alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


     Subsidiary                                     State of Incorporation
     ----------                                     ----------------------

Klein, Bury and Associates, Inc.                           Florida
Looney & Company                                           Texas
Litigation Resources of America--Northeast, Inc.           New York
Litigation Resources of America--Midwest, Inc.             Illinois
Litigation Resources of America--California, Inc.          California
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 32f

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

      I, Thomas M. O'Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the
best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Annual Report of PSEG Power LLC on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSEG
Power LLC.

                                   /s/ Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                   -----------------------------------------
                                   Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                   PSEG Power LLC
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   February 27, 2006
No. 11-1325.

#### Veale et al. *v.*United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1
                                                                               


    
                                 July 16, 1997     


Friede Goldman International Inc.
52 E. Capitol Street
Suite 402
Jackson, Mississippi 39201

Gentlemen:
    
     We have acted as counsel for Friede Goldman International Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-1 (the "Registration Statement") relating to the
registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of the offering and
sale of up to an aggregate of 5,364,750 shares (the "Shares") of common stock,
$.01 par value per share (the "Common Stock").  The Shares include 2,650,000
shares being offered by the Company, 2,015,000 shares being offered by certain
selling stockholders  and 669,750 shares of Common Stock being offered by the
Company which may be sold pursuant to an over-allotment option granted to the
Underwriters named in the Registration Statement.     

     As the basis for the opinion hereinafter expressed, we have examined such
statutes, regulations, corporate records and documents, certificates of
corporate and public officials, and other instruments as we have deemed
necessary or advisable for the purposes of this opinion.  In such examination we
have assumed the authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals and
the conformity with the original documents of all documents submitted to us as
copies.

     Based upon the foregoing and having due regard for such legal
considerations as we deem relevant, we are of the opinion that the Shares have
been duly authorized and, when sold in the manner described in the Registration
Statement, will be legally issued and constitute fully paid and nonassessable
shares of Common Stock.

     This opinion is limited in all respects to the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware and the laws of the United States of America insofar as
such laws are applicable.

     We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and to the reference to this firm under the heading
"Legal Matters" in the Prospectus without admitting that we are "experts" under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules and regulations of the
Commission issued thereunder, with respect to any part of the Registration
Statement, including this exhibit.

        

                                            Very truly yours,

                          
                                              ANDREWS & KURTH L.L.P.
**IN THE SUPREME COUR T OF**  **THE ST AT**  **E OF MONT**  **ANA DA**  **20 -**  **0044** ST AT E OF MONT

ANA, Plaintiff an d Appellee, v. J OSEPH RICHARD POLAK II , Defendant and Appellant, **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant ’ s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing; **IT IS HEREBY**

**ORDERED** that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 16 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 4 2020

09/04/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0044
#### DeAndre L’overture JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Earl BARKSDALE; M. Younce; David Zook; Bryant, Sergeant; Adams, Officer; Rick White, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-7073

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 29, 2017

Decided: January 5, 2018

DeAndre L’overture Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Haeberle Cahill, OFFICE *787OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellees.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

DeAndre L’overture Jackson appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. *Jackson v. Barksdale,*No. 7:17-cv-00031-PMS, 2017 WL 3446259 (W.D. Va. Aug. 10, 2017). We deny Jackson’s motion for injunctive relief. 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*
# C_2023223EN.01000601.xml

| 26.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 May 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance v Manitou BF SA (C-407/22), Bricolage Investissement France SA (C-408/22)

(Joined Cases C-407/22 and C-408/22, (1) Manitou BF and Others)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Group taxation (French ‘intégration fiscale’) - Tax exemption for dividends paid by subsidiaries belonging to the tax-integrated group - Resident parent company - Capital links with resident and non-resident companies without forming a tax-integrated group - Tax exemption of dividends paid by non-resident subsidiaries - Non-deductible costs and expenses relating to the holding - Lack of neutralisation as regards the add-back of those costs and expenses)

(2023/C 223/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance

Defendants: Manitou BF SA (C-407/22), Bricolage Investissement France SA (C-408/22)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State relating to a tax integration scheme under which

| — | a resident parent company that has opted for tax integration with resident companies is entitled to neutralisation as regards the add-back of a proportion of costs and expenses, fixed at 5 % of the net amount of the dividends received by it from its subsidiaries located in other Member States who, had they been resident, would have been eligible in practice, if they so elected, |
| --- | --- |

—

a resident parent company that has opted for tax integration with resident companies is entitled to neutralisation as regards the add-back of a proportion of costs and expenses, fixed at 5 % of the net amount of the dividends received by it from its subsidiaries located in other Member States who, had they been resident, would have been eligible in practice, if they so elected,

| — | whereas a resident parent company that has not opted for such tax integration despite the existence of capital links with other resident companies permitting it is refused such neutralisation. |
| --- | --- |

—

whereas a resident parent company that has not opted for such tax integration despite the existence of capital links with other resident companies permitting it is refused such neutralisation.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.

---
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****    - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский 

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

        - Student Loans
        - Grants
        - Laws
        - Data

# Secretary Cardona to Travel to France to Attend OECD Summit, Visit School to Discuss Academic Recovery and Reimagining Education

# Secretary Cardona to Travel to France to Attend OECD Summit, Visit School to Discuss Academic Recovery and Reimagining Education

**Contact:  **press@ed.gov

                                    -        
U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona will travel to France next week to lead a delegation at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Summit. During the summit, Secretary Cardona will speak with dozens of member and non-member countries about lifelong education and reimagining education for an equitable future.

Secretary Cardona will also join education officials for a school visit to learn how teachers are addressing academic recovery following the pandemic, and to learn more about efforts to increase multilingual education.
      -  Tags: Media Advisories
          How Do I Find...?    - Student loans, forgiveness
- Higher Education Rulemaking
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms
- More...
      Information About...    - Elevating Teaching
- Early Learning
- Engage Every Student
- Unlocking Career Success
- Cybersecurity
Search media advisoriesSearch for:      Find By Month    - February 2024 
- January 2024 
- December 2023 
- November 2023 
- October 2023 
- September 2023 
- August 2023 
- July 2023 
- June 2023 
- May 2023 
- April 2023 
- March 2023 
- All Media Advisories
             
*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
- Student Loans
- Repaying Loans
- Defaulted Loans
- Loan Forgiveness
- Loan Servicers
- Grants & Programs
- Apply for Pell Grants
- Grants Forecast
- Apply for a Grant
- Laws & Guidance
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- Civil Rights
- IDEA Website
- Data & Research
- Education Statistics
- Postsecondary Education Data
- ED Data Express
- Nation's Report Card
- What Works Clearinghouse
- Open Data Platform
- COVID Relief Data
- About Us
- Contact Us
- ED Offices
- Jobs
- Press Releases
- FAQs
- Recursos en español
- Budget, Performance
- Privacy Program
- Homeroom Blog
- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information Quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mayors Jewelers, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the thirteen weeks ended June 26, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Thomas A. Andruskevich, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: August 5, 2004 /s/ Thomas A. AndruskevichThomas A. AndruskevichChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Lovett IVY Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1497

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Filed: January 5, 2018

Connie Larson, Assistant U.S.; Attorney, Jennifer D. Mammenga, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dis*404trict of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alex M. Hagen, Cadwell & Sanford, Sioux Falls, SD, for Defendant-Appellant

James Lovett Ivy, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Ivy directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to a firearm charge, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver, and relaying Ivy’s argument that Ivy is entitled to be resentenced because he received ineffective assistance of counsel.'

We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and enforceable. In particular, we note that Ivy’s own statements at the change-of-plea hearing indicated that he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity).

As to the ineffective-assistance claim, we decline to consider it on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings where the record can be properly developed).

Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

1

. The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CHILDRENS COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES INC FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,833
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,176
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,110
<PP&E>                                          54,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,626
<BONDS>                                         11,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,165
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    80,099
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,122
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 248
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,101
<INCOME-TAX>                                       435
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                666
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       666
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bartolo Jose BAUTISTA-QUIROGA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40064 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Bartolo Jose Bautista-Quiroga, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Bartolo Jose Bautista-Quiro-ga has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v.*Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Bautista-Quiroga has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-*482lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
SVR-12.31.13-EX10.16








August 5, 2013




Joseph DiFonzo




Dear Joe:


We are pleased to confirm your promotion to Chief Technology Officer reporting to Jeff Gordon, CEO  & President.  You are being offered a $330,000 USD base annual salary. 


ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN


In addition to base salary, you will have an opportunity to earn a cash bonus each year, commencing with the 2013 calendar year with a target annual bonus equal to 60 percent (60%) of your base salary based upon the achievement with respect to any calendar year of performance objectives as approved by the Compensation Committee.  As Chief Technology Officer, your bonus is based on the achievement of Corporate measures.  Bonus payments, if any, will be payable pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Syniverse Annual Incentive Plan.  The annual incentive plan can be modified by the Board of Directors at any time.   Your bonus will be prorated for 2013.


STOCK OPTIONS


Upon approval by the Compensation Committee you will receive an additional one-time stock option grant with a potential value of $750,000 over five years. You will receive a separate document covering the Long Term Incentive Plan and will be required to sign and abide by the Employee Stock Option Agreement and Management Stockholder’s Agreement. 
SALARY CONTINUATION
If your employment is terminated by Syniverse Technologies without cause, you will receive the continuation of your annual base salary, as severance, payable in accordance with the Company’s general payroll practices for a period commencing on the date of termination and ending 12 (twelve) months from the date of termination. This severance will require that you sign a release document and will be subject to certain non-compete and non-solicit restrictions.
We are especially pleased to confirm your promotion to this senior leadership position with Syniverse.  Please sign this letter on the line below indicating your acceptance and return to me as soon as possible.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 813-637-5762 or Vena at 813-637-5748.


Sincerely,




Leigh Hennen
Chief Human Resources Officer




Accepted:




Joseph DiFonzo: /s/ Joseph DiFonzo Date: ____________________
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Corey
Henry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-1
(the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in
all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and
their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I
have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.



By:

/s/ Corey HenryName:

Corey HenryTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerSantander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date:

March 29, 2019