alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 8.1**

 

**Telecom Argentina S.A.Subsidiaries**

 
| **Name**                          | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorporation** |
|-----------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------|
| Telecom  Personal S.A.            |       | Argentina                          |
|                              |       |                               |
| Núcleo  S.A. (1)             |       | Paraguay                           |
|                              |       |                               |
| Micro  Sistemas S.A. (2)          |       | Argentina                          |
|                              |       |                               |
| Telecom  Argentina USA, Inc. |       | Delaware,  United States           |
|                              |       |                               |
| Cubecorp  Argentina S.A. (3)      |       | Argentina                          |

 

----

(1)          Interestheld indirectly through Telecom Personal S.A.

 

(2)          DormantEntity in all periods reported.

 

(3)          Cubecorp’sactivities are being carried out by Telecom Argentina since January 1,2009 due to a merger process between both companies. The merger was approved byCubecorp’s shareholders’ meeting on March 19, 2009 and it is still pendingapproval by Telecom Argentina’s shareholders’ meeting, which was provisionallysuspended.

 

----
```

[Federal Register: May 4, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 85)]
[Notices]
[Page 24531-24532]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04my98-64]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, May 18, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.


[[Page 24532]]


STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-11833 Filed 4-30-98; 10:30 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: BACHE & CO. INCORPORATED, HAROLD L. BACHE, AND ROBERT C. HALL 

DOCKET NUMBER: 147 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 147 

(Administrative Hearing Under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Acting Assistant 

Secretary of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Bache & Co. Incorporated, 

Harold L. Bache, and 

Robert C. Hall 

(New York, New York) 

The complaint charges Bache & Co. Incorporated and two of its principal 

officers, Harold L. Bache and Robert C. Hall, with failing to handle and account 

for customers' funds as required under the Commodity Exchange Act. The 

complaint alleges that on a number of days during the period between May 2 and 

September 3, 1966, the firm and its two named officers violated the sections of 

the act and regulations which require the safeguarding and proper accounting of 

customers' funds. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department had made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, November 15, 1967. in New York, New York. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6748** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. JIMMIE CRAIG DANIELS , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distri ct of South Carolina , at Florence
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:07

- cr - 00341

- RBH

- 1; 4:09

- cv - 70078

- RBH )

Submitted : November 18, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dis missed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jimmie Craig Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURI AM: Jimmie Craig Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion and denying his motion to amend . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of a ppealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a pri soner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322 , 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Sl ack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Daniels 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 materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 2, 2016

s0418

Order 

Clerk

May 2, 2016

150980 & (17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150980

COA: 323371

Wayne CC: 01-009791-FC

MARIO SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 11, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the Wayne Circuit Court on the 

defendant’s first-degree murder conviction, and we REMAND this case to the trial court 

for resentencing pursuant to MCL 769.25 and MCL 769.25a. See Montgomery v 

Louisiana, 577 US ___; 136 S Ct 718; 193 L Ed 2d 599 (2016), and Miller v Alabama,

567 US ___; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012). In all other respects, leave to 

appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing 

pursuant to People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973), is DENIED. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7362
DEE DEIDRE FARMER; WILLIAM CHERRY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus TERRY PENNINGTON, Lieutenant; ROBERT FOX, Unit Manager; J. ROBINSON, Correctional Counselor; JERRY GAUGHAN, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-440-5-CT-H) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: January 5, 1996 Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dee Deidre Farmer, William Cherry, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 2 PER CURIAM:Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying relief on their Bivens * complaint. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Farmer v. Pennington , No. CA-95-440-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 31.3**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Arthur W. Coviello, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K/A of RSA Security Inc.; and2. Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.       /s/ Arthur W. Coviello, Jr.         **Arthur W. Coviello, Jr.**    **President and Chief Executive Officer**  Dated: April 5, 2006
EXHIBIT
31.2





SECTION
302 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF DOT VN, INC.





I, Dr.
Lee Johnson, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dot VN, Inc.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;





4. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:





a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and





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





5. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of
registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing equivalent
functions):





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





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





6. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date:
      December 15, 2009
              
              /s/   Dr. Lee
    JohnsonDr.
      Lee JohnsonPresidentand Chief Financial
      Officer
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50732

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VICTOR CARLOS ALVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:98-CR-295-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Carlos Alvarez appeals the revocation of his probation

following his 1999 guilty-plea conviction for bank fraud. He

asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support his

revocation and ensuing sentence and that the district court, when

it truncated Alvarez’s cross-examination of his probation officer,

denied Alvarez his due process rights.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking

Alvarez’s probation in light of Alvarez’s plea of true to eight

violations of the conditions of probation. See United States v.
2

Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir. 1996). Moreover, Alvarez’s

admissions of violations of the conditions of probation waived his

due process protections. See United States v. Holland, 850 F.2d

1048, 1050-51 (5th Cir. 1988).

Alvarez conclusionally asserts that the district court did not

afford him an adequate opportunity to allocute, that the district

court erred in quashing a subpoena duces tecum, and that his actual

sentence was excessive in comparison to the suggested guideline

sentencing range. These assertions are not adequately briefed, and

we do not consider them. See United States v. Torres-Aguilar,

352 F.3d 934, 936 n.2 (5th Cir. 2003); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9).

Nor do we consider Alvarez’s arguments, raised for the first time

in his reply brief, that he was never notified of his default in

restitution and that the admissions he made at his revocation

hearing were involuntary. See United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d

433, 449 (5th Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION 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*

I, Gary S.  Kledzik,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report of Miravant  Medical  Technologies on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in such
Annual  Report  on Form  10-K  fairly  presents  in all  material  respects  the
financial condition and results of operations of Miravant Medical Technologies.

                                             By: /s/ Gary S. Kledzik
                                            -----------------------------
                                             Name:  Gary S. Kledzik
                                             Title:   Chief Executive Officer

I, John M.  Philpott,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report of Miravant  Medical  Technologies on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in such
Annual  Report  on Form  10-K  fairly  presents  in all  material  respects  the
financial condition and results of operations of Miravant Medical Technologies.

                                               By: /s/ John M. Philpott
                                              ---------------------------------
                                               Name: John M. Philpott
                                               Title:   Chief Financial Officer

* A signed original of this written statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Miravant Medical  Technologies and
will be retained by the company and  furnished  to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) FORM
10-Q FOR THE 9 MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      20,658,570
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      19,318,594
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 77,418,488
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     130,833,134
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       129,742,469
<LOANS>                                  1,194,972,266
<ALLOWANCE>                                  7,902,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,559,671,609
<DEPOSITS>                               1,141,668,745
<SHORT-TERM>                               254,311,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         19,762,943
<LONG-TERM>                                 38,899,672
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       37,319,138
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  67,710,111
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           1,571,981,110
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             72,592,695
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           13,328,177
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            85,920,872
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          37,431,309
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          52,622,345
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       33,298,527
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  375,034
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           (725,142)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             29,593,720
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             20,609,081
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  20,609,081
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,657,679
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $1.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.05
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,999,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              9,300,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             7,888,323
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  361,034
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            7,902,323
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         7,902,323
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                          7,665,815
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

SUPREME COURT CAUSE NO. DA 21-0051

STATE OF MONTANA, )

)

Plaintiff/Appellees, )

) ORDER FOR

 vs. ) ADDITIONAL TIME FOR

) FILING OPENING BRIEF

MICHAEL BONACORSI, )

) 

 Defendant/Appellant. )

Upon review of the Defendant/Appellant Unopposed Sixth Motion for Additional

Time for Filing Opening Brief, and good cause therefrom;

It is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant/Appellant shall have an additional

thirty (30) days from September 16, 2021, due date to file their Opening Brief. 

Defendant/Appellant Opening Brief will be due October 16, 2021.

cc: Jami Rebsom

 Attorney General

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 17 2021

09/17/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0051
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: M. RICHTER SONS, ISADORE RICHTER AND FRED RICHTER 

DOCKET NUMBER: 51 

DATE: JULY 25, 1949 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

July 25, 1949 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CE-A DOCKET NO. 51 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing was signed by the 

Secretary of Agriculture on July 21, 1949, charging 

M. Richter Sons, 

Isadore Richter and 

Fred Richter 

with violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. 

Complaints are issued under the Commodity Exchange Act for the purpose of 

notifying respondents that the Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe 

that respondents have violated the Act and to advise them of the time and place 

of hearings to be held to determine whether the charges are correct. The 

issuance of a complaint does not, of course, constitute proof of violation of 

the law. Such violation is established only when the Judicial Officer of the 

Department has made a determination that the evidence substantiates allegations 

in the complaint. 

Complaints are filed in the office of the hearing clerk of the Solicitor of 

the Department of Agriculture and are thereupon a matter of public record. 

Copies are filed in the Washington office and the field offices of the Commodity 

Exchange Authority. 

In cases where the Judicial Officer determines that a violation has occurred 

the resulting order will be served upon all contract markets and circularized 

among all registered futures commission merchants for their information and 

guidance. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer it is the policy of the 

Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate upon the charges 

contained in complaints or discuss the evidence upon which they are based. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2