alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 8
 List of Subsidiaries of Metal Storm Limited
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    Percentage Owned
    
    Jurisdiction of FormationMetal Storm Inc.
    
    (a)
    
    DelawareMetal Storm U.S.A. Limited
    
    100% (b)
    
    DelawareProCam Machine LLC
    
    100% (c)
    
    WashingtonDigiGun LLC
    
    100% (d)
    
    Delaware
 
 (a)
    
    Metal Storm Limited directly owns 49% of Metal Storm Inc. and officers of Metal Storm Limited
who are U.S. citizens own the remaining 51% of the company through a trust.(b)
    
    Metal Storm Limited directly owns 100% of Metal Storm U.S.A. Limited. Metal Storm U.S.A.
Limited was incorporated in Delaware on March 31, 2004.(c)
    
    Metal Storm Limited directly owns 100% of ProCam Machine LLC. Metal Storm Limited sold the
assets and liabilities of ProCam to Monroe Machine Products, Inc. on June 1, 2005.(d)
    
    Metal Storm Limited directly owns 100% of DigiGun LLC, which was formed in Delaware on May 6,
2004.
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10731 Summary Calendar

CLARENCE HAWKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. S. O. WOODS, Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:11-CV-153

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Clarence Hawkins appeals the district c ourt’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Hawkins, acting pro se and filing on behalf of his deceased brother, alleged in the district court that the State Classification Committee of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice kept his brother in prison past his discharge date, failed to notify the records division in a timely manner of the discharge date, and caused his brother’s death in pris o n . Th e district court concluded that the s t a t u t e of limitations applicable to Hawkins’s claims had U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 1, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-10731 Document: 00511773291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2012No. 11-10731

expired. The district court dismissed Hawkin s ’ s c o m p l aint p ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous. Hawkins’s appellate brief does not address the district court’s reason for dismissing his claims. Although we apply less s t ri n g ent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel and liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28. Grant

v. Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We will not raise and discuss legal issues that Hawkins has failed to assert; when an appellant fails to identify any error in th e district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Hawkins has failed to brief any issue, his appeal is frivolous and is dismissed. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. Hawkins is warned that the filing of repetitious or frivolous appeals may result in the imposition of sanctions against him. These sanctions may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2 Case: 11-10731 Document: 00511773291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2012
(7 Misc. Rep. 689.)

#### CARLSON v. WINTERSON.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

April 2, 1894.)

Restitution after Reversal—When Denied.

An application for restitution after reversal is properly denied where it appears that the action had been retried, and a recovery had by the same parties as before.

Action by Louise Carlson against Maria L. Winterson on a promissory note. A judgment in favor of plaintiff was reversed on appeal (22 M. Y. Supp. 553), and defendant now moves for restitution. Denied.

Argued before DALY, C. J., and BISCHOFF and PRYOR, JJ.

H. M. Hitchings, for appellant.

E. F. Bulland, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The granting of this motion is discretionary, and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure respecting restitution on the reversal or vacation of a judgment or order are not exclusive. The party has his remedy by action. Haebler v. Myers, 132 N. Y. 363, 30 N. E. 963; Baylies, New Trials, 191. Since the submission of this motion it appears that the action has been retried in the court below, and that the trial has again resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. We deem it, therefore, a proper exercise of our discretion to deny restitution upon summary application therefor. ¡No costs of this motion.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcos Alexander ROMERO-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-41103

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendanb-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

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

*

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

# Arrest Summary Report

**United States Capitol Police Arrest Summary Report*To request a public document, contact the USCP Reports Processing Section at (202) 228-4585.***

USCP Report Request Form 2019.pdf

- First page« First
- Previous page‹ Previous
- …
-               Page            2
-               Page            3
-               Page            4
-               Page            5
-               Current page            6
-               Page            7
-               Page            8
-               Page            9
-               Page            10
- …
- Next pageNext ›
- Last pageLast »

## Media Center

              - Press Releases
              - USCP Arrests
              - USCP FAST FACTS

## Glossary

                - R/O = Reporting/Responding Officer
                - SFST = Standardized Field Sobriety Test
                - W = Witness
                - S = Suspect
                - SA = Special Agent
                - CIS = Criminal Investigations Section
                - CSS = Crime Scene Search
                - C = Complainant
                - LPR = License Plate Number
                - CFN = Capitol File Number
                - Unless otherwise noted, Defendants placed under arrest are transported to USCP Headquarters, 119 D Street, NE, for processing.
Race Route

Route # 1

Approximate Distance

on Capitol Ground: 0.4 mi
Race Route

Route # 2

Approximate Distance

on Capitol Ground: 0.4 mi
Race Route

Route # 3

Approximate Distance

on Capitol Ground: 0.8 mi
Race Route

Route # 4

Approximate Distance

on Capitol Ground: 0.8 mi
Race Route

Route # 5

Approximate Distance

on Capitol Ground: 0.6 mi
#### LONG ISLAND R. CO., Appellant, v. GARVEY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 13, 1896.)

Action by the Long Island Railroad Company against Bernard F. Garvey.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with $10 costs.
#### MAHON, Respondent, v. TRACY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

June 15, 1894.)

Action by John Mahon against Mary Tracy. W. J. Walsh, for appellant. F. S. Wait, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of special term.
Exhibit 32.1

             STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
             SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      The undersigned, Ralph W. Dunham, is the President and Chief
Executive Officer of Mystic Financial, Inc. (the "Company").

      This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by
the Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report").

      By execution of this statement, I certify that:

      A)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
            U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

      B)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
            covered by the Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the
Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the
Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It
is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350
has been provided to Mystic Financial, Inc. and will be retained by Mystic
Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

November 10, 2004                      /s/ Ralph W. Dunham
-----------------                      ------------------------------------
Dated                                  Ralph W. Dunham


<PAGE>  31
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0001392 13-NOV-2015 09:26 AM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrance Jackson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.), rendered April 7, 1986, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

We agree with both the defendant’s contention and the People’s concession that a prima facie showing of a violation of *Batson v Kentucky*(476 US 79) has been established by the defendant *(see, People v Scott,*70 NY2d 420), as there are sufficient inferences which may be drawn from the record to warrant the conclusion that the prosecutor may have utilized his peremptory challenges to remove venire members of the defendant’s race from the jury *(see also, People v Mack,*143 AD2d 280; *People v James,*132 AD2d 932; *People v Howard,*128 AD2d 804). Under the circumstances, the prosecution had the burden of coming forward with a neutral explanation for the use of its challenges *(Batson v Kentucky, supra; People v Mack, supra).*Generally a hearing is required where, as here, there is no explanation of the challenges on the record *(see,*
      *707
      *e.g., People v Howard, supra).*However, the People concede in their brief on appeal that if a hearing were to be held they would be unable to offer any explanation for the prosecutor’s challenges and that a new trial is warranted under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, a new trial is ordered.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          87,580
<SECURITIES>                                   118,192
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,133
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,769
<INVENTORY>                                     22,023
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               240,232
<PP&E>                                          56,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,083,687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,026
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     92,468
<COMMON>                                           875
<OTHER-SE>                                     806,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,083,687
<SALES>                                         82,979
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154,742
<CGS>                                          413,791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               312,993
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,867
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,835
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (118,098)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (118,098)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (118,098)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.49)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0660 IN THE MATTER OF: R.V., A Youth
. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 3 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

August 28 2024

08/28/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0660
PROMISSORY
NOTE


 


	$
    250000	 	Jack
    D. and Vanessa J. Mitchell	 	November
    4, 2019
	Amount
    	 	Lender	 	Date


 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, the Undersigned acknowledges that he is indebted to the Lender in the amount stated herein and promises to pay
on or before the date specified to the order of Jack D. And Vanessa J. Mitchell (the “Lender”), the
principal sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) together with interest thereon from the date hereof
to maturity at an annual interest rate of 18%, compounded annually with an additional 100,000 shares of unrestricted common stock.


 


Said
principal sum is due twelve (12) months from the date hereof. All installments, prepayments, and other payments of principal and
interest are payable to Lender at ______________ or at such other place as the Lender or holder may hereafter and from
time to time designate in writing.


 


This
Note may be prepaid, in whole or in part, without penalty at any time. At maturity, or default or failure to pay any installment
of principal and interest required herein, the entire balance shall be immediately due and payable. Any remedy of Lender or holder
upon default of the Undersigned shall be cumulative and not exclusive and choice of remedy shall be at the sole election of Lender
or holder. The Undersigned agrees to pay all costs of collection, including reasonable attorney’s fees, whether or not any
suit, civil action, or other proceeding at law or in equity, is commenced. The Undersigned waives demand, presentment for payment,
protest and notice of protest and nonpayment of this Note and expressly agrees to remain bound for the payment of principal, interest
and other sums provided for by the terms of this Note, notwithstanding any extension or extensions of the time of, or for the
payment of, said principal. No delay or omission on the part of the Lender or holder in exercising any rights shall operate as
a waiver of such right. This Note shall be governed by the laws of the State of Tennessee, and each party hereto agrees to venue
and jurisdiction in the federal and state courts located in Shelby County, Tennessee.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 


On
Demand Promissory Note Page 1 of 2


 




    	 	 	 



    	 



    

 


Executed
on November 4, 2019.


 


	 	UNDERSIGNED:
	 	 
	 	 
	 	Printed
    Name: Brian Cox
	 	Company:
    Surge Holdings, Inc. 


 


	WITNESS:	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Printed
    Name	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Signature	 


 


On
Demand Promissory Note Page 2 of 2
- How To Appeal 
    - Court Forms  and Fees        - Court Forms
      - Fee Schedule
      - Filing Fee 
    - Court Rules and Procedures        - Rules of Practice  and Procedure
      - Procedural Requirements for Staff Conferences
      - Internal Operating Procedures
      - Rules of Admission  and Practice
      - Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability
      - E-Filing Rules
      - Court Process
      - Court Efforts to Ensure Compliance with Court Rules 
    - Information About Practitioners        - Search List of Practitioners
      - Disciplinary Action
      - Key Points in Finding a Representative
      - Compendium of Disciplinary Grievances 
    - Orders and Opinions        - Miscellaneous Orders
      - Ceremonial Orders
      - Opinions and Full Court Orders
      - Search Decisions and Opinions
      - Recent Decisions / Opinions
      - Case Archives 
    - Active Panel Cases 
    - Stayed Cases 
    - Class Action Cases 
    - Electronic Filing 
    - Docket Search 
    - Oral Arguments        - Schedule
      - Oral Arguments via YouTube Live
      - Audio/Video
      - Oral Argument Educational Outreach 

|  |
|--|

----

### Federal Holidays

                The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims will observe the following legal public holidays:                

Please refer to Court Closures below for any additional closing announcements.

----

### Court Closures

Below is a listing of additional closures of the U.S. Court of Appeals for                 Veterans Claims in 2022 and 2023:                

----

### Events

    - No events scheduled.
Back

USCAVC 16thJudicial ConferenceSeptember 19-20, 2024

Watch CAVC Oral Arguments on YouTube

Changes to Court Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability - EffectiveJanuary 10, 2024

In the News: Articles

----
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-77004 and 333-116321) ofHydrogenics Corporation of our report dated March 24, 2009 relating to thefinancial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting and our comments by independent auditors on Canada-US reportingdifference dated March 24, 2009, which appear in this Form 20-F.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

 

Chartered AccountantsToronto, OntarioJune 25, 2009

 

----
Exhibit 13.1



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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of ViryaNet Ltd. (the Registrant) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 15, 2005 (the Report), the undersigned, Paul V. Brooks, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Albert A. Gabrielli, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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 results of operations of the Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                                          
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Paul V. Brooks                                       
|    |  | Paul V. Brooks Chief Executive Officer July 15, 2005     
|    | 
|    |  | /s/ Albert A. Gabrielli                                  
|    |  | Albert A. Gabrielli Chief Financial Officer July 15, 2005