alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT      21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES      OF AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENT GROUP HOLDING CORP., AAC GROUP      HOLDING**

**CORP.      AND AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENT CORPORATION**

| **Entity**                                                                         |   | **Jurisdiction                of Incorporation** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                               |   |                                             |
| American                Achievement Group Holding Corp.                            |   | Delaware                                         |
|                                                                               |   |                                             |
| AAC                Group Holding Corp.                                             |   | Delaware                                         |
|                                                                               |   |                                             |
| AAC                Holding Corp.                                                   |   | Delaware                                         |
|                                                                               |   |                                             |
| American                Achievement Corporation                                    |   | Delaware                                         |
|                                                                               |   |                                             |
| American                Achievement Corporation Subsidiaries:                      |   |                                             |
| Commemorative                Brands, Inc.                                          |   | Delaware                                         |
|                     Pulidos de Juarez, S.A. de C.V.            |   | Ciudad                Juarez Chihuahua Mexico    |
|                     CBI North America, Inc.                    |   | Delaware                                         |
| Taylor                Senior Holding Corp.                                         |   | Delaware                                         |
|                     Taylor Holding Corp.                       |   | Delaware                                         |
|                     Taylor Publishing Company                  |   | Delaware                                         |
|      Taylor                Publishing Manufacturing, L.P. |   | Delaware                                         |
|                     Taylor Manufacturing Holdings, LLC         |   | Delaware                                         |
| Educational                Communications, Inc.                                    |   | Illinois                                         |
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-114522) and related Prospectus of Hewitt Associates, Inc. for the registration of shares of its Class A Common Stock, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-91274) pertaining to the Global Stock andIncentive Compensation Plan and Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-119576) and related Prospectus for the registration of $110,000,000 of 2.5% of Convertible Senior Notes due October 1, 2010 of our reports dated November 12, 2007, with respectto the consolidated financial statements of Hewitt Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Hewitt Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for theyear ended September 30, 2007. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

November 12, 2007
#### Ammar HALLOUM, Petitioner, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Intel Corporation, Respondents.

No. 06-71902.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 10, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 13, 2009.

Ammar Halloum, Tempe, AZ, pro se.

Janet R. Dunlop, Esquire, Paul L. Frieden, Esquire, LABR-U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, Andrea Gayle Lisenbee, Michael D. Moberly, Esquire, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents.

Before: SKOPIL, BEEZER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ammar Halloum seeks review of a final decision issued by the Department of La*107bor’s (DOL) Administrative Review Board (ARB), dismissing his “whistle-blowing” complaint under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(SOX), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. We affirm.

Halloum asserts he was subjected to adverse employment actions by Intel Corporation (Intel) because he notified the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that Intel used fraudulent and inappropriate accounting practices. A subsequent investigation cleared Intel of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, ARB concluded that Halloum established a prima facie case of retaliation that shifted the burden to Intel to establish, “by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action against Halloum in the absence of his protected activity.”

We agree with ARB that Intel satisfied that burden and thus did not violate SOX. The administrative record demonstrates that Halloum did not integrate himself into Intel’s workforce or perform up to Intel’s expectations. ARB specifically noted evidence indicating that Halloum missed meetings, was frequently absent from work, failed to perform duties expected of a group leader, failed to understand Intel’s business operations, did not meet the job expectations of his grade, failed to comprehend Intel’s accounting system, and forced Intel to shift his work responsibilities to other group leaders. As ARB indicated, [tjhese were sufficient, non-discriminatory reasons to seek his termination as an employee and accordingly, Intel “would have taken the same action in the absence of Halloum’s protected activity.” These findings are supported by substantial evidence and therefore the dismissal of Halloum’s complaint was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. *See*18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(A) (incorporating by reference the standards of review of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Wilbur Hey et al., Appellants, v Town Board of the Town of Potter et al., Respondents.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The April 1982 vote of the Town Board was not sufficient to repeal the zoning ordinance. Town Law § 265 requires a three-fourths vote of the Town Board in order to repeal a zoning ordinance after protest has been registered, as it was here, by 20% of the affected property owners. Since the Board consists of five members, it was necessary to have four favorable votes in order to repeal the ordinance and thus the 3 to 1 vote, with one member abstaining, was insufficient for repeal. Thus viewed there is no need to address the other issues raised. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Yates County, Purple, J.—art 78.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
#### The State ex rel. Brown, Appellant, *v.*Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Brown v. Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*107 Ohio St.3d 295, 2005-Ohio-6512.]

*296(No. 2005-0562

Submitted October 25, 2005

Decided December 28, 2005.)

Butkovich, Crosthwaite & Gast Co., L.P.A., and Daryl A.W. Crosthwaite, for appellant.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Shawn M. Wollam, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marlon Christopher SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-11457

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 30, 2011.

Ramona C. Albin, Jeffrey M. Anderson, William Russell Chambers, Jr., Joyce White Vance, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

J. Derek Drennan, Jaffe & Drennan, PC, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

*755Marlon C. Simmons, Mt. Meigs, AL, pro se.

Before HULL, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Marlon Christopher Simmons, who conditionally pleaded guilty to possessing an unregistered firearm or destructive device, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. Simmons argues that the affidavit in support of the search warrant failed to provide probable cause to search his home, the warrant “fail[ed] to state with any particularity” the items to be seized, and the search of his home exceeded the scope of the search warrant. We affirm.

The district court did not err when it denied Simmons’s motion to suppress. The affidavit provided probable cause to conclude that Simmons had used a cellular telephone to threaten to kill officers of the Birmingham Police Department and that the cellular telephone was located inside Simmons’s residence. *See United States v. Kapordelis,*569 F.3d 1291, 1310 (11th Cir.2009). The affidavit stated that Simmons had made the threat that morning “from a cellular phone ... number (714) 213-1425” that Simmons “did not have ... in his possession” when he had been arrested, and that officers had observed Simmons go “to and from [his] residence since the phone call was received and before his arrest.” Because of the open-ended nature of Simmons’s threat, the warrant, which permitted officers to seize “any and all evidence of the crime of a terrorist threat from a cellular phone ... number (714) 213-1425,” was “as specific as the circumstances and the nature of the activity under investigation permitted],” *United States v. Blum,*753 F.2d 999, 1001 (11th Cir.1985). The warrant gave the officers lawful access to Simmons’s house and permitted them to make “a search ... [as] extensive as reasonably necessary ... to locate” Simmons’s cellular telephone and any object that he could use to effectuate his threat. *United States v. Jackson,*120 F.3d 1226, 1228 (11th Cir.1997). Based on that warrant, Officer Carla Bing-ham was permitted to search a duffle bag that she observed lying open on the floor and inside which she discovered components used to make a pipe bomb.

We AFFIRM Simmons’s conviction.
# C_2020095EN.01001701.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 December 2019 — Novaol Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others

(Case C-917/19)

(2020/C 95/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Novaol Srl

Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali e del Turismo, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Question referred

In the view of the Court of Justice of the European Union — in the light of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, (1) as amended, Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004, (2) and any further relevant provisions of [EU] law — does the definition of State aid, as such subject to an obligation of prior notification to the European Commission, cover a secondary regulatory instrument such as the regulation adopted by means of Ministerial Decree No 37/2015 — which is being challenged in these proceedings — which, in direct enforcement of judgments of the Council of State requiring the annulment in part of the previous regulations already notified to the Commission, has retroactively affected the procedures for application of the reduced excise duty on biodiesel by retroactively amending the criteria for distribution of the benefit thereof among the applicant companies without extending the duration of the programme of tax concessions?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1).

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICK MURPHY, DBA Pinnacle

Management Group,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ACW CBP MAINE LLC,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-16048

D.C. No. 4:15-CV-00238-FRZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Frank R. Zapata, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 20, 2017**

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,*** Judge.

Rick Murphy (“Murphy”) appeals from the district court’s summary judgment

in favor of ACW CBP Maine LLC (“ACW”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

FILED

OCT 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as

provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without argument. 

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

*** The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the United States Court of

International Trade, sitting by designation.
U.S.C. § 1332. We review the summary judgement de novo, construing the facts and

drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Earl v. Nielsen

Media Research, Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2011). 

1. The district court properly entered summary judgment in favor of ACW on

Murphy’s breach of contract claim. The parties agree Maine law governs this action. 

Section 13004 of Maine’s Real Estate Brokerage Licensing Act, Me. Stat. tit. 32, §

13004, precludes a party from maintaining an action for a real estate broker’s fee,

unless the party is a licensed real estate broker in Maine. Because Murphy did not

prove licensure in Maine, he is precluded from maintaining this action. 

2. The district court properly entered summary judgment in favor of ACW on

Murphy’s unjust enrichment claim. Section13004 prohibits maintaining “any action,”

including equitable actions, for recovery of broker’s fees. Because Murphy did not

prove his licensure in Maine, his equitable claim is “statutorily barred.” See Smith v.

Cannell, 723 A.2d 876, 880 (Me. 1999) (emphasis original). 

3. Murphy’s argument that section 13004 only bars him from bringing an

action in Maine state court, but not elsewhere, is incorrect. Section 13004 is Maine

substantive law, and so a federal court sitting in diversity applies that law as a

Maine state court would apply it. See Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518

U.S. 415, 426–28 (1996). Thus, because Murphy’s claim would be barred in

2
Maine state court, it is barred in federal court as well. Guaranty Trust Co. of N.Y.

v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 109 (1945) (“[W]here a federal court is exercising

jurisdiction solely because of the diversity of citizenship of the parties, the

outcome of the litigation in the federal court should be substantially the same, so

far as legal rules determine the outcome of a litigation, as it would be if tried in a

State court.”).

AFFIRMED.

3
#### PEOPLE ex rel. GAY, Appellant, v. BUTLER, Com’r, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 22, 1907.)

Proceedings by the people of the-state of New York, on the relation of Harry G. Gay, against Edmond J. Butler, as commissioner. A. H. Scoble, for appellant. T. Connoly, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed-
AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT

         This  agreement  is  to  amend  certain   provisions  of  that  certain
Consulting Agreement dated April 1, 2002, by and between Young Innovations, Inc.
and GER Consulting,  Inc. (the  "Agreement").  Terms used herein but not defined
herein  shall  have the  meanings  ascribed  to such  terms as set  forth in the
Agreement.

         The second  sentence  of  Section  1(e)(i)  of the  Agreement  shall be
amended and restated as follows:

                  The term of this  Agreement  shall  automatically  extend  for
         successive  one  year  periods  (each  a  "SUCCESSIVE  TERM"),   unless
         terminated  by either  party at least  ninety  (90)  days  prior to the
         expiration of the Initial Consulting Term or any Successive Term.

         Agreed and accepted to this 14th day of May, 2002.

         YOUNG INNOVATIONS, INC.

         By: /s/ Arthur L. Herbst, Jr.
             -------------------------
         Its: Chief Financial Officer


         GER CONSULTING, INC.

         By: /s/ George E. Richmond
             ----------------------
         Its: President
fs1a1ex10iii_finditall.htm


     

    Exhibit
10.3

    


    INVESTMENT
CERTIFICATE

    


    The undersigned hereby represents to
FindItAll, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Corporation") that (1) the shares of
the Corporation's $.0001 par value common stock (the "Securities") which are
being acquired by the undersigned are being acquired for the undersigned’s own
account and for investment and not with a view to the public resale of
distribution thereof; (2) the undersigned will not sell, transfer, or otherwise
dispose of the Securities except in compliance with the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended (the "Act"); and (3) the undersigned is aware that the Securities are
"restricted securities" as that term is defined in Rule 144 or the General Rules
and Regulations under the Act.

    


    The undersigned further acknowledges
that the undersigned has had an opportunity to ask questions of, and receive
answers from duly designated representatives of the Corporation concerning the
terms and conditions pursuant to which the Securities are being
offered.  The undersigned acknowledges that the undersigned has been
afforded an opportunity to examine such documents and other information which it
has requested for the purpose of verifying the information given
it.

    


    The undersigned acknowledges and
understands that the Securities are unregistered and must be held indefinitely
unless they are subsequently registered under the Act or an exemption from such
registration is available.

    


    Only the Corporation may register its
Securities under the Act and it currently is not contemplating registering any
of its Securities.  Furthermore, the Corporation has not made any
representations, warranties, or covenants to the undersigned regarding the
registration of the Securities.

    


    The undersigned further acknowledges
that the undersigned is fully aware of the applicable limitations on the resale
of the Securities.  These restrictions, for the most part, are set
forth in Rule 144.  The Rule permits sales of "restricted securities"
upon compliance with the requirements of such Rule.  If the Rule is
available to the undersigned, the undersigned may make only routine sales of
securities, in limited amounts, in accordance with the terms and conditions of
that Rule.

    


    The undersigned is capable of bearing
the economic risks of an investment in the Securities and fully understands the
speculative nature of the Securities and the possibility of such
loss.

    


    The undersigned is an Accredited
Investor as that term is employed in Regulation D under the Securities Act of
1933.

    


    The undersigned's present financial
condition is such that it is under no present or contemplated future need to
dispose of any portion of the Securities to satisfy any existing or contemplated
undertaking, need, or indebtedness.

    


    This Investment Letter refers in the
aggregate to ____________ of the Corporation's $.0001 par value Common
Stock

    


    Dated:
_____________

    ___________________________________

    (Signature)

    ___________________________________

    (Print Name)
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Yonglin Du, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB/A of Dahua Inc.



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;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date:   August 30, 2007





|/s/ Yonglin Du                | 
|----------------------------- | 
|Yonglin Du, CEO and President | 
|(principal executive officer) |