0054] X

0053 Violations that Apply to all 

Programs

X X

0054 Air Quality Classification of 

Violations

X X

0055 Water Quality Classication 

of Violations

X X

0060 Onsite Sewage Disposal 

Classification of Violations

X X

Docket EPA – R10 – OAR – 2008- 

0903
0065 Solid Waste Management 

Classification of Violations

X X

0066 Solid Waste Tire 

Management Classification 

of Violations

X X

0067 Underground Storage Tank 

(UST) Classification of 

Violations

X X

0068 Hazardous Waste 

Management and Disposal 

Classification of Violations

X X

0071 Polychlorinated Biphenyl 

(PCB) Classification of 

Violations

X X

0072 Used Oil Management 

Classification of Violations

X X

0073 Environmental Cleanup 

Classification of Violation

X X

0074 Underground Storage Tank 

(UST) Cleanup 

Classification of Violations

X X

0079 Heating Oil Tank (HOT) 

Classification of Violations

X X

0081 Oil and Hazardous Material 

Spill and Release 

Classification of Violations

X X

0082 Contingency Planning 

Classification of Violations

X X

0083 Ballast Water Management 

Classification of Violations

X X

0090 [Renumbered to 340-012-

0135]

X

0097 Dry Cleaning Classification 

of Violations

X X

0130 Determination of Violation 

Magnitude

X X

0135 Selected Magnitude 

Categories

X X
0140 Determination of Base 

Penalty

X X

0145 Determination of 

Aggravating or Mitigating 

Factors

X

0150 Determination of Economic 

Benefit

X

0155 Additional or Alternate Civil 

Penalties

X X

0160 Department Discretion 

Regarding Penalty 

Assessment

X

0162 Inability to Pay the Penalty X

0165 Stipulated Penalties X

0170 Compromise or Settlement of 

Civil Penalty by Department

X
 12 (340-012-XXXX)

posed Disposition

Comments

Not Air

Not Air
Not Air

Not Air

Not Air

Not Air

Not Air

Not Air

Not Air

Not Air

Not Air

Not Air

Not Air
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-10214

_____________________

JOEL MASK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DONNIE R. ROGERS, Sgt.;

ERIC KARR, Cpl.;

DEON CLEMENTS, Lt.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas, Lubbock

(5:94-CV-226-C)

_________________________________________________________________

December 30, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The only question presented by this appeal is whether the

district court erred in granting the app ellees' summary judgment

motion with respect to Mask's claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, which is based upon an arrest alleged to be without probable1 The district court also f ound that H eck v. Humphrey

, 114

S.Ct. 2364 (1992), barred Mask's malicious prosecution claim and

that the record lacked facts to support Mask's claim of excessive

force. Mask does not brief these issues on appeal and they are,

therefore, considered aband oned. S ee Brinkmann v. Dallas County

Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

2 cause. 1 The issue may be reduced to asking simply whether there is

a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the police h ad probable

cause to arrest Mask.

The evidence produced at the summary ju dgment stage

established that the police officers respon ded to a domestic

disturbance call at the home of Mask's mother. The call involved

Mask's brother and was the second such call of the evening. While

at the residence to arrest Mask's brother, the police heard loud

shouting from within th e house and, upon entering, found Mask

threatening his wife. Thereafter, Mask left the house and went to

the front porch whe re he and his brother engaged in a heated

argument that required police interven tion. The officers

subsequently arrested Mask for fighting, disorderly conduct, loud

and profane language, apparent intoxication, assault and

threatening an officer. Mask disputed this account of the evening

but failed to bear his burden of presenting evidence raising a

genuine issue of material fact. Thus, because of the absence of a

genuine issue of material fact as to the presence of probable cause3

to arrest, summary judgment in favor of the police officers was

appropriate.

We conclude, therefore, that, with respect to the Fourth

Amendment claim, the district court did not err in granting summary

judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

A F F I R M E D.
Exhibit 10.15



 Exhibit 10.15 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TERRITORIAL SAVINGS BANK 
 EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Territorial Savings Bank (the “Bank”) maintains an annual cash bonus plan known as the Executive Incentive Compensation Plan (the “EICP”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the “Code”) and the final regulations thereunder
necessitate changes to the EICP, which must be adopted no later than December 31, 2008, for the EICP to come into compliance with such changes in the law; and 
 NOW THEREFORE, the EICP is hereby amended by adding the following to the end thereof: 
 Payment of Awards 
 Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary, effective January 1, 2005, payment of all
awards made under the Plan shall be made in a cash lump sum no later than March 15 of the year following the year for which the award is earned. For example, if an award is earned for the 2008 calendar year, the payment shall be made no later
than March 15, 2009. Accordingly, all payments under this Plan are intended to be exempt from Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, under the “short term deferral rule” set forth in the 2007 final
regulations issued thereunder. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank has adopted this First Amendment. 
  

							
		 		 	TERRITORIAL SAVINGS BANK
				
	November 10, 2008	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Harold H. Ohama

	Date	 		 		 	Chairman of the Compensation Committee
Resignation(Officer)


EXHIBIT 10-01

LEGACY WINE & SPIRITS INTERNATIONAL LTD.

(the “Company”)

Officer and Director Resignation

I hereby resign as Director and Officer of the Company effective immediately.

Dated:  November 18, 2008

 

	
	/s/: M. Scheive    

	Marc Scheive
Exhibit 10.4.8 

AMENDMENT TO THE ANNTAYLOR STORES CORPORATION 

1992 STOCK OPTION AND RESTRICTED STOCK AND UNIT AWARD PLAN

The AnnTaylor Stores Corporation 1992 Stock Option and Restricted Stock and Unit Award Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amendedeffective as of January 26, 2006 (the “Effective Date”) with respect to all Options, Restricted Shares and Restricted Units (as defined in the Plan) granted pursuant to the Plan, including grants outstanding before the Effective Date,as set forth below. 

1. The last two sentences of Section 6(i)(2) of the Plan are hereby amended and restated in their entirety toread as follows: 

“Following the Acceleration Event, the Committee may provide for the cancellation of all Options then outstanding.Upon such cancellation, the Corporation shall make, in exchange for each such Option, a payment either in (i) cash; (ii) shares of the successor entity; or (iii) some combination of cash or shares thereof, at the discretion of theCommittee, and in each case in an amount per share subject to such Option equal to the difference between the per share exercise price of such Option and the Fair Market Value of a share of Common Stock on the date during the prior sixty-day periodthat produces the highest Fair Market Value.” 

2. The second paragraph of Section 8 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated inits entirety to read as follows: 

“Unless otherwise prohibited by the Committee or by applicable law, a Grantee maysatisfy any such withholding tax obligation by any of the following methods, or by a combination of such methods: (a) tendering a cash payment; (b) authorizing the Corporation to withhold from the shares of Common Stock otherwise issuableto such Grantee (or, in the case of a Restricted Stock Award, from the shares with respect to which the restrictions shall have lapsed) shares having an aggregate Fair Market Value, determined as of the date the withholding tax obligation arises,less than or equal to the amount of the total withholding tax obligation; (c) delivering to the Corporation previously acquired shares of Common Stock (none of which shares may be subject to any claim, lien, security interest, communityproperty right or other right of spouses or present or former family members, pledge, option, voting agreement or other restriction or encumbrance of any nature 

whatsoever) having an aggregate Fair Market Value, determined as of the date the withholding tax obligation arises, less than or equal to the amount of thetotal withholding tax obligation; or (d) authorizing the Committee to withhold from the payment of a Restricted Stock Unit with respect to which the Restricted Period has lapsed an amount less than or equal to the amount of the totalwithholding tax obligation. A Grantee’s election to pay his or her withholding tax obligation (in whole or in part) by the method described in clause (b) hereof is irrevocable once it is made and may be disapproved by the Committee.”

Except as set forth above, the Plan is hereby ratified and affirmed in all respects.