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

SUBSIDIARIES
OF RIMAGE CORPORATION

|                                           |  |  |                               |  |               |       |   |  | 
|------------------------------------------ |  |  | ----------------------------- |  | ------------- | ----- | - |  | 
|Name                                       |  |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Percent Owned |      
|                                           |  |  |                               |  |               |       |   | 
|Rimage
 Europe GmbH                        |  |  | Germany                       |  |               | 100.0 | % | 
|                                           |  |  |                               |  |               |       |   | 
|Rimage Japan
 Co., Ltd.                    |  |  | Japan                         |  |               | 100.0 | % | 
|                                           |  |  |                               |  |               |       |   | 
|Cedar
 Technologies, Inc.                  |  |  | Minnesota                     |  |               | 100.0 | % | 
|                                           |  |  |                               |  |               |       |   | 
|Media
 Systems Technology, Inc. (Inactive) |  |  | California                    |  |               | 86.8  | % | 

---
EXHIBIT 32.2








CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  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 We Save Homes, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David R. Wells, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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 as of the dates for the periods expressed in the Report.





Date: August 23, 2010





By:
/s/ David R. WellsDavid R. Wells,Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and

Accounting Officer)





A certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it by reference.
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





The undersigned,Timothy J. Neher,
the Chief Executive Officerand Chief
Financial OfficerofMIKOJO
INCORPORATED(the “Company”), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.The Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2010(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and




2.Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed
this statement this22ndday ofNovember,
2010.





/s/Timothy
      J. NeherTimothy J. NeherChief Executive Officerand Chief Financial
  Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided toMIKOJO
INCORPORATEDand will be retained byMIKOJO INCORPORATEDand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### Jericho Group Ltd., Appellant, v Midtown Development, L.P., et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 3, 2010;

decided June 3, 2010

Motion to strike denied.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed A p ril 16, 2024

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 24

- 00378

- CV

PRAYOSHA TEXAS ENTER PRISES LLC D/B/A COMFORT SUITES LAKE RAY HUBBARD , Appellant V. MATTHEW MALINOWSKI, ASHLEY MALINOWSKI, I NDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF MINORS, D.M. AND L.M. , Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 23

- 01723

- C

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justice s Molberg, Nowell, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Molberg Before the Court is the April 15, 2024 letter of appellant’s counsel informing

the Court that the appeal is now moot because the trial court granted its motion for

new trial. We construe the letter as a motion to dismiss, grant the motion, and

dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

240378f.p05 /Ken Molberg/ / KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE– 2

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

PRAYOSHA TEXAS ENTERPRISES LLC D/B/A COMFORT SUITES LAKE RAY HUBBARD, Appellant

No. 05

- 24

- 00378

- CV V.

MATTHEW MALINOWSKI, ASHLEY MALINOWSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF MINORS, D.M. AND L.M., Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 23

- 01723

- C. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. Justices Now ell and Kennedy participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that appellees MATTHEW MALINOWSKI, ASHLEY MALINOWSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF MINORS, D.M. AND L.M. recover their costs of this appeal from appellant PRAYOSHA TEXAS ENTERPRISES LLC D/B/A COMFORT SUITES LAKE RAY HUBBARD.

Judgment entered this 16 th day of April

, 2024

.
# CE2011004EN.01007002.xml

| 7.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 4/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 4/70

---

Thursday 25 March 2010Appointment of a member of the Court of Auditors – Mr Jan Kinšt

P7_TA(2010)0082

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Jan Kinšt as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0015/2010 – 2010/0803(NLE))

2011/C 4 E/21

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0015/2010),

having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 16 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0044/2010),

| A. | whereas Jan Kinšt fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Jan Kinšt fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

| 1. | Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Jan Kinšt as a Member of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Jan Kinšt as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

---
# Nodal_Rulebook_Appendix_C-Limit

&"-,Bold"&16Nodal Exchange, LLC Rulebook Appendix C: Reporting Levels, Accountability Levels and Position Limits
----

| 1. | Pro Water, LLC, a Utah corporation, operates as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | SET IP Inc., a California corporation, operates as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | OC Energy Inc., a California corporation, is a discontinued wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | Aquair, Inc., a California corporation, is a dormant wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | On Line Surgery, Inc., a California corporation, is a dormant wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 6. | Aquair Hong Kong Ltd, a company organized under the laws of Hong Kong, is a dormant wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 7. | Aquair Asia Company Limited, a company organized under the laws of Thailand, is a dormant wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1.   | The Company has issued various shares of the Company’s common stock between October 1, 2009 and March 14, 2012 at a price equal to or less than $0.10 per share which may cause an adjustment to the Conversion Price, Warrant Price and Warrant Shares, under the Transaction Documents which may have been waived or overlooked at the time these Shares were issued.  Platinum hereby agrees to waive any adjustment to the Conversion Price, Warrant Price and Warrant Shares that would otherwise be triggered by the issuance of such Shares between October 1, 2009 and March 14, 2012. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Platinum hereby agrees to amend the Transaction Documents to reduce the required Reservation of Common Stock to not less than 100% of the number of shares of Common Stock for which the Series A or Series B Convertible Preferred Stock or the Warrants are at any time convertible. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | Platinum hereby agrees to waive any adjustment to the Conversion Price, Warrant Price, and Warrant Shares for all future issuances of shares of Common Stock of the Company to the Company’s Board of Directors, employees, and consultants. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Very truly yours,Urigen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                          |   |   |
|   | /s/ Dan Vickery, Chairman                |   |
|   | Dan Vickery, Chairman                         |   |

|                             |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| By:  /s/ Joe Sanfilipo |   |   |   |
| Joe Sanfilipo                    |   |   |   |
| CFO                              |   |   |   |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6528

JOSEPH F. CLAUDIO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE JOHNSON, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-02-1874-AM)

Submitted: September 22, 2004 Decided: October 18, 2004

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph F. Claudio, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joseph F. Claudio seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Claudio has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Kevin C. NAUNDORF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee, and SSA Notify, Party-in-Interest.

No. 11-1646.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 31, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

*267Kevin C. Naundorf, Appellant Pro se. Alex Gordon, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin C. Naundorf seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.* We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket on March 29, 2011. Accordingly, the latest day for filing a timely notice of appeal was Tuesday, May 31, 2011. Naundorfs notice of appeal, however, was not received for filing until Wednesday, June 1, 2011. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(d). Because Naundorf failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006), the parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge,
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30950-30951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14418]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-4426]


Southern Oregon Log Scaling and Grading Bureau, Roseburg, Oregon; 
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated March 2, 2001, a petitioner and the Oregon 
AFL-CIO (petitioners) request administrative reconsideration of the 
Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for 
North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance 
(NAFTA-TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject 
firm. The denial notice applicable to workers of Southern Oregon Log 
Scaling and Grading Bureau, Roseburg, Oregon, was signed on February 9, 
2001, and was published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2001 (66 FR 
13087).
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) if it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The petitioners explain that the firm was created about 50 years 
ago by the timber industry, in cooperation with Federal and State 
authorities. The Board of Directors of the subject firm has 
historically been made up of persons representing the timber industry, 
some of which are the mill owners. The petitioners view is that the 
subject firm is related by control (to NAFTA-TAA certified worker 
groups) by its creation, daily operation, and by the make-up of the 
Board of Directors and their connection to the timber industry in 
specific and in general.
    The NAFTA-TAA petition for workers of the subject firm was denied 
because the workers provided a service and did not produce an article 
within the meaning of in paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade 
Act, as amended. The workers at Southern Oregon Log Scaling and Grading 
Bureau, in Roseburg, Oregon, measure and grade (appraise) logs for 
their customers.

[[Page 30951]]

    A Board of Directors cannot be considered a parent firm, a firm 
related to the subject firm by ownership, or a firm related by control.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 23rd day of May 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-14418 Filed 6-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted June 18, 2012∗

 Decided June 20, 2012 

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge 

No. 12-1489 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

KEVIN SNULLIGAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 99 CR 561-5 

James F. Holderman, 

Chief Judge. 

Order 

Kevin Snulligan, who is serving a term of 540 months’ imprisonment for 

distributing drugs, asked the district court to reduce his sentence under recent 

retroactive changes to the sentencing tables for crack cocaine. The district judge denied 

this motion, and Snulligan appeals. 

The district judge recalculated Snulligan’s offense level using the retroactively 

applicable tables and concluded that it fell from level 38 to level 37. This did not do 

 

∗ After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See 

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No 12-1489 Page 2

Snulligan any good, however, because both level 37 and level 38 give the same range 

(360 months to life) for someone with Snulligan’s extensive criminal history. He 

observes that the offense level for the crack-cocaine offense, standing alone, fell from 38 

to 34, which would have produced a lower sentencing range. But under the Guidelines 

a career offender is assigned a level of 37 when the level otherwise computed would be 

lower. U.S.S.G. §4B1.1(b)(1). That is why Snulligan’s sentencing range remained at 360 

months to life. 

 Snulligan contends that because his offense level fell with the retroactive change in 

the Guidelines, the judge could resentence him to any term within the range of 360 

months to life. But 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), which governs retroactive changes, provides 

that a district judge may reduce a sentence only when "defendant ... has been sentenced 

to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been 

lowered by the Sentencing Commission” (emphasis added). Snulligan’s offense level 

has been reduced, but his “sentencing range” has not, and the district court therefore 

correctly concluded that Snulligan is ineligible for a lower sentence. See United States v. 

Guyton, 636 F.3d 316, 318 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Jackson, 573 F.3d 398, 399–400 

(7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 589–90 (7th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED