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

EXHIBIT 21.1
SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

Name:                                       Vidipax, Inc.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
     Or organization:                       New York

Other Business Names:                       N/A

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

Name:                                       Loudeye Technologies UK Ltd.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
        Or organization:                    United Kingdom

Other Business Names:                       N/A

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

Name:                                       Activate.net Corporation

Jurisdiction of incorporation
        Or organization:                    Delaware

Other Business Names:                       N/A

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

Name:                                       Loudeye Sample Services, Inc.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
        Or organization:                    Delaware

Other Business Names:                       N/A

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

Name:                                       Monstar Labs Limited

Jurisdiction of incorporation
        Or organization:                    New Zealand

Other Business Names:                       N/A

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

Name:                                       Addition Systems, Inc.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
        Or organization:                    Delaware

Other Business Names:                       N/A
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.6.3

                                    EXTENSION

                                       OF

                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


      EXTENSION AGREEMENT, this 23rd day of August 2001, by and between
FIRSTBANK (Bank) a federally chartered stock savings bank and ACCESS ANYTIME
BANCORP, INC. (Company) and Kenneth J. Huey, Jr. (Officer).

      The Officer is Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company and has been duly elected to these positions. Also, the
Officer is Executive Vice President and Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors
of the Bank and has been duly elected to these positions.

      The Bank/Company desires to amend the term of a previous EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT by and between the Officer and the Bank/Company dated the 29th day of
July 1999, to be effective from August 1, 2001 and shall continue for a period
of three years through August 1, 2004, with a salary at a rate of not less than
$145,000 per annum. All other terms and conditions remain the same.


FIRSTBANK                                 ACCESS ANYTIME BANCORP, INC.




BY:   /s/ Robert "Chad" Lydick            BY:   /s/ Norman R. Corzine
      -------------------------------           ----------------------
      Robert "Chad" Lydick, Chairman            Norman R. Corzine,
      Chairman Board of Directors               Board of Directors




OFFICER


BY:   /s/ Kenneth J. Huey, Jr.
      ---------------------------
      Kenneth J. Huey, Jr.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.31
                                                      [Bar Code -- US005985929A]


UNITED STATES PATENT [19]           [11]     PATENT NUMBER             5,985,929
KERN                                [45]     DATE OF PATENT        Nov. 16, 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[54]     COLD CHEMICAL STERILANT

[76]     Inventor:         Jerome Kern, 3508 W. Tacon St.,
                           Hillsborough County, Fla 33629

[21]     Appl. No.:        09/186,432

[22]     Filed:            Nov. 5, 1998

[51]     INT. CL.(6)................................................A01N 47/28
[52]     U.S. CL. ..................................................514/588
[58]     FIELD OF SEARCH............................................514/588, 592

[56]                            REFERENCES CITED

                             U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

         5,202,205         4/1993   Malbota.............................430/17
         5,451,251         9/1995   Mafime et al. ......................106/22 H

                            FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

         06023475 3/1991   Japan
         2059804  5/1996   Russian Federation
         1588820  8/1990   U.S.S.R.

PRIMARY EXAMINER         -- Jose G. Dees
ASSISTANT EXAMINER       -- Alton Pryor
ATTORNEY, AGENT, OR FIRM -- A. W. Fisher, III

[57]                                ABSTRACT

A cold chemical sterilant capable of killing a challenge of vegetative target
organisms including bacterial spores comprising a composition of interactive
constituents including a monohydric alcohol, an urea salt, a polyhydric alcohol,
a surface active agent and water in proportion by weight to destroy the
protective integrity of the walls of the bacterial spores, to penetrate the
walls of the bacterial spores and to kill the bacterial spores and other
vegetative target organisms.

                             14 CLAIMS, NO DRAWINGS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND AS OF
JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000925661
<NAME> ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,292
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,592
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,538)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 31, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

      ( print page 86856)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 23, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 518 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-140, K2025-138.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-25282 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Zachariah Peak *et al.,*plaintiffs in error, *vs.*C. T. Cogborn, defendant in error.

Where possession of a horse was obtained by a fraudulent trick, a possessory warrant is the proper remedy to recover the same ; and that the consent of the plaintiff in the warrant was obtained to such possession, under the circumstances of this case, will not justify the retention of the possession by the defendants.

Possessory warrant. Before Judge Knight. Milton Superior Court. August Term, 1873.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

H. L. Patterson, for plaintiffs in error.

G. M. Hook, by W. P. Price, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

It appears from the evidence in the record that Cogborn bed swapped a mule for a horse with Peak, that the mule was levied on to satisfy an execution against a third party who previously owned the mule. Peak called Cogborn out of his father’s field and said to him that Smith, the bailiff, had levied on the mule he got from him, and the bailiff told him that he must go and get the horse back that he had got from him. Cogborn asked Peak what he would do if he gave his horse up. Peak told him he only wanted to change for a day or two, and then he, Cogborn, would get his horse back. Cog-born then went to the house, where he found Lindsay Peak and Tucker, who told him the same thing. Cogborn then got his bridle, put it on the horse, and delivered him to Zacha*563riah Peak with this understanding. Cook testified that he came up about the time Peak was leaving with the horse; that Cogborn told him that if he was going to plow the horse any before he brought him back, to come over and get his plow-gear, as he did not want the horse’s shoulders hurt. Peak did not return the horse, and Cogborn sued out a possessory warrant to recover the possession of him. On the trial of the possessory warrant before the Justice, a motion was made to dismiss it, which was overruled, and after hearing the evidence the Justice awarded the possession of the horse to Cogburn. Peak sued out a writ,of *certiorari*to the Superior Court, on the hearing of which the Court dismissed the same; whereupon the plaintiff in *oertiorari*excepted. In our judgment there was no error in dismissing the *certiorari*and affirming the decision of the Justice. The statute declares that when a personal chattel has been taken or carried away from the possession of the party complaining, by fraud, violence, seduction, or *other means,*without lawful warrant or authority, it shall be restored to the party from whose possession it was so fraudulently taken. It is quite apparent, from the evidence in this case, that the plaintiff in *certiorari*obtained the possession of the horse by a *fraudulent trick,*which the law will not sanction, and the consent of the defendant, under the facts of the case, will not justify him in retaining that possession.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
#### Abell Note Brokerage & Bond Company, Appellee, v. W. H. Hurd *et al.,*Appellants. Same v. Anthony Bank *et al.,*Appellants.

Action: seal party in interest: promissory note: indorsee por collection. An indorsee of a promissory note for the purposes of collection, Being the holder of the legal title thereto, may Bring an aetion thereon in his own name. .

*Appeal from Woodbury District Court.*— Hon. 0. H. Lewis, Judge.

Tuesday, May 24, 1892.

Action upon a promissory note payable to “Anthony bank or order,” and indorsed by the bank to Calais National bank, and by the latter bank to the plaintiff for collection. The defendants answered, alleging want of consideration and fraud upon the part of the Anthony bank and W. H, Hurd, its president, in obtaining the note. The case was submitted to the court, and at the close of the testimony the defendants moved to dismiss, on the ground that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest. The motion was overruled, and judgment entered for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal. The other case above entitled being identical, and involving the same questions is submitted *herewith.*

Affirmed.

*J. 8. Lawrence*and *J. H. Quick,*for appellants.

*Chas. K. Williams,*for appellee.

Given, J.

The only question discussed on this appeal is the plaintiff’s right to prosecute the action. *560The appellant’s contention is that, as the note was indorsed to the appellee for the purpose of collection, it is not the real party in interest, and therefore not entitled to prosecute this action; citing section 2543 of the Code, which requires that “every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as provided in the next section,” as to executors, etc. This contention of the appellants is fully answered in *Cottle v. Cole,*20 Iowa, 485, where it is said: “The course of decision in this state establishes this rule, viz.: That the party holding the legal title of a note or instrument may sue on it though he be an agent or trustee, and liable to account to another for the proceeds of the recovery, but he is open, in such case, to any defense which exists against the party beneficially interested.” The right of the appellants to maintain their defense of fraud and want of consideration was not questioned, but it does not appear that they offered any evidence whatever to sustain that defense. The appellee contends that the appellants should have raised their objection to the capacity of the plaintiff to maintain the action by demurrer or answer, and that it was too late to raise the question by motion after the evidence was introduced. As our view of the cases just expressed fully disposes of them, we have not considered this claim of the appellee.

The judgments of the district court are aeeibmed.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-1606

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Eleanor Repper lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________ Submitted: July 19, 2022 Filed: July 22, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Eleanor Repper appeals after the district court 1 revoked her supervised release and sentenced her to a term of imprisonment within the advisory Sentencing

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.Guidelines range. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief

challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. We conclude that the revocation sentence was not unreasonable, as there is no indication that the court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-24 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.

______________________________

-2-
#### Crenshaw v. Taylor.

1. Practice: affidavit for writ of error: signatore of affiant. An affidavit is a written declaration under oath, signed by the affiant; and where an affidavit on which a writ of error was issued (Code, § 3598) was not so signed, a motion to strike it from the files should have been sustained.

2. Appeal: less than $100: what not considered. Questions certified for the determination of this court will not be considered when they do not properly arise upon the record.

*Appeal from Harrison Circuit Court.*

Thursday, December 16.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*J. II. Smith,*for appellant.

*S. H. Cochran,*for appellee.

Seevers, J.

A judgment was rendered by a justice of the peace against the plaintiff. For the purpose of obtaining a writ of error, there was filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court a paper or writing, the material portion of which is as' follows:

> “ *State of Iowa, Ha/rrison County:*I, E. Crenshaw, being duly sworn, depose and say * * * Wherefore asks that the clerk * **** issue,” etc.

> “ Subscribed and sworn to by E. Crenshaw, in my presence, this twelfth day of April, 1885. W. Morrell, J. P.”

Upon filing said paper the writ was issued. The defendant moved the court to strike it from the files on the ground that it was not signed by the affiant, and therefore does not comply with section 3598 of the Code. The motion was overruled. The defendant appeals, and we are asked, in substance, by the circuit court, to determine whether the paper can be ¿regarded as the affidavit required by law. Section 3598 of *387the Code provides that the “ basis of the proceedings ” to obtain a writ of error “is an affidavit,” which is defined to be “a written declaration under oath.” Code, § 3689. The statute does not require the affidavit to be signed; .but it is defined to be a written declaration under oath. This, it seems to us, clearly implies that it should be signed by the affiant. "Webster defines an affidavit to be a written statement or declaration under oath, signed by the affiant; and that this is the statutory meaning there can be no doubt. Therefore the paper filed with the clerk is not the affidavit required by law, and the first question asked by the'court must be answered in the negative, and to this extent the motion should have been sustained.

We are also asked to determine whether the right to amend existed; but, as no offer of this kind was made, such question does not properly arise on the record before us.

REVERSED.
#### STATE *v.*McNAIR.

The delivery of spirituous liquor to a slave, after night-fall, in pursuance: of an order from Ms overseer, for his (fhe overseer’s) own use, is not unlawful.

Indictment tried before Manly, Judge, at the Fall Term, 1853, of the Superior Court of Edgecombe County.

The proof was, that the spirits were delivered by the defendant to the slave, after night-fall, in consequence of the-following order, from the overseer of the negro :

“ Mr. McNair: — You will please to send me 5 quarts of whiskey, by-boy Jerry. James H. Higgs.”

*181The price of the liquor was paid by the negro on delivery. The indictment charges that the spirits were not purchased for the owner or employer of the slave, nor by their order.

The Court instructed the jury that, under the circumstances, the trading was unlawful. There was a verdict of guilty. Judgment and appeal.

*Attorney G-eneral,*for the State.

*Moore,*for the defendant.

Nash, C. J.

In the opinion of his Honor below, there is error. The indictment charges the trading to have been with the slave Jerry, for himself, for spirituous liquors— “ the said spirituous liquors, then and there, *not being*for the owner or employer of said slave, or by the order of the owner, or of any person having the management of the same.” Jerry had an order from Higgs, who was the overseer of Mrs. Gregory, the owner, and under whose management and control the slave was. This order directed the the defendant, to *send*him five quarts of whiskey by Jerry. There was no evidence to show that the order was otherwise intended than it purports on its face. It is not pretended that there was any intent to evade the law. The act under which the indictment is found had no intention to abridge the legitimate use of his slave by the owner; it is still left him; it is not denied he may use him as' his agent. The evidence does not support the charge.

The judgment is reversed, and there must be a *venire da ' novo.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
   
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                         4,013
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,036
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                   10,995
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              20,404
<PP&E>                                       226,626<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                93,936<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               256,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         32,312
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0 
<COMMON>                                          13 
<OTHER-SE>                                   143,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 256,157
<SALES>                                       23,894
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             184,533
<CGS>                                         14,336
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                183,962
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0                                        
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,941
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3,370) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (1,156)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2,214)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0                                  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,214)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES $163,105 OF VIDEOCASSETTE RENTAL INVENTORY.
<F2>INCLUDES $79,860 OF ACCUMULATED AMORTIZATION ON VIDEOCASSETTE RENTAL
    INVENTORY.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### Redden, Respondent, vs. Redden, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Julius 0. Roehl*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Dougherty, Arnold & Kivett,*attorneys, and *Michael H. Keelan*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.