alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subsidiaries of PriCellular Corporation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Subsidiary                                  State of Incorporation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PriCellular Wireless Corporation                            Delaware

ConnectOne Communications Corporation                       Delaware

PCPCS Corporation                                           Delaware

Alexandra Cellular Corporation                              Delaware

Amro Cellular Corporation                                   Delaware

Bunyan Cellular Corporation                                 Delaware

Cellular Kentucky Cellular Corporation                      Alabama

Cellular Information Systems of Laredo, Inc.                Texas

Minnesota Six Cellular Corporation                          Louisiana

Vilas Cellular Corporation                                  Wisconsin

One Cellular Corporation                                    Wisconsin

Chill Cellular Corporation                                  Delaware

Chippewa Cellular Corporation                               Delaware

Duluth/Superior Cellular, Inc.                              Minnesota

Eastern Wireless Cellular Corporation                       Delaware

Gilro Cellular Corporation                                  Delaware

Marathon Cellular Corporation                               Delaware

Northland Cellular Corporation                              Delaware

Pebbles Cellular Corporation                                Delaware

Seven Cellular Corporation                                  Delaware

Four Cellular Corporation                                   Delaware

Five Cellular Corporation                                   Delaware

Dutches County Cellular Telephone Company, Inc.             Delaware
                                       1
H. Res. 1153 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 29, 2010. 

Whereas the West Virginia National Guard and local responders safely and successfully rescued 17 individuals 

from a downed military helicopter on a rugged, snow-covered mountain on the Pocahontas-Randolph county line; 

Whereas, on February 18, 2010, the West Virginia Army National Guard HH–60 Blackhawk helicopter, gallantly piloted by Bluefield, West Virginia, native Major Kevin 

Hazuka, located the downed aircraft in extremely adverse 

weather conditions; 

Whereas two West Virginia Army National Guard Flight 

Medics, SSG Nicole Hopkins and SPC Casey Dunfee, 

were lowered to the landing site to assess the situation 

and to provide assistance to the injured through the 

night while emergency response and rescue teams worked 

their way to the survivors; 

Whereas a C–130 Hercules aircraft from the 130th Airlift 

Wing of the West Virginia Air National Guard orbited 

the crash site to facilitate communications; 

Whereas Snowshoe Mountain Ski Resort provided two 

snowcats and personnel that were invaluable to the safe 

evacuation of the injured; 
2 

•HRES 1153 EH 

Whereas local West Virginia civilians generously donated the 

use of their snowmobiles that enabled first responders to 

reach the site; 

Whereas a Shavers Fork Volunteer Fire and Rescue Unit 

went as far as they could with special equipment and 

snowmobiles along a railroad grade to where it was still 

about a 45-minute trek in 5 feet of snow, straight up the 

side of a mountain with an approximate 50-degree pitch; 

Whereas Valley Head Fire Department, Northern Greenbrier 

EMS, Greenbrier County Ambulance, White Sulphur 

Springs EMS, Cass Rescue, and Greenbank National 

Radio Astronomy Observatory operations staff all provided direct critical support for the effort; 

Whereas the Pocahontas County Emergency Management, 

West Virginia State Police, Pocohantas County Sheriff’s 

Department, Pocohantas County 911, and the U.S. Forest Service provided coordination and support efforts; 

and 

Whereas the Bartow-Frank-Durbin Volunteer Fire and Rescue attempted an approach to the crash sight from the 

North side with support from State of West Virginia Departments of Natural Resources and Highways, neighboring Randolph and Tucker County Sheriff Departments and EMS units, Elkins, Harmon, and 

Huttonsville/Mill Creek Volunteer Fire Departments, and 

the American Red Cross: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) honors the heroic efforts of the West Virginia 

National Guard and local first responders; 
3 

•HRES 1153 EH 

(2) recognizes the countless volunteers, families, 

and neighbors who assisted in rescuing the 17 individuals; and 

(3) recognizes the courage, ability, incredible determination, and willingness of West Virginians to lend a 

neighborly hand. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

WISNER LUBERISSE

, Appellant,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

, etc., et al.

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 17

- 0638

[ April 26, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit ; Palm

Beach County ; Joseph Marx

, Judge ; L.T. Case No.

502012CA010083XXXXMB

.

Rachel M. Coe of Polaris Legal Group, Lighthouse Point, for appellant.

William L. Grimsley and Derek K. Mountford of McGlinchey Stafford,

Jacksonville, for appellee s

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

L EVINE

, C ONNER and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## THE AT~V~RNEY GENERAL OF-mXAS

The Honorable Bob Bullock Comptroller of Public Accounts State Finance Building Austin, Texas Opinion No. H-710 Re: Propriety of allocation of stock and bond sales fees of a broker between Texas and other states for franchise tax purposes. Dear Mr. Bullock: You have requested our opinion concerning the franchise tax allocation of receipts ofan incorporated stock broker received from Texas clients. You have asked what percentage ofthese receipts should be allocated as “business done in Texas” under the provisions of article 12. 02, Taxation-General. You have advised us that the taxpayer, a Delaware corporation, classifies only 60% of its commissions on New York Stock Exchange transactions for the account of Texas clients and 50% of its receipts from the sale or purchase of bonds for such clients as “receipts from its business done inTexas. ” Although all commissions were paid and received at its Texas office, the taxpayer utilizes these percentages because the State ofNew York reportedly considers the remaining percentages tobe allocable to New York for franchise tax purposes. Article 12. 02 (l)(b) provides that the term “gross receipts from
. . . business done inTexas” includes: (ii) Services performed within Texas;
. .

. . . (iv) All other business receipts within Texas
. . . . Incertain cases intangibles may be included within the definition of other business receipts, and as such would be allocated on the basis ofthe Ilocation ofpayor” Humble Oil &Refining Co. v. Calverts414 S.W. 2d 172 (Tex. Sup. 1967).

p. 3060The Honorable Bob Bullock - page two(H-710)

Inour view, brokers’ commissions as a general matter constitute receipts for services, although inaparticular fact situation some receipts may arise from intangibles. Ske Gus; v. Schneider, Bernet &Hickman, Inc., 341 S.W. 2d 461 (Tex. Civ. AK -- Waco 1960, writ ref’d. n.r. e., 344 S.W.2d 429); Brownev. King, 196 S.W. 884(Tex.Civ.App. -- San Antonio 1917, aff’d, 235 S. W. 522 ); 73 C.J.S. Property $9. Thus,ordinarily the allocation of receipts from commissions should be onthe basis ofthe percentage of services performed in Texas in particular transactions. Cf. Attorney General Opinion H-281 (1974). The selection of aproper percentage woxd necessarily involve factual determinations; hence we are unable to say as amatter oflaw whether the taxpayer’s claimed percentages are correct. Article 12. 12, Taxation-General, provides ample investigatory authority to the Comptroller to facilitate such determinations. The Comptroller is certainly not bound by New York’s determination. SUMMARY As a general matter, commissions ofa stock broker should be allocated on the basis ofthe percentage of services performed inTexas. The Comptroller is authorized to investigate and determine the proper percentage.

Attorney General of Texas

OBERT HEATH. Chairman Opinion Committee
.

p.3061
EXHIBIT 10.26.2

         AMENDMENTS TO ATLAS AIR, INC. PROFIT SHARING PLAN (the "Plan")

      On June 21, 2005, the Board of Directors of Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings,
Inc., the 100% owner of Atlas Air, Inc. approved the following resolutions,
amending the Plan:

      RESOLVED (1): That the Atlas Air Profit Sharing Plan is hereby amended to
discontinue payment entitlement to Eligible Employees (as defined in the Plan),
other than those Eligible Employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement
or written employment agreement which expressly provides for participation in
such Plan (the "Payment Eligible Participants").

      RESOLVED (2): That the Atlas Air Profit Sharing Plan is hereby further
amended to provide that the Annual Profit Sharing Contribution and calculation
of payments under the Plan shall be such that the Payment Eligible Participants
receive the same benefit they would have received had the Eligible Employees
being removed from payment eligibility continued to be payment eligible. For the
avoidance of doubt, nothing herein shall be construed in any way to increase or
decrease the level of payment the Payment Eligible Participants would have been
entitled to receive absent these amendments.

      RESOLVED (3): That the Atlas Air Profit Sharing Plan is hereby further
amended to provide that all powers, rights, responsibilities and authority
thereunder previously vested in this Board shall henceforth be vested in the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Atlas Air Worldwide
Holdings, Inc.
**EXHIBIT      21**

**Subsidiaries**

|  Name                of Subsidiary                         |   | State                or Other Jurisdictionof                Incorporation |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                            |   |                                                                      |
| Insurance                subsidiary:                            |   |                                                                      |
|                                                            |   |                                                                      |
| Professionals                Direct Insurance Company           |   | Michigan                                                                  |
|                                                            |   |                                                                      |
|                                                            |   |                                                                      |
| Non-insurance                subsidiaries:                      |   |                                                                      |
|                                                            |   |                                                                      |
| Professionals                Direct Insurance Services, Inc.    |   | Michigan                                                                  |
| Professionals                Direct Finance, Inc.               |   | Michigan                                                                  |
| Professionals                Direct Employer Organization, Inc. |   | Michigan                                                                  |
| Professionals                Direct Statutory Trust I           |   | Delaware                                                                  |
| Professionals                Direct Statutory Trust II          |   | Delaware                                                                  |
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  JURISDICTION OF
      NAME OF ENTITY:                             INCORPORATION:
      ---------------                             ---------------

<S>                                               <C>
      Applix B.V.                                 The Netherlands

      Applix Canada, Inc.                         Delaware

      Applix Foreign Sales Corporation            Barbados

      Applix France                               France

      Applix GmbH                                 Germany

      Applix Securities Corp.                     Massachusetts

      Applix Singapore, Inc.                      Delaware

      Applix (UK) Limited                         England

      Sinper Corporation                          Florida

      Target Corporation                          Massachusetts

      Veriteam, Inc.                              Washington
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

** **

**RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

** **

I,Christa C. Leonard, certify that:

 

1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 tothe Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 1,2008 of Westaff, Inc. (this “Amendment No. 1”); and

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report.

 
| Date: March 2, 2009                             |     |
|------------------------------------------------------|----------|
|                                                 |     |
|                                                 |     |
| /s/ CHRISTA C. LEONARD                               |     |
| Christa C. Leonard                                   |     |
| *Senior Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer* | * * |
| Westaff, Inc.                                   |     |
| *(Principal Financial Officer)*                      | * * |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAMES H. HENSON, JR.

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 398, 2017

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID 89004837DI (N)

§ 

§

Submitted: March 9, 2018

 Decided: May 7, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

The Court has considered carefully the parties’ briefs and the record on 

appeal. We conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of

the Superior Court’s decision adopting the Commissioner’s well-reasoned report 

dated August 7, 2017. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that Henson’s 

motion for postconviction relief was untimely and otherwise procedurally barred 

and that he had failed to overcome the procedural hurdles. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando MARINO-NAVA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10516.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*254Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 12, 2010.

Melissa Karlen, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Adrian Paulino Fontes, The Law Offices of Adrian P. Fontes, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Armando Marino-Nava appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 86-month sentence for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Marino-Nava’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 99.1



500 Spruce Tree Centre
1600 University Avenue West
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104-3825 USA
651.603.7700 Fax:  651.603.7795
www.imagesensing.com




NEWS RELEASE

Contact:

        Greg Smith, Chief Financial Officer


Image Sensing Systems, Inc. Phone:  651.603.7700

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Image Sensing Systems, Inc. Announces Recovery of Auction Rate Securities Principal at Par

Saint Paul, Minn., January 7, 2009-- Image Sensing Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: ISNS) announced today that it has completed the sales of all its auction rate securities (ARS) at par.  As of September 30, 2008, we held $5.4 million (par) of ARS which were originally purchased through Credit Suisse and UBS.  In November 2008, Credit Suisse purchased $1.4 million of our ARS at par and on January 2, 2009, UBS purchased the remaining $4.0 million of our ARS at par.



About Image Sensing Systems



Image Sensing Systems, Inc. is a technology company focused in infrastructure productivity improvement through the development of software-based detection solutions for the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) sector and adjacent overlapping markets. ISS industry leading computer-enabled detection (CED) products, including the Autoscope® machine-vision family and the RTMS® radar family, combine embedded software signal processing with sophisticated sensing technologies for use in transportation, environmental and safety/surveillance management. CED is a group of technologies in which software, rather than humans, examines the outputs of complex sensors to determine what is happening in the field of view in real-time. With more than 90,000 instances sold in over 60 countries worldwide, our depth of experience coupled with breadth of product portfolio uniquely positions us to provide powerful
hybrid technology solutions and to exploit the convergence of the traffic, security and environmental management markets. We are headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. Visit us on the web at imagesensing.com.







---
Amendment to Supply Agreement, dated October 19, 2005


 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 AMENDMENT TO SUPPLY AGREEMENT 
  

This AMENDMENT TO SUPPLY AGREEMENT (“Amendment”), dated October 19, 2005, effective July 31, 2005, is made by and between AZT
International S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexico corporation (“AZT”), an affiliate of Diversified Apparel Resources, LLC f/k/a Commerce Clothing Company, LLC, a California limited liability company with its principal executive offices at 5804
East Slauson Avenue, Commerce, California 90040, and Cygne Designs, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Cygne”), having its principal executive office at 11 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036. 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 A. AZT and Cygne previously entered into a Supply Agreement dated July 31, 2005 (the “Agreement”) providing for the manufacture and supply
by AZT of certain products for Cygne under the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement. 
  
 B. AZT and Cygne desire to amend certain provisions of the Agreement and incorporate this Amendment therein. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, and in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants,
representations and good and valuable consideration set forth herein, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  
 1. In the first sentence of paragraph 1.2, the words “30%” and “15%” shall be deleted and replaced with the words “35%” and
“25%,” respectively. 
  
 2. Paragraph 1.4 is amended by
adding after the words “Cygne shall advance AZT” the words “or an affiliate of AZT designated by AZT.” 
  
 3. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
  
 4. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which
will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. For purposes hereof, a facsimile copy of this Amendment, including the signature pages hereto, will be deemed to be an original. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the parties will deliver original execution copies of this Amendment to one another as soon as practicable following execution thereof. 
  

 1 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.

  

			
	AZT INTERNATIONAL S. DE R.L. DE C.V.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Hubert Guez


	Name:	 	Hubert Guez
	Title:	 	President
	
	CYGNE DESIGNS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Bernard Manuel


	Name:	 	Bernard Manuel
	Title:	 	President


  

 2
|   |   |                              /s/ James C. Yardley |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |  James C. Yardley                                                                                                                                                                             |   |
|   |   |  President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                        |   |
|   |   |  (Principal Executive Officer)                                                                                                                                                                |   |
|   |   |  El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C., the                                                                                                                                                     |   |
|   |   |      General Partner of El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P.                                                                                                                             |   |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                               |   |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                               |   |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                               |   |
|   |   |  August 7, 2009                                                                                                                                                                               |   |