alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of 
The Carbide/Graphite Group, Inc. on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-570) of our 
reports dated September 15, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial 
statements and financial statement schedule of The Carbide/Graphite Group, 
Inc. and Subsidiaries as of July 31, 1998 and 1997 and for each of the three 
years in the period ended July 31, 1998, which reports are incorporated by 
reference or included in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 
October 23, 1998
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Airman Basic SIR EDWARD S. THOMAS

, JR.

United States Air Force

ACM S32184 (f rev)

26 February 2015

Sentence adjudged 23 September 2013 by SPCM convened at Tinker
Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Military Judge: Natalie D. Richardson (sitting

alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad

- conduct discharge and confinement for 2 months.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Major Christopher D. James.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Major Roberto Ramírez and
Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

HECKER, MITCHELL, and CONTOVEROS

Appellate Military Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinio n and, as such, does not serve as precedent

under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4

.



### PER CURIAM:

A special court

- martial composed of a military judge convicted the appellant,
pursuant to his pleas, of wrongfully using marijuana and breaking restriction, in violation

of Articles 112a and 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 912a, 934. The adjudged sentence

consisted of a bad

- conduct discharge and confinement for 2 months. On 11 November

2013, t he convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged.

On 29 October 2014, we remanded this case for withdrawal of the original action
and for new post

- trial processing after we found plain error when the convening authorityACM S32184 (f rev) 2 

### was not advised about a clemency recommendation made by the military judge. United

St ates v. Thomas

, ACM S32184 (A.F Ct. Crim App. 29 October 2014) (unpub. o p.). On
5 January 2015, following that corrected post

- trial processing, the convening authority
approved the sentence as originally adjudged. After the case was returned to this c ourt on 14 January 2015, the appellant elected not to file a supplemental assignment of error.

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error
prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) a nd 66(c),
UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the findings and sentence are

AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
#### Gilbert, Respondent, vs. Burg, imp., Appellant.

*October 24*

November *8, 1895.*

*Service of summons on nonresident: Fraud.*

Personal service of a summons in this state on a nonresident defendant will not be set aside on the ground that his presence in the state was procured by a fraudulent contrivance, if the evidence, fails to establish the fraud or that his presence was procured thereby.

Appeal from an order of the superior court of Douglas county: Charles Smith, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon an hotel property in the city of Superior. The defendant resides at the city of Duluth in the state of Minnesota, and is frequently at the city of Superior. On the 11th day of Sep-tembei’, 1894, at the city of Superior, personal service of the summons and complaint in the action was made upon him. On September 29, 1894, he served notice of a motion to set aside the service of the summons and complaint on the *359ground that his presence in the state, at the time of the service, had been procured by the fraudulent contrivance of the plaintiíf; that he was decoyed within the state for the purpose of obtaining such service. The motion was heard upon affidavits presented by either side. It was supported faintly by affidavits which tended remotely and by uncertain inference to show the fraud claimed. But the defendant’s affidavits did not show that any such fraudulent contrivance was the cause of his presence in Superior on the day of the service. The motion was resisted by affidavits which denied fully, and without equivocation, all artifice to procure his presence* within the state. The court denied the motion. The defendant appeals.

Eor the appellant the cause was submitted on the brief of *Arnold & Arnold.*

They cited *Townsend v. Smith,*41 Wis. 623; *Ilsley v.*Nichols, 12 Pick. 210, 276; *Williams v.*Reed, 29 N. J. Law, 385; *Runla^p As Go. v. Oody,*31 Iowa, 260; *Stem v.*Volkenhuysen, 96 Eng. O. L. 64; *Blair v.*Tuttle, 5 Eed. Eep. 394; *Qhuhbuck v.*Cleveland, 37 Minn. 466.

Eor the respondent there was a brief by *Francis W. Sullivan*and *Henry J. Jordan,,*and oral argument by *Mr. Sullivan.*

Newman, J.

The order is in accord with the clear weight of the evidence. Where the evidence fails to establish the fact of a fraudulent contrivance, or that the presence within the state was procured by the fraudulent contrivance, in either case no wrong to the defendant is established.

*By the*Goiort.— The order of the superior court of Douglas county is affirmed.
MEMO ROUTING SLIP 

2 

3 

4 

CilRGANIZATION ANO LOCATION 

CIRCULATE 

COORDINATION 

FILE 

INFORMATION 

NECESSARY ACTION 

NOTE ANO RETURN 

SEE ME 

SIGNATIJRE 

DD FORM 95 ReplacesDAAOOForm895,l.!pr48,llild.A.FHQ .O-l~-6 e•o * 

1 FEB 50 Form 12, 10 Nov ,7, which may be used. 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-12-2013 pursuant to E .0. 1352a 

86-36/50 USC 

3. 3 (h) (2) 
... 

Dear I .... ___ __, 

REF ID:A485152 

310 Second Street, S.E. 

Washington 31 D. C. 

8 January 1956 

In 7our letter ot 10 June 19551 receipt of which I acknowledged 

on 28 June of that 7ee.r, you stated: "I have fairly complete eVid.ence 

:f'ra:a the English records that tbe Winds Messase (War against u.s. and 

Britain) was broadcast, but not until after the attack on Pearl 

Harbour." This point is . very important in connection w1 th the brochure 

I am writing for NSA and which will be a claasif'ied docment. 

In the same letter you wrote: ''Please let me know it there are 

8lJY specific points which are ·.not cl.eared up in this let1ier, and 

'Whether the real crux of the ma'bter is whether the Vind.a Signal was 

made bef'ore or a.tter the attack on Pearl." One specific point I 

have alreaey stated above; but the other points trca the preceding 

extract trom Tour letter are also very 1mportan1;. Since ,-our state 

in your letter "As regards Hong-Kong or Singapore. I am still trying 

to collect evidence as to when the Winda. Message was heard. And I 

shall write to 7ou again when I have got all the eddence collated." 

I hope I am not putting you to too much trouble but U ;you do have 

any further evidence vhich :might be usef'ul to me I would be most 

appreciative if you would send it via this Qbannel. 

Since I doubt whether 7ou kept a copy of wba1; J'OU wrote me in 

June 19551 I attach hereto a cagy of' your letter so.that you may 

rdresh your recollection ot what ::rou then said. 

Vi th many thqks for whatever you can oend me and 'W1 th the hope 

that you can send it without de~ via this channel, I aa, 

1 Incl: 

a/s 

Sincere~, 

WIIJ..IAM F. FRIEDMM 

PL 86-36/50 USC 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 )
.. ~ .. , .. 

~ ... e-}. 1,._...;..,_., .. " .S If :I·• 1t 4 ti , -

#~..__I..._, ,..,.~.<-C•, d,.:r~•·'~ ("</-'---' 

.,.,...1.,. t.-., .1-1.,J, .... ~ T 1 (!c ~1F77"--

~w fi-1~1. (T-.-) 

l).\.f~ ~ N~ -b<6''l, oq lo 

·,·:·"t~ -4 tR... ~ -- '~ ~ "b 

.;;.~- : 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 09 - . 13 2013 pursuant to E .o. 1352a 

. ,;. 

:~"'" ~:-~ .. 
1 

~REF ID:A272545 ,. 

B_ECREl. 

\ 

IN THE UNITID STATES PA'l'DT OJTlCB 

RE& Applioation tor Patent ot * WILLIAM F. FRIEDllAI 

* Serial Humber 

682,096 * 

Filed * 25 J'ul)r 1933 

* ror 

CR!PTOGRAFHIC SYSTEM * 

* * * * * * * * * * 

The Bonarable Commiasloner ot Patents 

Washington 25, D. C. 

811'1 

; ~ ! ·,... . 

' ~' ~ ~ 

Division 23 

Thie ia 1n respome to Patent Ottioe action of l3 _. 1949 in the aboYe1dentitiecl application tor patent which is being prosecuted undlr the 

so-called. tbree-79&1' rui.. n .... amend the oue as toll.owat 

P1eue oancel Claiaa 41 through 50. 

REMA.Rl'S 

With the canoellat1o11 ot Cld.m 41 through 50, on~ allowed Ola!Ju 1 

through 10, 12, l4 through 25, and 35 through .39 remain in the oa•• 

Respeottul~, 

WILLIAM F. 1.RIEDMAB, A.pplioant 

Hie At11one7 

{ . ' •. ,._J. ' . '1
IC 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2143 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2016 

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

AN ACT 

To provide for the authority for the successors and assigns 

of the Starr-Camargo Bridge Company to maintain and 

operate a toll bridge across the Rio Grande near Rio 

Grande City, Texas, 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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 2143 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. STARR-CAMARGO BRIDGE. 

2 Public Law 87–532 (76 Stat. 153) is amended— 

3 (1) in the first section, in subsection (a)(2)— 

4 (A) by inserting ‘‘, and its successors and 

5 assigns,’’ after ‘‘State of Texas’’; 

6 (B) by inserting ‘‘consisting of not more 

7 than 14 lanes’’ after ‘‘approaches thereto’’; and 

8 (C) by striking ‘‘and for a period of sixty9 six years from the date of completion of such 

10 bridge,’’; 

11 (2) in section 2, by inserting ‘‘and its succes12 sors and assigns,’’ after ‘‘companies’’; 

13 (3) by redesignating sections 3, 4, and 5 as sec14 tions 4, 5, and 6, respectively; 

15 (4) by inserting after section 2 the following: 

16 ‘‘SEC. 3. RIGHTS OF STARR-CAMARGO BRIDGE COMPANY 

17 AND SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. 

18 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Starr-Camargo Bridge 

19 Company and its successors and assigns shall have the 

20 rights and privileges granted to the B and P Bridge Com21 pany and its successors and assigns under section 2 of 

22 the Act of May 1, 1928 (45 Stat. 471, chapter 466). 

23 ‘‘(b) REQUIREMENT.—In exercising the rights and 

24 privileges granted under subsection (a), the Starr25 Camargo Bridge Company and its successors and assigns 

26 shall act in accordance with— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

S 2143 RFH 

1 ‘‘(1) just compensation requirements; 

2 ‘‘(2) public proceeding requirements; and 

3 ‘‘(3) any other requirements applicable to the 

4 exercise of the rights referred to in subsection (a) 

5 under the laws of the State of Texas.’’; and 

6 (5) in section 4 (as redesignated by paragraph 

7 (3))— 

8 (A) by inserting ‘‘and its successors and 

9 assigns,’’ after ‘‘such company’’; 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘public agen11 cy,’’; 

12 (C) by inserting ‘‘or to a corporation,’’ 

13 after ‘‘international bridge authority or commis14 sion,’’; and 

15 (D) by striking ‘‘authority, or commission’’ 

16 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘authority, 

17 commission, or corporation’’. 

Passed the Senate March 17, 2016. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
.· .... '·. 

CO.NF1DENT\Al • 

. . ~. . . . .. 

·· i., ..._ -..-.:,......._._'1l· dftft··iflittfteiattoas 

a4 .,..... ....,..,.. a propoee4 llOdltJ.odioa ot a.nn.r Type 

?l.1Mftt •• -. ,...., -.. ,..._ .,,u-.t.oa -.. llW 

theNGD la ., - tor ..S11•• '° t.i. ... ~ 

a. th• propoMI ~ •ulct 11e ooneuerec1 1a ... 

aeelloa 111.th fWtller ...,.lop111mal work '• be ctoae on thl8 

•eldae 1Jf -. l1aml Carpt Ja1lol'Uori• a'\ ror\ HolllOl&\b ... tale ....... ..Ula14• ~ 01I 3u1J 1, 1na. 

t*·~ ~-!. 

~- ~.\, 1.c1,\'b ·; I~ 

.;....,- . . 

r~~'lf~··.>· 

•'' ,· 

· CON f lD_ENTJ At..-::: . . 

.peclassified and apP[2y_ed_.~~r._r~l~s~ by NSA on 1-1-22-20.13 pursuant to E.O.f352fF·< /:·· 
REF ID:A521721 

Confidential 

April 9, 1936. 

Memorandum '2or lif&Jor W<er c. Ellis ( Room 3431) 

R & D Div. OCS180 

Subject: Modification in Converter Type M-134-T2 

Improv .. ment in ?rior .?atent A.ppUcation 

Sar i&l 1fo. 682, 096 

Inv.:ntion of ~fr. 'hn. P. Friedman 

l. Reference your memo. of 4-S-36 and Mr. :>riedman's 

s-pecif 1c~tion and drawing submitted with hie memo. of 3-23-36. 

2. ~his is an imyrovement on the eubject-matter of tbe 

abo'fe i;t-pplic.s.tion, Ser. '.fa. &92,096, which A.pplil!A.tion l1as gone 

thro'.lgh ftn e:rt.ended prosee\~tion oeft:>re the United StP.te!' 1~!'.tent 

Office with the reaul t that 'the subject-matter haa beer. found 

patentable ~nd a considerable number of claims have been al.lowed. 

3. Since the prior ~rt ~as been quite fully developed in 

connection 'Nith the prosecution of the said application, !3erial lo. 

682,096, it ca.A be stated with reasonable assurance that the latea.t 

i?zrprovement appears to be pe.tentr:tble ~::d n new pa.tent !t.ppl1cation · 

sho11lc1 oe filed in the Patent Office to protect t:ie im-prove!•«mt. In 

vhiw of the r,claiion ot the im1n·ovement to the prior application, 

the new patent application eboulU Ge f1led ~1th reasonable ~romptness. 

All pap ere returned. 

Oha:rlea A. ·Eowe, 

Patents section, Zf.8nal Corpe.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of TVI Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard V. Priddy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: May 13, 2005 |  | /s/    RICHARD V. PRIDDY             
|                    |  | Richard V. Priddy                    
|                    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00300-CV

J.S., BY AND THROUGH HIS 

LEGAL GUARDIAN, L.S., J.S., 

W.S., AS NEXT FRIEND OF L.S., A 

MINOR

APPELLANT

V.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC APPELLEE 

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

FROM THE 352ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 352-259445-12

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellant's “Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” It 

is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution 

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DELIVERED: November 17, 2016
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Exemption # 8662C
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2016

No. 04-16-00031-CV

John W. LENZ and Shannon E. Lenz,

Appellants

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV00687

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

The panel has considered the appellant’s motion for rehearing and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 14229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06183]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending February 28, 2014

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 302.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2015-0041.
    Date Filed: February 25, 2015.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: March 18, 2015.
    Description: Application of Asia Atlantic Airlines Co. Ltd. 
requesting an exemption and a foreign air carrier permit authorizing it 
to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property 
and mail from any point or points in Thailand to any point or points in 
the United States, and beyond to the full extent permitted by the Air 
Transport Agreement of September 19, 2005 between the Government of the 
United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand 
(the ``U.S.--Thailand Agreement'').

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2015-0043.
    Date Filed: February 26, 2015.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: March 19, 2015.
    Description: Application of 21 Air, LLC requesting a certificate of 
public convenience and necessity authorizing it to conduct foreign 
charter air transportation of property and mail with large aircraft.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2015-0044.
    Date Filed: February 26, 2015.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: March 19, 2015.
    Description: Application of 21 Air, LLC requesting a certificate of 
public convenience and necessity authorizing it to conduct interstate 
charter air transportation of property and mail with large aircraft.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register 
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2015-06183 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
December 7, 1977



## General Services Administration—Disciplinary Matter—Authority of the General Services Administration (5 U.S.C. § 5596) 78-89 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

This is in response to a request for our views concerning sanctions imposed on three employees of the General Services Administration (GSA). The three employees were charged with the theft of several packages of cigarettes from a blind-operated snack bar. Each of them was suspended without pay for 30 days and was demoted two grades. Each person pursued the matter within the GSA grievance system and then appealed to the Civil Service Commission’s Federal Employee Appeals Authority, which upheld GSA’s action. Petitions to reopen and reconsider the cases were filed with the Commission’s Appeals Review Board and were denied. Specifically you asked us whether GSA has authority to restore the employees to their prior grades. In our opinion, there are possible legal bases for GSA to take such action. Retroactive restoration of employees to prior grades or to intermediate grades is authorized if GSA determines that its action in demoting them was "unjustified or unwarranted.” This authority is set forth in the Civil Service Commission’s regulation concerning adverse actions, 5 CFR § 752.402 (1977). Also, a foundation for such action is provided by the back-pay statute, 5 U.S.C. 5596 (1976), and the Civil Service Commission’s implementing regulations, 5 CFR §§ 550.801-.804 (1977). The back-pay regulations make clear that an agency may make such a determination on its own initiative. See 5 CFR § 550.803(a) (1977). Another possibility would be to increase, on a prospective basis, the grade of the employees. O f course, the ordinary requirements for a promotion would have to be satisfied.*

*lf there is to be an increase of two grades in one year, waiver of the W hitten amendment may be
necessary. See § 1310(c) of the Act of Nov. 1, 1951. as amended, 5 U .S.C . 3101 note (1976). The general rule under that provision is that employees in the competitive service may not be promoted to a higher grade without having served at least one year in the next lower grade. There are certain (Continued)

389In our opinion, the fact that G SA ’s sanctions were upheld in the Civil Service

Commission proceedings does not bar GSA from reconsidering the matter. Accordingly, it would seem appropriate for you to refer this matter to GSA for further consideration. The question whether any remedial action should be taken is for GSA, and we express no opinion regarding that matter.

L a r r y A . H a m m o n d D eputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

(Continued) exceptions; and, in special cases, an agency head may obtain a waiver from the Civil Service Commission.
.. · .. -) - ,.,

 

v . . ""' 

inventor: 

j 

Invention: Attthent1oat1ng elev.lee 

Serial !{o.: 

'it:11..,2 a-.r,. 11. steutt•l'" 'P~ten.t.':D~te: ,,_,. 84tcmilt7 Agency n. Pentagon · f~nri1.: 195° wash ~ .·. The FINAL FEE OF THIRTY DOLLARS has been 2!)18458 received in this application on. 1foAll •9ClD11-•4: 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE $ . . . U. S. PATENT OFFICE 

WASHINGTON. D. c. Commissioner of Pafellt1.
**EXHIBIT21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

| **Name of Subsidiary**          |   | **Place of  Incorporation** |
|---------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                            |   |                        |
| Overland Storage (Europe) Ltd.  |   | United Kingdom              |
|                            |   |                        |
| Overland Storage Export Limited |   | Barbados                    |
|                            |   |                        |
| Overland Storage SARL           |   | France                      |
|                            |   |                        |
| Overland Storage GmbH           |   | Germany                     |
|                            |   |                        |
| Tecmar, Inc.                    |   | Delaware                    |
|                            |   |                        |
| Okapi Acquisition Co., Inc.     |   | California                  |

 

----