alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Prisym Technologies, Inc. of Georgia, a Georgia corporation
G&R Marketing, Inc.,an Illinois corporation
Microsouth, Inc., a Georgia corporation 
tekgraf, inc., a Texas corporation 
Computer Graphics Distributing Company, a Maryland corporation
Intelligent Products Marketing, Inc., a California corporation
IG Distributing, Inc., a California corporation
Computer Graphics Technology, Inc., a Georgia corporation 
Media Graphics Distribution, Inc., a Georgia corporation 
New England Computer Graphics, Inc., a Georgia corporation
exv10w15






Exhibit 10.15




SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION




     Effective March 3, 2009, except as otherwise disclosed by the Company, non-employee directors
receive the following compensation for their service on the Board of Directors and committees of
the Board of Directors:



     Cash Compensation



	 	 	 	 	 
	Position	 	Amount
	Non-employee (“NE”) Director Annual Retainer
	 	$	12,000	 
	NE Director Board Meeting Attendance Fee (Telephonic)
	 	$	1,000 	($500)   
	NE Director Committee Meeting Attendance Fee
	 	$	500	 
	NE Director Audit Committee Meeting Attendance
	 	$	1,000	 
	Chair of Audit Committee Annual Retainer
	 	$	3,500	 
	Chair of Compensation Committee Annual Retainer
	 	$	2,000	 
	Chair of Nomination Committee Annual Retainer
	 	$	2,000	 






     Stock options



     Each non-employee director receives an annual stock option grant of 20,000 shares of common
stock, with an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the common stock on the date of
grant and a term of ten years, or an equivalent grant of shares of restricted stock. Effective
March 3, 2009, the Board adopted a new vesting schedule for option awards and restricted stock
grants, with the grants to vest in full one year from the date of grant. Stock options awarded
prior to March 3, 2009 vested over a period of 42 months, with 14.29% vesting on each 6-month
anniversary of the grant date.



     Expense reimbursement


Non-employee directors are reimbursed for travel, meals and accommodation expenses incurred for
attending any Board meetings.
(Thousands of dollars, budget year dollars) FY 2017

PRESBUD FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

Vessels $704,100 $954,000 $952,000 $1,173,000 $1,382,000

Survey and Design - Vessel and Boats $6,500 $1,000 $3,000 $5,000 $5,000

In-Service Vessel Sustainment $79,000 $85,000 $54,000 $73,000 $113,000

National Security Cutter (NSC) $127,000 $95,000 $65,000 $65,000 $21,000

Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) $100,000 $530,000 $430,000 $530,000 $770,000

Fast Response Cutter (FRC) $240,000 $240,000 $325,000 $325,000 $18,000

Cutter Boats $4,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0

Polar Icebreaker $147,600 $0 $50,000 $150,000 $430,000

Polar Sustainment $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000

Aircraft $201,300 $100,000 $143,000 $147,000 $130,000

HC-144A Conversion/Sustainment $25,500 $0 $17,000 $0 $0

HC-27J Conversion/Sustainment $130,000 $70,000 $80,000 $100,000 $100,000

HH-65 Conversion/Sustainment Projects $25,000 $30,000 $40,000 $22,000 $0

MH-60T Sustainment $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $5,000

HC-130J Acquisition/Conversion/Sustainment $20,800 $0 $0 $18,000 $0

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) $0 $0 $6,000 $6,000 $25,000

Other $59,355 $52,800 $49,300 $30,800 $30,800

Program Oversight and Management $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000

C4ISR $24,300 $24,300 $22,300 $7,300 $7,300

CG-LIMS $7,000 $5,000 $3,500 $0 $0

Other Equipment and Systems $8,055 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $3,500

Shore and ATON $51,100 $35,000 $80,000 $93,000 $180,000

Major Shore, Housing, ATON and S&D $18,100 $10,000 $30,000 $38,000 $85,000

Major Acquisition Systems Infrastructure $28,000 $20,000 $45,000 $50,000 $90,000

Minor Shore $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

Military Housing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Personnel and Management $120,933 $117,845 $115,638 $116,730 $117,993

Direct Personnel Costs $120,933 $117,845 $115,638 $116,730 $117,993

TOTAL $1,136,788 $1,259,645 $1,339,938 $1,560,530 $1,840,793

FY 2017 - FY 2021 Five Year Capital Investment Plan

Acquisition, Construction & Improvements
EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted), Patrick D. O'Brien, Chief Executive Officer of
American Oil & Gas, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of
his knowledge:

1.   The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December
     31, 2003, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
     "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  April 14, 2004            /s/  Patrick D. O'Brien
                                  -------------------------------------------
                                  Patrick D. O'Brien, Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 23.    1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration    Statement    No. 333-124470(Form S-8)    and Registration Statement    No. 133-139903(Form S-3)    of Minrad International, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report,    dated March 31, 2008 on the consolidated financial    statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007,    appearing in this Annual Report on    Form 10-KSB    of Minrad International, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year    ended December 31, 2007.     /s/ Freed Maxick & Battaglia, CPAs, PC    Buffalo, New York    March 31, 2008
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1463

___________ Glenn R. Waite, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Lanet S. Asmussen, Clerk of the * District Court for the Nebraska Supreme Court; Janice J. * District of Nebraska. Culver, Deputy Clerk; Pamela J. Kraus, * Appellate Clerk; Jill R. Machacek, * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellate Clerk, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 5, 1997 Filed: December 23, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, an d MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Glenn R. Waite brought a 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) action against fou r Nebraska court clerks. Waite claimed the clerks individually, and in conspi racy, denied him access to the courts and equal protection by refusing to file his pleading seekingThe Honorable William G. Cambridge, Chief Judge, United States Distric t 1 Court for the District of Nebraska. -2- to reopen an appeal in which the mandate had issued nearly three years earlier. Th e district court granted defendants summary judgment based on absolute quasi-judicial

1 immunity. Waite appeals. We conclude summary judgment was proper, a s the evidence showed the clerks we re directed by Nebraska judges not to file Waite & s pleading. See Rogers v

. Bruntrager , 841 F.2d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 1988) (clerks of court have absolute quasi

judicial immunity from actions for damages arising fr om acts that “they are specifically required to do und er court order or at a judge & s direction”); Moses v. Parwatikar , 813 F.2d 89 1, 892-93 (8th Cir.) (conspiracy claim cannot overcome absolute immunity) , cert. denie d , 484 U.S. 832 (1987). The district court did not abuse its discretion i n denying Wai te leave to amend his complaint after the summary judgment motion was fi led. See Wald v. Southwestern Bell Corp. Customcare Med. Plan , 83 F.3d 1002 , 1005 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review). We deny Waite & s request for leave to file a Federal Rule of Civil Procedu re 60(a) motion in the district court, because we consider the continuance motion he wante d transmitted to this court to already be part of the record on appeal. We find no abuse of discreti on in the district court & s refusal to continue the case to permit Waite t o conduct discovery prior to entry of su mmary judgment. See In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prods. Liab. Litig. , 113 F.3d 1484, 1489 (8th Cir. 199 7) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00056-CR

JACOB DOUGLAS ELLISON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR13588)

August 22, 2019

Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           9,415
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             703
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,166
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     94,648
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           6,675
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,306
<LOANS>                                        214,233
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 340,628
<DEPOSITS>                                     269,645
<SHORT-TERM>                                    40,301
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,598
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,025
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 330,628
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,966
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,640
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   216
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,822
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,702
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,134
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,688
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      275
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,327
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,327
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,007
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.93
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         1
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,189
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,511
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        6
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,780
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,357
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            423



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Nieves Perez, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of two counts of felony murder in the second degree and one count each of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, stemming from the strangulation of an elderly woman in her home and the theft of her jewelry. Defendant contends that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to challenge the search warrant on a number of different grounds. We disagree. Defendant has failed "to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for his trial counsel’s failure to challenge the search warrant on these grounds *(People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions on appeal and find them either unpreserved or lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Morton, J. — murder, second degree, and other charges.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
Exhibit 12.1  I, Christopher Viehbacher, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Sanofi;  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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The company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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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  (d)Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the Audit Committee of the companys Board of Directors:  (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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date: March 6, 2014  By:
/s/   Christopher ViehbacherName:
Christopher   ViehbacherTitle:
Chief   Executive Officer (1)  
 (1)Principal executive officer.
#### JONES v. INDUSTRIAL BEN. ASS’N.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

July 14, 1894.)

Action by Susan B. Jones against the Industrial Benefit Association.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6135 

To extend contract periods for renewable energy for Federal agencies, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To extend contract periods for renewable energy for Federal 

agencies, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Electricity 

5 Cost Savings Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ENABLING DISPLACEMENT OF ELECTRICITY USE 

7 WITH THERMAL. 

8 Section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 

9 U.S.C. 15852) is amended— 

10 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘electric’’; 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6135 IH

1 (2) in subsection (b)(1)(D), by striking ‘‘for the 

2 production of electricity’’; and 

3 (3) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ‘‘electric’’. 

4 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF CONTRACT PERIODS FOR RENEW5 ABLE ENERGY. 

6 Section 501(b)(1)(B) of title 40, United States Code, 

7 is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(B) PUBLIC UTILITY CONTRACTS.— 

9 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—A contract for 

10 public utility services may be made for a 

11 period of not more than 10 years. 

12 ‘‘(ii) RENEWABLE ENERGY CON13 TRACTS.—A contract for renewable energy 

14 may be made for a period of not more than 

15 20 years. 

16 ‘‘(iii) DEFINITIONS.—In this para17 graph: 

18 ‘‘(I) PUBLIC UTILITY SERV19 ICES.—The term ‘public utility serv20 ices’ means generation, transmission, 

21 distribution or other services directly 

22 used in providing public utility serv23 ices. 

24 ‘‘(II) RENEWABLE ENERGY.— 

25 The term ‘renewable energy’ means 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6135 IH

1 electric energy generated from solar, 

2 wind, biomass, landfill gas, ocean (in3 cluding tidal, wave, current, and ther4 mal), geothermal, municipal solid 

5 waste, or new hydroelectric generation 

6 capacity achieved from increased effi7 ciency, or additional new capacity at 

8 an existing hydroelectric project.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 16

- 00515

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF W .T.H., A CHILD

From the 81st Judicial District Court

, Karnes County, Texas Trial Court No. 15

- 06

- 00217

- CVK Honorable Russell H. Wilson , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 5, 2016

DISMISSED

Kevin 1 appeals the trial court’s bill of review setting aside a prior judgment of the court.

The trial court signed the order setting aside its prior judgment on October 27, 2015. On August

5, 2016, Kevin filed a notice of appeal. We ordered Kevin to file a response by September 19,

2016, showing why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction and advised him

the appeal would be dismissed if he failed to satisfactorily respond within the time provided. Kevin

did not file a response. We therefore dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a), (c).

PER CURIAM

1 To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to th e child’s parent by his first name and to the child by the child’s initials. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9. 9( a )(3).
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the**

**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Joseph P. Hubert, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report of Excalibur Industries on Form 10-K;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
> 
a) designed such disclosure contrls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

> 
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 9- days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

> 
c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

> 
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

> 
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

| Date:July 28, 2008 | /s/ JOSEPH P. HUBERT |
|--------------------|----------------------|

|   | President, Chief Executive Officer, |
|--------|-------------------------------------|

|   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
|--------|-------------------------------|