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



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF HARBOR GLOBAL COMPANY LTD.



SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                        |  |              
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------
|Company:                                                |  | Jurisdiction:
|Harbor Global II Ltd.                                   |  | Bermuda      
|HGC Ltd.                                                |  | Bermuda      
|HGCL Ltd.                                               |  | Bermuda      
|PREA, Inc.                                              |  | Delaware     
|PREA, L.L.C.                                            |  | Delaware     
|Closed Joint-Stock Company Pioneer Investments        |  | Russia       
|Pioglobal Omega, L.L.C.                                 |  | Delaware     
|Luscinia, L.L.C.                                        |  | Delaware     
|Theta Enterprises, L.L.C.                               |  | Delaware     
|PIOGLOBAL Real Estate Investment Fund                   |  | Russia       
|Pioglobal First Russia, LLC                             |  | Delaware     
|Closed Joint-Stock Company PIOGLOBAL Services         |  | Russia       
|Closed Joint-Stock Company PIOGLOBAL Asset Management |  | Russia       
|Closed Joint-Stock Company Pioneer Securities         |  | Russia       
|Maltica Investments Limited                             |  | Cyprus       
|Anabasis Enterprises Limited                            |  | Cyprus       
|PGAM Limited                                            |  | Cyprus       
|Pioglobal AM Limited                                    |  | BVI
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998 AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AS FILED ON FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          43,638
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,415
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,388
<PP&E>                                          20,275
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,035
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,446
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,009
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           126
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,311
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,446
<SALES>                                         28,005
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                80,823
<CGS>                                            5,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   514
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,729)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,194)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,535)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,535)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Amedio Buttiglione and Robert Buttiglione, Appellants.

Appeals by the defendants from two judgments, one as to each of them, of the County Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), both rendered August 1, 1984, convicting each of them of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon their pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial of those branches of the defendants’ omnibus motions which were to dismiss the indictment.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendants contend that the evidence presented in obtaining their indictment was obtained in violation of the attorney-client privilege *(see,*CPLR 4503 [a]). By pleading guilty, however, they have waived their right to appellate review of this nonjurisdictional claim *(see, People v Taylor,*65 NY2d 1; *People v Thomas,*74 AD2d 317, *affd*53 NY2d 338).

Moreover, a review of the record does not indicate misconduct on the part of the police or the prosecutorial authorities that would warrant reversal of the convictions on due process grounds *(see, People v Isaacson,*44 NY2d 511). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Coast GuardU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Search
Search

Search

-  Home    -  News Room             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Forcecom             
  -  Operations             
  -  Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  History 
-  Units    -  Organization             
  -  Coast Guard A to Z             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  Force Readiness Command 
-  Leadership    -  Commandant’s Initiatives             
  -  Senior Leadership             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Operations             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area Commander             
  -  Pacific Area Commander             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Auxiliary 
-  Resources    -  CG Support             
  -  Legal      -  JoinCGJAG             
    -  Legal_Assistance        -  Find-A-Legal-Assistance-Lawyer             
      -  FAQ 
  -  Civil Rights             
  -  Work-Life             
  -  Administrative Law Judges      -  Virtual Hearing 
  -  Newsroom             
  -  Family             
  -  Library             
  -  CG Web Mail             
  -  Return 2 Service      -  FAQ 
-  Community    -  Art Program             
  -  Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts      -  Eagle Scout Recognition 
  -  Coast Guard Band             
  -  Coast Guard Cities             
  -  Honor Guard             
  -  JROTC      -  NEWS 
  -  Special Programs      -  Industry Academy        -  Contacts             
      -  2018 
  -  Trademark             
  -  Resources      -  History             
    -  CGC Eagle 
-  Mariners    -  National Vessel Documentation Center             
  -  National Maritime Center             
  -  National Pollution Funds Center      -  NRD        -  NRD_FAQs             
      -  Trustee_Links             
      -  NRD_DOCS             
      -  About_NRD_Funding 
  -  Boating Safety 
-  doing business		 
-  Join		 
-  Recruiting		 
-  contact		 
-  About		 

HomeResourcesAdministrative Law JudgesDecisionsALJ Decisions 2008

**ALJ Decisions: 2008**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

**

                      - FOIA
                      - Privacy Policy
                      - MHS Notice of Privacy Practices
                      - Accessibility
                      - No FEAR
                      - Whistleblower Protection
                      - U.S. Department of Homeland Security
                      - DHS Office of Inspector General
                      - WhiteHouse.gov
                      - USA.gov

### Stay Connected

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
```

                                                                    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 Chinawe.com Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Man
Keung Wai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Man Keung Wai
Chief Executive Officer
August 23, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Chinawe.com Inc. and will be
retained by Chinawe.com Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       28
```
<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>                                        12392694
<SECURITIES>                                  19102173
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                309214
<PP&E>                                         6339463
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5904998
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                32241266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4403964
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    5827395
<COMMON>                                        142545
<OTHER-SE>                                    21867372
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  32241266
<SALES>                                         420041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2495729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (420041)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (2075688)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (2075688)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (2075688)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Michael Issac Worden, Appellant

No. 06-15-00203-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 188th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 44,524-

A). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to 

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Michael Issac Worden, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MAY 6, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**BF** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0 5 8 4 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NICK LENIER WILSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 6 0 -day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including Septe mber 8 , 2021 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief

.

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

July 2 2021

07/02/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0584
Exhibit 32.2



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 Annual Report of Harbor Global Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald H. Hunter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.



Dated:    March 26, 2004



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/    DONALD H.
HUNTER                 
|Donald H. Hunter Chief Financial Officer



This certification
accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 10.52

                            INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT

         WHEREAS,  SHENZHEN  BAK BATTERY  CO.,  LTD.,  a publicly  held  company
organized in China,  established  in 2001,  located in Shenzhen,  China  (herein
referred to as "BAK  Battery"),  and Heritage  Management  Consultants,  Inc., a
South  Carolina  corporation  ("Heritage"),  along with  James H. Groh  ("Groh")
acting on behalf of Heritage, (herein referred to jointly as "Consultant"),  are
presently  engaged in a contract in which  Heritage and Groh provide  consulting
services to BAK Battery; and

         WHEREAS,  Heritage  and Groh have  expressed  their  desire to continue
providing  consulting  services to BAK Battery if BAK Battery  agrees to provide
the indemnification contained in this Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE,  in consideration of the above premises and ten dollars
and  other  good and  valuable  consideration,  the  receipt  of which is hereby
acknowledged, BAK Battery hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless both Groh
and  Heritage as well as  Heritage's  officers,  employees,  and agents from all
suits, actions, losses, damages, claims, or liability of any character,  type or
description  including  without  limiting the  generality  of the  foregoing all
expenses  of  litigation,  court  costs and  attorney's  fees  arising out of or
occasioned by the acts of BAK Battery, its agents or employees, or occasioned by
the acts of either Groh or  Heritage  in the  execution  or  performance  of the
services  provided by either Heritage or Groh, at any time from the inception of
BAK Battery and  Consultant's  agreement for consulting  services and until such
time after any pertinent  limitation period expires after the termination of the
agreement between BAK Battery and Consultant.

         As part of this indemnification,  BAK Battery agrees to defend and hold
harmless  Consultant from and against any and all  liabilities  arising from the
consulting agreement. As such, Consultant shall not be liable to BAK Battery, or
to anyone who may claim any right due to its relationship with BAK Battery,  for
any acts or omissions on the part of the  Consultant  or the agents or employees
of the  Consultant  in the  performance  of  Consultant's  services  under  this
agreement.  The  Company  shall  hold  Consultant  free  and  harmless  from any
obligation,  costs, claims,  judgments,  attorney's fees, or attachments arising
from or growing out of the services rendered to BAK Battery.

         EXECUTED this 25th day of July 2005.

SHENZHEN BAK BATTERY COMPANY, LTD.:


By: /s/ Xiangqian Li
   ---------------------------------

Printed Name: Xiangqian Li
             -----------------------

Its: President & CEO
    --------------------------------
#### 1ST MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., Harmonix Music Systems, Inc., and Viacom, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2010-1435.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 6, 2011.

Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

ORDER

1st Media, LLC (1st Media), Electronic Arts, Inc., et al. (EA), and Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. (Sony) respond to this court’s order directing the parties to inform the court how this case should proceed in light of the court’s en banc decision in *Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,*649 F.3d 1276, 2011 WL 2028255 (Fed.Cir.2011). 1st Media moves to summarily reverse the district court’s decision. EA and Sony oppose. 1st Media replies. EA and Sony move for leave to file a sur-reply.

We deem it the better course to have the parties raise the issues in the briefs.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The stay of proceedings is lifted. The motion for summary reversal is denied. The motions for leave are denied.

(2) 1st Media is directed to file its opening brief within 40 days from the date of filing of this order.
# C_2022361EN.01003201.xml

| 20.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/32

---

P9_TA(2022)0085

Status Agreement between the EU and Moldova on Frontex operational activities***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 March 2022 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on operational activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of Moldova (07202/2022 — C9-0120/2022 — 2022/0087(NLE))

(Consent)

(2022/C 361/07)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (07202/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (07202/2022),

| — | having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on operational activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of Moldova (07204/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on operational activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in the Republic of Moldova (07204/2022),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2)(b) and (d), Article 79(2)(c) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0120/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2)(b) and (d), Article 79(2)(c) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0120/2022),

| — | having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), Rule 114(7) and Rule 163 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), Rule 114(7) and Rule 163 of its Rules of Procedure,

| 1. | Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Moldova. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE

Written By CDR E. Hudspeth

So you were cited for a vessel safety violation, and without delay you 

corrected the discrepancy. According to the pamphlet you received in 

the mail from the Hearing Office, you may submit written 

statements, photographs, receipts, diagrams or other evidence 

relating to the case. However, before you decide to include evidence 

to support your statement that the discrepancy has been corrected, 

take the time to consider what you’re sending, and whether it will 

persuasively show that you and your vessel are in compliance.

First, how can you show that you now have the previously missing 

item? They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but make 

sure that the picture is meaningful. For example, only providing a 

picture of the item by itself is not very convincing. More helpful 

would be an additional picture of the item next to or on board your 

vessel, with the name and/or state number of the vessel prominently 

displayed. 

Second, what if the item has an expiration date (Certificate of 

Number, hydrostatic release, life raft, visual distress signals, etc.)? It 

would be most advantageous to your cause if you included a close-up 

picture or copy of the document or item that clearly shows the nonexpired expiration date. 

Finally, how can you show that you corrected the discrepancy in a 

timely manner? Obviously, if a receipt or invoice is available, you’ll 

want to provide a copy that clearly shows the date of purchase, for 

comparison to the date of the violation. Another possibility is to

arrange for a vessel safety inspection/exam. You may contact a local 

Coast Guard unit to arrange a follow-up boarding, or a Coast Guard 

Auxiliary Vessel Safety Check using the following website: 

http://SafetySeal.net. You should receive a dated document 
afterwards that you can copy and include with your response letter. 

Hearing Officers give substantial weight to a mariner's timely 

compliance efforts, and such efforts will often result in a mitigation 

of the final penalty amount.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00020-CR

MARTIN ALLEN GREEN

A/K/A MARTIN A. GREEN

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” Although 

appellant has not signed the motion in compliance with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of 

appellate procedure, appellant indicated in writing in a letter received in this court 

on May 11, 2011, that he no longer wishes to pursue his appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 

42.2(a). We suspend rule 42.2(a)’s requirement that appellant sign the motion to 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

dismiss the appeal. Id.; see Tex. R. App. P. 2. No decision of this court having 

been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss

the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 26, 2011