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

**SUBSIDIARIES OF INVESTOOLS INC. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2006**

**Direct subsidiaries of Investools Inc.:**

Telescan, Inc., a Delaware corporation (100 percent owned)

ZiaSun Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (100 percent owned)

SES Acquisition Corp., dba 360 Group, a California corporation (100 percent owned)

Prophet Financial Systems, Inc., a California corporation (100 percent owned)

**Direct subsidiaries of Telescan, Inc.:**

Entrepreneurs Online, a Texas corporation (100 percent owned)

**Direct subsidiaries of ZiaSun Technologies, Inc.:**

Online Investors Advantage, Inc., a Utah corporation (100 percent owned)

**Direct subsidiaries of Online Investors Advantage, Inc.:**

Investools Asia Pacific Pte., Limited, a Singapore company (100 percent owned)

Investools Hong Kong Ltd., a Hong Kong company (100 percent owned)

----
DEBBIE SUE JONES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1419

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 6, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John F. Simon, Jr., Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Case 1:07-cv-01521-AKH Document 21 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-01521-AKH Document 21 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 2
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Yadhira Ainsworth, * From the 70th District Court

of Ector County

, Trial Court No. A

- 43,976

.

Vs. No. 11

- 15

- 00276

- CR * November 30 , 2017

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright

, C. J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has i nspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE TEECO PROPERTIES
L.P. FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         138,000
<SECURITIES>                                   600,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 821,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          113,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     708,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   821,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               336,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (290,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (290,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (290,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.045)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.045)
        

</TABLE>
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

XXXXX, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 -againstXXXXX, 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 XX Civ. XXXX (AKH) 

INITIATING COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. __ (“CMO __”) dated June __, 2007 by Hon. 

Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J., in In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site 

Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH), Plaintiff(s) hereby submit this Initiating Complaint against the 

above named Defendants and state: 

1. Plaintiff ____________ (XXXX) [Å last 4 digits of social security number] 

currently resides at ______________. 

2. Plaintiff(s) have a claim for injury against the Defendants named above that 

would be encompassed within the scope of the In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan 

Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

3. Plaintiffs will file a fully complete Check-Off Complaint under this docket 

number within 30 days of the filing of this Initiating Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

Dated: _____ __, 200X 

{law firm name} 

Attorney(s) for 

Plaintiff(s)_______________________ 

By: ________ 

 {name} 

{law firm address} 

Telephone: _______________ 

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Comdial Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth
M. Clinebell, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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.


Dated: March 27, 2003                 By: /s/ Kenneth M. Clinebell
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Kenneth M. Clinebell
                                          Senior Vice President and Chief
                                          Financial Officer
#### WALDES & CO. v. RADEN BROS.

(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.

Submitted March 14, 1923.

Decided May 7, 1923.)

No. 1582.

Trade-marks and trade-names and unfair competition <©^44.—Competitor cannot lawfully appropriate unregistered trade-mark of which it has knowledge.

Evidence in trade-mark interference proceeding that one of the parties had previously received an order, which it filled, and which was conditioned on its affixing to the goods the trade-mark of the other party, shows that the former possessed knowledge of the other party’s use of the mark prior to its filing date, which was the earliest date claimed by it in the interference proceeding, and it could not lawfully appropriate the knowledge thus obtained to defeat the property right acquired by the other party in the mark.

Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.

Trade-mark interference proceeding between Waldes & Co. and Ra-den Bros. From a decision awarding priority to Raden Bros., Waldes & Co. appeal.

Affirmed.

Hans v. Briesen, of New York City, for appellants.

I. Joseph Farley, of New York City, for appellees.

Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests *&*Indexes

VAN ORSDEL,- Associate Justice.

This appeal is from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in a trade-mark interference, awarding priority to appellees, Raden Bros., a New York firm.

*640The mark in issue consists of the word “Regal,” used as a trademark on cards to which are attached snap buttons used for garment fasteners. Appellants, Waldés & Co., a firm doing business in Bohemia, Austria, filed an application for the mark November 4, 1913, on which registration was granted July 14, 1914. Appellees filed their application October 22, 1920.

Appellant company relied upon its filing date and took no testimony, Appellees submitted proof which established the use of the mark in connection with snap fasteners, buttons, etc., long prior to appellants’ filing date. It appears from the testimony on behalf of appellees that an order was given appellant company for snap fasteners in 1909 and 1910, upon the condition that appellant company would place upon the cards, to which the fasteners were to be attached, appellees’ trade-mark “Regal.” The testimony also shows that an order was placed with a Mr. Prym of Stolberg, Germany, prior to the order given Waldes & Co., and that both orders were filled with, snap fasteners mounted on cards containing the mark “Regal.” It therefore appears that appellant company possessed knowledge of appellees’ use of the mark prior to its filing date, the earliest date claimed by it in this case. Appellant company could not lawfully appropriate the knowledge thus obtained to defeat the property right appellee company had acquired in the mark.

_ In this state of the testimony we find no reason to disturb the decision reached in the Patent Office.

The decision of. the Commissioner is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrence Weston, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered March 4, 1985.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, a Director of 
Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. (the "Company"), hereby appoints Richard T. Collier, 
Patrick Langlois, and Richard B. Young, and each of them severally, as his true 
and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, acting 
in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, to execute and to file with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for 
the year ended December 31, 1995 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as 
amended (the "34 Act"), and to do all such other acts in compliance with the '34
Act and the rules, regulations and requirements of the Securities Exchange 
Commission, which said attorneys and agents, and each of them, may deem 
necessary or desirable in connection therewith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this power of attorney has been executed in counterparts by 
individuals listed below as of the 27 day of February 1996.


                                          /s/ MICHAEL H. JORDAN
______________________________            __________________________________
    Jean-Marc Bruel                           Michael H. Jordan   

/s/ JEAN-JACQUES BERTRAND                 /s/ IGOR LANDAU
------------------------------            ----------------------------------
    Jean-Jacques Bertrand                     Igor Landau   

/s/ ROBERT E. CAWTHORN                    /s/ PETER J. NEFF
------------------------------            ----------------------------------
    Robert E. Cawthorn                        Peter J. Neff

/s/ MICHEL DE ROSEN                       /s/ JAMES S. RIEPE
------------------------------            ----------------------------------
    Michel de Rosen                           James S. Riepe

/s/ CHARLES-HENRI FILIPPI                 /s/ EDWARD J. STEMMLER, M.D.
------------------------------            ----------------------------------
    Charles-Henri Filippi                     Edward J. Stemmler, M.D.

/s/ PROF. CLAUDE HELENE                   /s/ JEAN-PIERRE TIROUFLET
------------------------------            ----------------------------------
    Prof. Claude Helene                       Jean-Pierre Tirouflet


______________________________
    Manfred E. Karobath

WITNESS:



/s/  RICHARD B. YOUNG
------------------------------
     Richard B. Young
DOCSNY-271692v01 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

TERESA ROBLES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 - against - 

ALAN KASMAN DBA KASCO, et al.,

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-5312-AKH 

APPEARANCE 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: 

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for: 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court.

Dated: New York, New York 

 October 3, 2007 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

 /s/ Judith R. Cohen___ 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorney for Defendant 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 11 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
No. 572.

#### Mayer Zeiger, Petitioner, *v.*Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

October 26, 1908.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of-Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.. *Mr. A. S. Worthington*and *Mr. A. Leo Weil*for petitioner. *Mr. M. W. Acheson, Jr.,*for respondent.
# C_2009073EN.01005001.xml

| 27.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/50

---

Corrigendum to authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 62 of 17 March 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 62 of 17 March 2009

(2009/C 73/08)

On page 11, against ‘Reference number of the aid’:

for:

‘N 23/08’,

read:

‘N 23/09’.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 4, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50757 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VICTOR MENDOZA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-929-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Victor MendozaHernandez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

December 21, 2005

Before

Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 02-3084

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DAVID J. YEAZEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States 

District Court for the 

Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 02 CR 9

John C. Shabaz, 

Judge.

O R D E R

This court ordered a limited remand in this matter so the district court could

state whether the sentence remains appropriate now that United States v. Booker,

125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), has limited the Guidelines to advisory status. See United

States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005). The district judge has now replied

that he would today impose the same sentence, knowing of the Guidelines’ advisory

status.

Yeazel filed a response in this court, arguing that his sentence of 146 months

is unreasonable. Yeazel’s sentence was at the high end of the Guidelines range of

121-151 months. A sentence that falls within a properly calculated Guidelines

range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness; a defendant can

rebut the presumption “only by demonstrating that his or her sentence is

unreasonable when measured against the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] Section

3553(a).” See United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005).

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 02-3084 Page 2

Yeazel has not rebutted the presumption. The district judge provided an

adequate explanation for the 146-month sentence, noting appropriate factors under

§ 3553(a). He considered Yeazel’s argument that his personal characteristics—

specifically his education, family support, and bouts of depression—warranted a

more lenient sentence. The court found these factors to be outweighed by the scope

and seriousness of Yeazel’s fraud. Yeazel also reargues the propriety of applying

the enhancement for violation of an administrative order under USSG §

2B1.1(b)(8)(c). We previously held this issue was waived and will not readdress it

here.

We see no reason why Yeazel’s sentence would be deemed “unreasonable” in

post-Booker practice. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1752 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1752

                    For the relief of David Beasley.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2019

 Mr. Stauber introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                    For the relief of David Beasley.

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

SECTION 1. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS 
              WITH REGARDS TO DAVID BEASLEY.

    With regards to David Beasley, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
shall treat ankylosing spondylitis as a disease specified in section 
1116(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 3.2



CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

OF

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

GLOBAL BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC.



Under Section 242 of the Delaware General Business Law



Global Business Resources, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (hereinafter called the Corporation), does hereby certify that:

1.

The name of the Corporation is Global Business Resources, Inc.

2.

The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended to add the following provision at the end of Article FOURTH thereof:

The 9,945,000 shares of common stock of the Corporation issued and outstanding as of July 14, 2003 (but not any shares of common stock issued after July 14, 2003) are hereby combined into 397,800 shares of common stock of the Corporation so that 25 shares of common stock of the Corporation outstanding on July 14, 2003 are combined into one share of common stock of the Corporation.  No fractional shares of common stock will result from the foregoing combination.  Shares of common stock outstanding on July 14, 2003 eliminated by the foregoing combination shall be treated as authorized but unissued shares, and no change in the number of authorized shares of common stock or the par value of the common stock shall result from the foregoing combination.

3.

This Certificate of Amendment and the amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation contained herein were duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by its Chairman and President this 23rd day of December 2003.



Global Business Resources, Inc.





/s/ Peter J. Goldstein



Peter J. Goldstein, Chairman and President
## Breadcrumb

-  Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center  

#           Eyes on Earth Episode 31 – Landsat 7 Flight Operations      

      By Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center 

## Eyes on Earth

Get every episode

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  News 
-  Connect 
-  Partners 
-  About 

Eyes on Earth is a podcast on remote sensing, Earth observation, land change and science, brought to you by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. In this episode, we hear about the stellar flight operations record of the team in charge of Landsat 7.

View Media Details

View

Download and Transcript Access

View Media Details

**Summary**: Just recently, in mid-July, the flight operations team charged with keeping the Landsat 7 satellite running smoothly achieved a major milestone. They have gone 8 straight years now without an operator error. Considering that the team is operating a machine that costs hundreds of millions of dollars and flies at more than 17,000 miles per hour, avoiding any kind or operator error for 8 years is a reason to celebrate. In this episode of Eyes on Earth, we hear from the supervisor of the team behind the incredible flight operations run.

**Guests**: Guy Thayer, Aerospace Corporation

**Host**: Steve Young

**Producer**: John Hult

**Release date**: August 10, 2020

**More on Landsat 7 Flight Operations**: 
                            - Landsat 7 Hits Milestone
                            - USGS, NASA Officials Cut Ribbon on New Landsat 7 Flight Operations Center
                            - Science Team Tackles Question of Landsat 7’s Future
                            -  Landsat 7 Flight Operations Team Celebrates Eight Straight Years of No Operator Errors 

### Contacts