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

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

               SUBSIDIARIES OF COTELLIGENT, INC. (THE "COMPANY")
                            AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2002


                                                 State or Other Jurisdiction of
Subsidiary                                       Incorporation of Organization
----------                                       ------------------------------
Cotelligent USA, Inc.                            California corporation
R. Reed Business Systems Consulting, Inc.        Illinois corporation
CZG Mobile Ventures, Inc.                        Delaware corporation
bSmart.to LLC                                    Delaware Limited Liability
                                                 corporation
Jas Concepts, Inc.                               Pennsylvania corporation






                                       52
EX-10.41



 Exhibit 10.41 

Agreement 
 This Agreement
(this “Agreement”) is entered into by and among the parties below as of December 28, 2013 in Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China (“PRC”): 

500.COM LIMITED (“500.COM”), a company established and existing under the laws of Cayman Islands, with its address at
Floor 4, Willow House, Cricket Square, P.O. Box 2804, Grand Cayman; 
 E-Sun Sky Computer (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“E-Sun Sky
Computer”), a wholly foreign owned enterprise, established and existing under the laws of the PRC, with its address at Room 3-A, Complex Building (including affiliated equipment room), Shenxianling Sports Center, Central City, Longgang
District, Shenzhen; 
 Yuan Liangdong, a Chinese citizen with Chinese Identification No.: 422801198302140612. 

The above parties shall be collectively referred to as the “Parties”. 

Whereas: 
  

	A.	Yuan Liangdong is a shareholder of Shenzhen Guangtiandi Technology Co., Ltd. (a limited liability company established and existing under the laws of the PRC, with its address at Room 2-A (only for business
purposes), Complex Building (including affiliated equipment room), Shenxianling Sports Center, Central City, Longgang District, Shenzhen, “Guangtiandi”); 


 

	B.	E-Sun Sky Computer is a subsidiary wholly owned by 500.COM in Shenzhen, PRC; 

 The Parties hereby acknowledge
certain financial and other matters regarding Guangtiandi as follows: 
  

	1.	500.COM acknowledges and undertakes that, since the date of this Agreement (“Effective Date”), when needed by Guangtiandi, 500.COM agrees to provide unconditional financial support, either by itself or
through its wholly-owned subsidiary in China—E-Sun Sky Computer, to Yuan Liangdong in ways permitted by the PRC laws and regulations (“Financial Support”). Yuan Liangdong agrees to accept such Financial Support in ways
permitted by the PRC laws and regulations and undertakes to use unconditionally such Financial Support only for providing funds to Guangtiandi so as to develop its business. 


 

	2.	If 500.COM provides Financial Support by itself or through E-Sun Sky Computer, the repayment due date and method will be negotiated and determined by the Parties separately. To the extent permitted by the PRC laws and
other applicable laws, if Yuan Liangdong exempts the repayment obligations of Guangtiandi as needed by Guangtiandi, 500.COM agrees, either by itself or by instructing E-Sun Sky Computer, to exempt the repayment obligations of Yuan Liangdong.










	3.	Yuan Liangdong agrees that, to the extent permitted by the PRC laws and other applicable laws, if needed by Guangtiandi, Yuan Liangdong may exempt the repayment obligations of Guangtiandi. 









			
	500.COM LIMITED
		
	By:	 	/s/ Man San Law
	Name:	 	Man San Law
	Title:	 	Director

  

			
	E-Sun Sky Computer (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Geng Jin
	Name:	 	Geng Jin
	Title:	 	Legal Representative
	  
 Yuan Liangdong

		
	By:	 	/s/ Yuan Liangdong
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00107- CR NO. 03-16-00110- CR NO. 03-16-00111- CR NO. 03-16-00112- CR

Jeff rey A llen Culp epper, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NOS . CR201 5-0 82, CR2 015- 081, CR2015 -15 8 & CR2014 -47 8 HO NORAB LE R. B RUCE B OY ER, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On August 31, 2015, appellant was con v ic te d o f f our differ ent offe nses and sentenc ed to ten y ear s in prison. He filed neither a motion for new trial nor an appea l f rom the judgme nts of conviction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a) (2). On J anuar y 20, 2016, appellant filed a “Motion for Shock Probation” in the trial court and on Fe bruar y 18, the trial court denied that motion. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 6 (extending trial court’s jurisdiction 180 day s to impose community supervision under c erta in circumstanc es).

On Fe bruar

y 22, appellant filed his notices of appea l, appea ling from the trial court’s denial of his motion for shock probation. The order from which these appea ls wer e taken is not an appea lable orde r. “[A]n order e ntere d pursuant to Article 42.12 § 6 is not appea lable.” Dodson v.State , 988 S.W .2d 833, 834 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (citing Basaldu a v. St a t e ,

558 S.W .2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)). Appellant did not appea l from the trial court’s final judgme nts of conviction, and this Court does not have jurisdiction over these appea ls. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)( 1). Ac cording ly , we dismiss the appea ls for lac k of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Puryear , Goodwin, and F ield Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Apr il 15, 2016 Do Not Publish

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           40109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 40109
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  726487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           194
<OTHER-SE>                                      725543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    726487
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   382
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4334
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3952)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       123
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4075)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4075)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Videocon
d2h Limited (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F/A of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2015 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: February 18, 2016



By:

/s/ Saurabh Pradipkumar DhootName:

Saurabh Pradipkumar DhootTitle:

Executive Chairman


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, and is not being filed either as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement, and is not to be incorporated by reference into the Report or any other filing of the Company, whether made before or after the
date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. The foregoing certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject
to the liabilities of Section 18 or Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Courtney Lavelle MEREDITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4428

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 26, 2018

Geoffrey W. Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, P.C., Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*299Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Courtney Lavelle Meredith appeals from the 151-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a quantity of crack cocaine. Meredith argues that the district court procedurally erred in failing to rule on his objection to the presentence report's failure to calculate a reduction for a minor role in the offense under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 (2016). Finding no error, we affirm the sentence.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). We first review for significant procedural error, and if the sentence is free from such error, we then consider substantive reasonableness. *Id.*at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Procedural error includes improperly calculating the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines range as mandatory, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and failing to adequately explain the selected sentence. *Id.*This court applies de novo review for questions relating to the legal interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines. *United States v. Dowell,*771 F.3d 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

At sentencing, the district court chose not to resolve Meredith’s objection because, even if it found that the USSG § 3B1.2 reduction applied and reduced the offense level accordingly, it would not have changed the final calculation of Meredith’s applicable total offense level because that calculation was driven by his undisputed career offender status. The calculation of the offense level, after consideration of adjustments under Parts A, B, and C of Chapter Three in the Guidelines, is superseded by the determination of qualifying career offender status. *See*USSG § 1B1.1(a) (1)-(8). The court properly determined that, even if the USSG § 3B1.2 adjustment had reduced Meredith’s offense level, the total offense level based upon Meredith’s career offender status would not have been reduced. Therefore, because resolution of the objection would not have had an effect on the sentence, the court did not err in choosing not to rule on the objection. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B).

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          62,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161,907
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,493,117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         619,022
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,379,872
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      3,566,459
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          696,774
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,011,899
<OTHER-SE>                                   (966,804)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,379,872
<SALES>                                      6,253,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,985,400
<CGS>                                        5,721,184
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,024,604
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             245,429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (246,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (246,072)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 232,919
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,153)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
No. 11-10158.

#### Corrion *v.*Corrion.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            54905
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        125740
<OTHER-SE>                                    (180645)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 54905
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (54905)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (54905)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (54905)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,756
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,756
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,756
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,080
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           711
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,756
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,534
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,534)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,534)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
#### COM. v. GARCIA, A.

2112 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/15/2017

CP-29-CR-0000018-2016

(Fulton)

Affirmed
#### Wesley Wayne AUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawrence G. WASDEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35048

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Wesley Wayne Austin, Pro Se

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed, R. App, P, 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Wesley Wayne Austin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims arising from his state court conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review de novo. *Whitaker v. Garcetti,*486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)); *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Austin’s action as Heck-barred because success on the claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, and Austin failed to show that his sentence has been invalidated. *See Heck,*512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (explaining that if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ... the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2021128EN.01004801.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/48

---

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Numbi v Council

(Case T-112/21)

(2021/C 128/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: John Numbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in the annex to that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in the annex to that decision;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in the annex to that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in the annex to that regulation;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/21, Boshab v Council.

---