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


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                 PUBLICARD, INC
                            AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          STATE OF JURISDICTION
SUBSIDIARY                                                   OF INCORPORATION

<S>                                                       <C>
Absec USA, Inc                                                 Delaware
Amazing! Smart Card Technologies, Inc.                          California
Blackwold, Inc.                                                 Delaware
Boxsterview, Inc.                                               Delaware
Continental Distilling Corporation                              Delaware
Darkrats, Inc.                                                  Delaware
Fentronics, Inc.                                                Delaware
Greystone Peripherals, Inc.                                     California
Hanten Acquisition Co.                                          Delaware
Infineer, Inc.                                                  Florida
Infineer Ltd.                                                   Northern Ireland
KSI Systems, Inc.                                               Delaware
LTA Disposition Corporation                                     New Jersey
Nevco Housewares, Inc.                                          Delaware
Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc.                          Minnesota
Publicker Chemical Corporation                                  Louisiana
Publicker Gasohol, Inc.                                         Delaware
Publicker, Inc.                                                 Delaware
Redwold, Inc.                                                   Delaware
Rouglas-Dandall, Inc.                                           Delaware
Sagrocry, Inc.                                                  Pennsylvania
SmartCardSource.com, Inc                                        Delaware
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7096

ROBERT DALE STRICKLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHERIFF MCCABE, Norfolk City Jail; MAJOR

CAMACHO, Chief Corrections Officer, Norfolk

City Jail; CAPTAIN KOCEJA, Assistant Corrections Officer, Norfolk City Jail; CAPTAIN

STOCKS, Chief Records Officer, Norfolk City

Jail; LIEUTENANT BLUNT, Team Commander,

Norfolk City Jail; SERGEANT WHITE, Assistant

Team Commander, Norfolk City Jail; DEPUTY

ORTIZ, Floor Deputy, Floor Supervisor, Norfolk

City Jail; DEPUTY WALSH, Law Library Supervisor, Norfolk City Jail; MR. CRADOCK, Chief

Classification Officer Norfolk City Jail;

MARLO COPELAND, Supervisor, Inmate Funds,

Inmate Canteen; SHERIFF NEWHART, Chesapeake

City Jail; CAPTAIN CHESSOM, Chief Correctional

Officer; SERGEANT HOEKLINE, Dayshift Sergeant;

DEPUTY MILAN, Floor Deputy; DEPUTY DUNN;

SERGEANT KIRBY, Dayshift Sergeant; MR. KITE,

Chief Classification, Chesapeake City Jail;

RON ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections; PATRICK GURNEY, Manager, Classification

and Research, DOC; LINDA PITTMAN, Chairman,

Virginia Parole Board; GEORGE ALLEN, Governor;

JOHN R. DEWAN, Superintendent, Western Tidewater Regional Jail (W.T.R.J.); CAPTAIN FAULK,

Chief of Security, W.T.R.J.; MR. ELLEY, Law

Library Supervisor, W.T.R.J.; MR. WESTMINISTER, Head of the Medical Department, W.T.R.J.;

MIKE DISTEL, Chief Classification Officer,

W.T.R.J.,

Defendants - Appellees.
2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-126-2)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 29, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Dale Strickler, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Robert Dale Strickler appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court

properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42

U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp. 1997). Because Appellant did not

demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the court's

dismissal of the action without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. We note that Strickler's claim seeking transfer to a state

facility is not subject to the exhaustion requirement of § 1997e as

it involves a condition of confinement. Nonetheless, we conclude

that the claim was properly dismissed because Strickler has no

liberty interest in such transfer. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.

472 (1995). We therefore affirm the district court's order. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elias Omar SANTAMARIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10990 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 14, 2018

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, William Ernest Hermesmeyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*465PER CURIAM: *

Elias Santamaría appeals his conviction of, and sentence for, attempting to persuade or entice a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). He maintains that there is an insufficient factual basis for conviction because an individual charged with attempt under that statute could not be certain whether his conduct would result in a conviction, rendering the statute unconstitutionally vague. In addition, he contends that the statute is overbroad because it could authorize a conviction for constitutionally protected speech.

Santamaría maintains that his challenge to the factual basis for his plea, despite being raised for the first time on appeal, should not be reviewed for only plain error. As he concedes, however, this court has held that if a defendant did not challenge the factual sufficiency of his plea in the district court, we will review such a claim for plain error. *See United States v. Trejo,*610 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010). Under that standard, Santamaría must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affected his substantial rights. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If he does so, this court has the discretion to correct the error if it seriously affects the integrity, fairness, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. *See id.*

In *United States v. Howard,*766 F.3d 414, 429-30 (5th Cir. 2014), we held that § 2422(b) was not unconstitutionally vague, because an “attempt” to commit an offense had acquired an ordinary plain meaning, and the scienter requirement would limit prosecutorial discretion. Moreover, we concluded that the statute was not overbroad, because an individual knowingly attempting to induce a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity is not engaged in protected speech. *Id.*at 430. San-tamaría concedes that *Howard*forecloses his challenge to the factual basis for his plea.

Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6145

CARLTON DALE WALL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEAN WALKER, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-807) Submitted: May 8, 2001 Decided: May 21, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlton Dale Wall, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 2 PER CURIAM: Carlton Dale Wall seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). * We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Wall v. Walker , No. CA00-807 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 8, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-705]


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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Underground Facilities

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Underground Facilities 
will meet in closed session on January 22-23, 1997 at Strategic 
Analysis, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia. In order for the Task Force to 
obtain time sensitive classified briefings, critical to the 
understanding of the issues, this meeting is scheduled on short notice.
    The mission of the Defense Board is to advise the Secretary of 
Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will address the threat to U.S. interests posed by the growth of 
underground facilities in unfriendly nations. The Task Force should 
investigate technologies and techniques to meet the international 
security and military strategy challenges posed by these facilities.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (1) (1994), and that accordingly this 
meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: January 7, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-705 Filed 1-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50578

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GILBERTO PINEDA-ORTUNO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P96-CA-016

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1997

Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gilberto Pineda-Ortuno, federal prisoner no. 53721-080,

appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. Pineda-Ortuno

argues that the district court erroneously instructed the jury

regarding the elements of the firearm charges in his case and

that there was insufficient evidence to support the firearm

charges. These issues were decided against him in his direct

appeal and cannot be raised again by § 2255 motion. United
No. 97-50578

-2-

States v. Pineda-Ortuno, 952 F.2d 98, 103-04 (5th Cir. 1992); See

United States v. Kalish, 780 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir. 1986). 

 His motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13705-13706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7152]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[CO-930-1430-01; COC-57598]


Amendment to Proposed Withdrawal; Opportunity for Public Meeting; 
Colorado

March 12, 1997.
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service has amended 
their withdrawal application for the Nederland Work Center to include 
an additional 12.32 acres. This amendment will segregate the land 
described below from location and entry under the mining laws for up to 
two years, it will not affect the segregation of the land in the 
original application.

DATES: Comments on this proposed withdrawal or requests for public 
meeting must be received on or before June 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for public meeting should be sent to 
the Colorado State Director, BLM, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, 
Colorado 80215-7076.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris E. Chelius, 303-239-3706.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 4, 1997, the Department of 
Agriculture, Forest Service, filed an application to amend their 
original application (See 59 FR 55850) to include an additional 12.32 
acres of National Forest System land. This amendment will close the 
following described land to location and entry under United States 
mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch 2) for up to 2 years:

Roosevelt National Forest

T. 1 S, R. 72 W.,
    Sec. 7. lot 33.

    The area described contains approximately 12.32 acres of 
National Forest System land in Boulder County.

    The purpose of this withdrawal is to provide protection for capitol 
investments at a proposed Forest Service Work Center.
    For a period of 90 days from the date of publication of this 
notice, all parties who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or 
objections in connection with this proposed withdrawal, or to request a 
public meeting, may present their views in writing to the Colorado 
State Director. If the authorized officer determines that a meeting 
should be held, the meeting will be scheduled and conducted in 
accordance with 43 CFR 2310.3-1(c)(2).
    This application will be processed in accordance with regulations 
set forth in 43 CFR Part 2310.

[[Page 13706]]

    For a period of two years from the date of publication in the 
Federal Register, this land will be segregated from the mining laws as 
specified above unless the application is denied or cancelled or the 
withdrawal is approved prior to that date. During this period the 
Forest Service will continue to manage this land.
Jenny L. Saunders,
Realty Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-7152 Filed 3-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7278
BRYAN ERIC GRAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; JACK TURLINGTON; FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-904) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 19, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryan Eric Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Bryan Gray seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Gray's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistratejudge recommended that relief be denied and advised Gray that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waiveappellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Gray failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Gray has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Gray's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
ex_262091.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


BSQUARE CORPORATION


 


Side Letter


 


July 6, 2021


 


B. Riley Securities, Inc.


299 Park Avenue, 21st Floor


New York, NY 10171


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to that certain At Market Issuance Sales Agreement dated April 2, 2021 (the “Agreement”) between B. Riley Securities, Inc. (the “Agent”) and BSQUARE Corporation (the “Company”). Capitalized terms have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


 


This letter is to confirm the understanding of the parties that the Agreement applies to the issuance and sale of Placement Shares up to that number of shares or dollar amount of Common Stock registered on the effective Registration Statement pursuant to which the offering is being made, which amount is the “Maximum Amount” (provided that in no event shall the aggregate number of Placement Shares sold pursuant to this Agreement exceed the number of authorized but unissued shares of Common Stock). All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 


Very truly yours,


 


BSQUARE CORPORATION


 


 


 


By:         /s/ Ralph C. Derrickson                                        


Name:         Ralph C. Derrickson


Title:           President and Chief Executive Officer


 


 


Acknowledged and Agreed:


 


B. RILEY SECURITIES, INC.


 


 


 


By:         /s/ Patrice McNicoll                                              


Name:         Patrice McNicoll


Title:           Co-Head of Investment Banking
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                         5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  from the  Registrant's
consolidated condensed financial statements as of and for the three months ended
March  31,  1999,  and is  qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such
consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                         0000818074
<NAME>                  ALL AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1,000
<CURRENCY>                                           USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                               323
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     44,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                       1,605
<INVENTORY>                                       69,232
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 115,194
<PP&E>                                            10,264
<DEPRECIATION>                                     5,858
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   124,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             41,375
<BONDS>                                           56,027
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             199
<OTHER-SE>                                        26,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     124,105
<SALES>                                           70,649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  70,649
<CGS>                                             57,010
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     57,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  12,032
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     171
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 1,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      340
<INCOME-TAX>                                         146
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  194
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                         194
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .01
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 67 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 67

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the 1997 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the 
                            Capitol Grounds.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 67

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF SPECIAL OLYMPICS TORCH RELAY 
              THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    On June 13, 1997, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate may 
jointly designate, the 1997 Special Olympics Torch Relay may be run 
through the Capitol Grounds, as part of the journey of the Special 
Olympics torch to the District of Columbia Special Olympics summer 
games at Gallaudet University in the District of Columbia.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out section 1.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event authorized by section 1.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 13, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### EDWIN SANCHEZ *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 34192)

DiPentima, C. J., and Keller and Bishop, Js.

Argued December 3

officially released December 24, 2013

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.