alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21.01



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY



Firearms Training Systems, Inc has one wholly owned subsidiary, FATS, Inc., a Delaware corporation. As of March 31, 2002, FATS, Inc. has the following
six wholly owned subsidiaries:



| | 1. |  | Firearms Training Systems, Limited;
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------



| | 2. |  | F.A.T.S. Singapore PTE LTD;
| | -- |  | ---------------------------



| | 3. |  | Firearms Training Systems Netherlands B.V.;
| | -- |  | -------------------------------------------



| | 4. |  | Simtran Technologies, Inc.;
| | -- |  | ---------------------------



| | 5. |  | FATS Canada Holdings; and
| | -- |  | -------------------------



| | 6. |  | Firearms Training Systems Australia Pty Ltd.
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------



The following are the jurisdictions of incorporation of each of the Subsidiaries:



| | 1. |  | Firearms Training Systems, LTD. is a company registered and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | F.A.T.S. Singapore PTE LTD. is a company organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Singapore.
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. |  | Firearms Training Systems Netherlands B.V. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of The Netherlands.
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. |  | Simtran Technologies, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Canada.
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 5. |  | FATS Canada Holdings is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Canada.
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 6. |  | Firearms Training Systems Australia Pty Ltd. Is a company organized and existing under the laws of Australia.
| | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

----

|   | I, Ido Schechter, certify that: |
|--------|---------------------------------|

| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Top Image Systems Ltd. (the “Registrant”); |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Ido Schechter                    |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Ido SchechterChief Executive Officer |   |

----

----
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2715 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the rules for 

constructive ownership with respect to real estate investment trusts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2021 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. YOUNG) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the rules for constructive ownership with respect to real 

estate investment trusts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF REIT CONSTRUCTIVE OWN4 ERSHIP RULES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 856(d)(5) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

7 the end of subparagraph (A), by striking the period at 

8 the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and 

9 by adding at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2715 IS

1 ‘‘(C) except as otherwise provided by the 

2 Secretary, stock, assets, and net profits con3 structively owned by a partnership, estate, 

4 trust, or corporation by reason of the applica5 tion of section 318(a)(3) (after application of 

6 subparagraphs (A) and (B)) shall not be con7 sidered as owned by it for purposes of again ap8 plying such section in order to make another 

9 person the constructive owner of such stock, as10 sets, or net profits. 

11 Subparagraph (C) shall not prevent any person from 

12 being the constructive owner of stock, assets, or net 

13 profits of any person as the result of any other ap14 plication of section 318(a) (as modified by this para15 graph).’’. 

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

18 date of the enactment of this Act. 

19 (c) NO INFERENCE.—Nothing in this Act or the 

20 amendments made by this Act shall be construed to create 

21 any inference with respect to the proper application of sec22 tion 318 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to cases 

23 other than cases to which such amendments apply. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
REF ID:A272884 

-· 

Alleged combination in which one element is novel. 

Where it was old in e. time-recording mechanism to provide a 

revolving drum operated by clockwor•. a record-sheet to be wound 

thereon as the drum revolved, and a marking-point which made a' 

mark on the record-sheet when placed in contact therewith. and it 

was also old to make a record on a lamp-blacked surface by the 

removal of a portion of such 1urface by mee.ne of a coacting atylu•. 

it does not involve invention to use in a time-recording meeha.niem 

a record-sheet having a removable surface in combination with a 

etylua which removes a portion of said surface, although the record-sheet itself may be novel (See card 3660 s-~) In re Hawley. 121 

O.G. 691 {1905). S 

Substitution of new element in old combination. 

!'he substitution tor an old element in a combination of an 

element performing a similar function, but constructed in a different 

~:t~ ~o ~fili~~{1:~ fnP;!~t-~~~!.!!!{iti~~1 element may be auperior. the invention lie1 in the 

element and not in the combination. ld. 3660-S (E896} 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-13-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
# C_2015093EN.01000101.xml

| 20.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7535 — IFMGIF/OHL Group/Conmex)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 93/01)

On 13 March 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7535. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7535. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARKAL TREY MUNFORD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 465 MAL 2016

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of December, 2016

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO:tt:)EC E \ v ED 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATIONn · 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS NOV 1 ~ 2013 

WASHINGTON, D.C. . I:":T 

HeARING QOCK~;; 

In the Matter ofNortheastem Aviation Corp., Respondent 

Docket Nos. F AA"2012-1264 

Case Nos. 2012EA110030 

Administrative Law Judge I.E. Sullivan 

AGENCY'S SUPPLEMENT TO SUBMISSIONS UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE 26(a)(l)(A) 

COMES NOW the Agency, by counsel, and supplements its initial disclosures pursuant to 

F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1)(A), as per the Order Setting ~itigation Dates and Procedures dated June 4, 

2013, to add the following: 

DISCLOSURE UNDER F.R.C.P. 26(a)(l)(A)(i) 

In addition to those already listed, the following individual is _likely to have discoverable 

information that the Agency may use to support its claims: 

Aviation Safety Inspector (ASD John Wilkins, Farmingdale Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), 7150 Republic Airport, Administration Building, Suite 235, 

Farmingdale, NY 11735. Subject matter: The check ride that Michael Kalish 
conducted with ASI Wilkins on August 22, 20 ll. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

By:. ~~ Zachary~ erman 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

I Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY ll434 

TEL:718 553~3258 

FAX: 718 995-5699 

Date: November 5, 2013 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing AGENCY'S SUPPLEMEN TO SUBMISSIONS 

UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(a)(l)(A) has been sent via frrst 

class mail and facsimile to the following: 

Mr. James Ehrig, Esq. 

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellot, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 12th Floor 

Washington, DC 20006-

F AX 202-659-6699 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department ofTranspmiation 

!200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-3!0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

FAX: (202)366-7536 

I hereby certifY that the foregoing AGENCY'S SUPPLEMEN TO SUBMISSIONS 

UNDER FEDERALRULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(a)(l)(A) has been sent via first 

class mail to the following: . 

Federal Aviation Administration (Original and one copy via first class mail) 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 2059! 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Room 2014 

Date: -------

I 

Paralegal Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

I Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 1!434 

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      61,537,247
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,543,477
<ALLOWANCES>                                   250,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            72,118,465
<PP&E>                                      12,985,458
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,998,945
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              82,129,161
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,777,282
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,200
<OTHER-SE>                                  68,226,435
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                82,129,435
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,056,285
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,786,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            32,700,582
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,482
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (19,601,615)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (19,601,615)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (19,601,615)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.09)


</TABLE>
C it y of Wes tm in s t e r D e p a r t m ent of P ubli c Wo r k s a nd U tiliti es 48 0 0 Wes t 9 2 nd Ave nu e W es tmin s t e r , Co l o r ado 8 0 0 3 1 3 0 3- 6 58

- 2 4 0 0 FA X 3 0 3

- 7 0 6 -3 9 27 

## WESTMINSTER

March 8, 20l6
Federal Aviation Administration Section 333 Exemption Application
VIA Electronic Submission
To Whom It May Concem:
The City ofWestminster, Colorado (the "City") , would like to apply for an exemption to the Federal Aviation Administration under Section 333 ofthe FAA Modemization and Refmm Action of 2012 (Public Law 112-95) to allow operation of its unmanned drone , a single 

### Dn Phantom 2 Vision+ UAV, or the like , for non-commercial purposes. As such, the City is submitting the attached 333 Exemption Application. In addition, the City has also submitted a parallel application related to acquisition of a COA (submitted to the FAA Emerging Technologies Team). A copy ofthis initial application letter is also enclosed. Finally , in keeping with the City' s commitment to following FAA guidelines associated with op eration of a UA V as part of the City's infrastructure operations and maintenance program, a copy ofthe City ' s Small UAS Certificate of Registration (UAS Ce1iificate Number FA3 9RA TXKP) is also enclosed
. Any subsequent questions or comments may be directed to Robert Krugmire , W ater Resourc e s Engineer, City of Westminster, 4800 W est 92n d Avenue, Westminster, Colorado, 80031
. Thank you for the oppmiunity to submit this paperwork for review.

# re,

Prin ted 0 11 r ecycled pap er - ugmire**Water i**  eer
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 30, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-560

Lower Tribunal No. 14-26408

________________

Christian Jhoel Perez Nunez,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Miranda, Judge.

Michelle R. Walsh, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

EMAS, J.
Appellant seeks review of an order summarily denying his motion for

postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. 

However, because the motion filed with the trial court was insufficient on its face,1

the trial court should not have summarily denied the motion, but instead was

required to “enter a nonfinal, nonappealable order allowing the defendant 60 days

to amend the motion.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2). See also Charles v. State, 193

So. 3d 46, 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

We therefore reverse and remand with directions that the trial court enter a

nonfinal, nonappealable order permitting appellant sixty days within which to file

an amended motion that is sufficient on its face, and for further proceedings as

may be appropriate. If the amended motion is still insufficient on its face, or if

appellant fails to timely file such an amended motion, the court in its discretion

may permit appellant an additional opportunity to amend, or may enter a final,

appealable order summarily denying the motion with prejudice. Id. 

Reversed and remanded.

1 Appellant’s motion sought to withdraw his previously-entered plea (and

sentence), premised upon allegations of an equivocal deportation warning by the

trial court and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559

U.S. 356 (2010); Hernandez v. State, 124 So. 3d 757 (Fla. 2012). However,

appellant’s motion failed to allege that, but for trial counsel’s errors, he would not

have pleaded guilty but instead would have maintained his plea of not guilty and

insisted on going to trial. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Hernandez, 124

So. 3d at 762.

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,410
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                       955
<INVENTORY>                                      1,677
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,493
<PP&E>                                           7,791
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,950
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           197
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,359
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,543
<SALES>                                         47,693
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,127
<CGS>                                           20,054
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,951
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,880
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,657
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,223
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,223
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56
        

</TABLE>
1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3403

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Juan Carlos Aguilera-Alvarado, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 22, 2004

Filed: July 23, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Carlos Aguilera-Alvarado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after

deportation following an aggravated-felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court1

 sentenced him to 77 months imprisonment

and 3 years supervised release. On appeal, Aguilera-Alvarado’s counsel has moved

to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
-2-

After careful review, we find the issues counsel raises unavailing. By pleading

guilty unconditionally, Aguilera-Alvarado waived any suppression issue, cf. United

States v. Arrellano, 213 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 2000) (defendant waived right to

appeal denial of his motion to suppress where he did not enter conditional guilty plea

reserving right to appeal denial of motion); the prosecutor’s recital of the date of the

offense as being one day earlier than that stated in the indictment did not

constructively amend the indictment, cf. United States v. Harris, 344 F.3d 803, 804-

05 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (where defendant’s admitted possession of firearm on

October 9 was “reasonably near” October 16 date alleged in indictment, conduct was

within scope of indictment and there was no constructive amendment), cert. denied,

124 S. Ct. 1463 (2004); and counsel fails to point to anything in the record that would

call into question the district court’s finding that Aguilera-Alvarado was competent

and made the plea voluntarily and knowingly.

Further, a 16-level offense-level enhancement was properly applied based on

Aguilera-Alvarado’s prior California conviction for robbery, see United States v.

Valladares, 304 F.3d 1300, 1301-03 (8th Cir. 2002), and did not violate Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), see United States v. Raya-Ramirez, 244 F.3d 976,

977 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 898 (2001). We also find that the district court

did not commit error in imposing a $1,000 fine, an amount significantly less than the

calculated range. Last, we decline to consider a constitutional challenge to the

PROTECT Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21 § 401, 117 Stat. 650, 657 (2003), amending 18

U.S.C. § 3742(e), raised for the first time on appeal. See Liberty State Bank v. Minn.

Life & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 149 F.3d 832, 834 (8th Cir. 1998). 

We also have carefully reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we have found no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________
Order entered December 1, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01027-CV

MARK MILLS, Appellant

V.

DAVID CARLOCK, ATTORNEY AT LAW; BLAISE GORMLEY, ATTORNEY AT 

LAW; JACKIE MILANDER, ATTORNEY AT LAW; AND D/B/A CARLOCKGORMLEY-HIGHT, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-02498-D

ORDER

Before the Court is appellees’ November 28, 2016 motion for extension of time to file 

appellees’ brief. We GRANT appellees’ motion and ORDER the brief filed by DECEMBER 

13, 2016.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE