alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF NE LP

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                              State or Jurisdiction
                                         Subsidiary                                             of Incorporation   
<S>                                                                                               <C>
1. Northeast Energy, LLC (100%-Owned) ....................................................        Florida

2. Northeast Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership (99%-Owned) (a) ....................        Massachusetts

3. North Jersey Energy Associates, A Limited Partnership (99%-Owned) (a) .................        New Jersey

(a)  Northeast Energy, LLC owns the remaining 1% interest.

</TABLE>

SUBSIDIARIES OF NJEA

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                              State or Jurisdiction
                                         Subsidiary                                             of Incorporation   
<S>                                                                                               <C>
1. ESI Tractebel Urban Renewal Corporation (100%-Owned) ..................................        New Jersey

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              28
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,285)
<INVENTORY>                                     35,154
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,706
<PP&E>                                          26,170
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,215)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 158,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          101,704
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   158,525
<SALES>                                        265,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               265,875
<CGS>                                          243,998
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,973
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    98
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (893)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,301)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,301)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



I, John M. Greeley, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Tarantella, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter 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 Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Tarantella, Inc.



By:

/s/ John M. GreeleyName:

John M. GreeleyTitle:

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)  March 5, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7800

VINCENT BARR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE

AND PARDON SERVICES; WILLIAMBURG COUNTY CLERK

OF COURT; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; WILLIE EAGLETON; DOLLY PRATT;

JOYCE HANNA; CAROLYN WILLIAMS; ANGELA HEPBURN;

JACOB WILSON; CURTIS KEELS; PHILLIP MCCLOUD;

STEVEN BENJAMIN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.

(CA-02-1060-2-22)

Submitted: March 17, 2003 Decided: April 18, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Barr, Appellant Pro Se. Jay Hupfer, WILLCOX, BUYCK &

WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Barr appeals the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See Barr v. South Carolina Dep’t of

Probation, Parole and Pardon Servs., No. CA-02-1060-2-22 (D.S.C.

Nov. 8, 2002). 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 10.31 

 

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION 

COMPENSATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

 

December 11, 2002 

 

**APPROVAL OF VESTING AND EXTENSION OF STOCK AWARDS**

**FOR CHARLES L.SCHULTZ**

 

Recommend approval of the followingresolution. 

 

**VESTING AND EXTENSION OF STOCK AWARDS**

 

WHEREAS, Burlington Northern Santa FeCorporation (the “Company”) deems it is in the best interest of the Company to provide certain stock benefits to Charles L. Schultz as Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer of the Company to encourage his continued service;and 

 

WHEREAS, the Compensation and DevelopmentCommittee (the “Committee”) wishes to exercise its authority under Section 11.8 of the BNSF Corporation 1996 Stock Incentive Plan and the BNSF Corporation 1999 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plans”) pursuant to which theCommittee may determine that a participant’s termination will not result in a forfeiture or other termination of the stock award; 

 

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that pursuant to the authority granted under the Plans, the Committee hereby determines that alloutstanding awards of Mr. Schultz under the Plans granted prior to the date of this resolution shall vest upon termination of employment (without proration), provided, however, that the performance criteria with respect to any performance-basedrestricted stock shall continue to apply, and provided, further, that if termination occurs prior to June 30, 2003, such vesting must be approved by the Chairman of the Committee; and 

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that all Option Awards of Mr. Schultz outstanding immediately prior to his date oftermination, except for those with an expiration date of May 25, 2003, or those Non-Qualified Stock Options with a grant date of January, 2000, which are not exercised within the existing post-employment exercise window of three (3) months or three(3) years following the date of termination shall remain in effect until the earlier of the award expiration date which would have applied but for the date of termination or the fifth (5th) anniversary of the date of termination; provided howeverthat Incentive Stock Options not exercised prior to the date of termination shall be deemed to be Non-Qualified Stock Options on the day following the date of termination; and 

 

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the officers of the Company are authorized and empowered by and on behalf and in thename of the Company to do and perform, or cause to be done and performed, all such acts, deeds and things and to make, execute, and deliver, or cause to be made, executed, and delivered, all such agreements, undertakings, documents, instruments, orcertificates and to pay all such fees and expenses as each such officer may deem necessary or appropriate to effectuate or carry out fully the purpose and intent of the foregoing resolutions. 

 

 

Compensation and Development Committee 

Fort Worth, Texas 

December 11, 2002
CFTC Technology Advisory Committee

Concept Release on Risk 

Controls and System Safeguards 

in Automated Trading 

Environments

Version 1.0 January 16th 2014 1
• The FIA supports a principles-based approach to regulation which allows the 

markets to evolve naturally based on innovation and competition. 

• Automated trading has been adopted across a wide range of market 

participants to provide increased efficiency of execution.

• All market participants have a fundamental responsibility for implementing 

effective risk controls regarding the development, implementation and use of 

automated trading tools to ensure that market integrity is protected.

• Risk controls provided by FCMs and DCMs should be flexible enough to reflect 

the different requirements of market participants – there is no one-size-fits-all 

solution.

• Rather than focusing on types of trading activity, regulatory emphasis should be 

on identifying and stopping disruptive or abusive trading practices.

• In conclusion, the FIA welcomes the opportunity to work with the Commission 

to create a regulatory framework around Automated Trading environments that 

addresses the needs and concerns of all participants.

2

Automated Trading Environments
Irvin VAN BUREN, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-5926.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District denied.
NO. 07-10-0323-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	NOVEMBER 24, 2010

	______________________________

	GREGORY BRYCE HANEY,

		Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

		Appellee

_______________________________

	FROM THE 64th DISTRICT COURT OF CASTRO COUNTY;

	NO. A3173-0805; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., PRESIDING

	_______________________________

***On Motion to Dismiss***

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant Gregory Bryce Haney, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal, signed by appellant, because he no longer desires to prosecute it.  Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal.  Having dismissed the appeal at appellants request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Do not publish.					Per Curiam
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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of PLX Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ralph H. Schmitt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:
  1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
  2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.
  This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Date: November 4, 2010
  By: /s/ Ralph H. Schmitt
 Ralph H. Schmitt
 Chief Executive Officer
  41
| Jul. 30, 2015                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Strategic Advisers Growth Fund                                                                                                                                                                         |
| **Supplement to the Strategic Advisers® Growth Fund July 30, 2015 Prospectus***Effective October 1, 2015, the fund changed its classification from a non-diversified fund to a diversified fund.* |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Supplement Text Block.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**frst_SupplementTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**frst_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**dei_LegalEntityAxis=frst_S000028572Member**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                          56,803
<SECURITIES>                                    34,673
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,967
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,077
<INVENTORY>                                     69,937
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               252,080
<PP&E>                                          39,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,912)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 283,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,666
<BONDS>                                          5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           213
<OTHER-SE>                                     170,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   283,392
<SALES>                                         81,711
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                98,567
<CGS>                                           39,275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,596<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,628
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,973
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68
<FN>
<F1>EXCLUDES SG&A AS SG&A IS PART OF 5-03(b)(4).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Becky CROSS, petitioner, v. PHELPS COUNTY, Missouri, et al.

No. 16-5896.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1999
<CASH>                                           1,829
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                        61
<INVENTORY>                                     22,291
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,336
<PP&E>                                          18,181
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,854
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,701
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,412
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,700
<SALES>                                        120,435
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,435
<CGS>                                          100,397
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,499
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    57
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,644
<INCOME-TAX>                                       572
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,072
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,072
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30



</TABLE>
Donald Eugene WILSON, Jr., petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-6328.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District denied.
Office of Proceedings 

U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 


Three Lafayette Centre 


1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 


www.cftc.gov 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

CHARLES L. BARTLE'IT, 

Complainant, 

v. 

ESSEX FUTURES, 

LUKE C. NICHOLS, and 

VISION FINANCIAL MARKETS LLC, 

Respondents. 

CFrC Docket No. 14-R6 

Served electronically 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Complainant and respondents have amicably settled their dispute and have filed 

a joint stipulation of dismissal. Accordingly, the complaint in this matter is hereby 

dismissed. 

Dated June 14, 2016. 

l?-11 yA4 ·.,{}-:.
 P~cGuire, Judgment Officer
John A. NKWUO, petitioner, v. T-MOBILE, et al.

No. 16-6198.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>	6

<CIK>	0000744822

<NAME>	Fidelity Investment Trust

<SERIES>

	<NUMBER>	111

	<NAME>	Fidelity Diversified International Fund

<MULTIPLIER>	1,000



<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>
6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>
OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>
APR-30-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>
2,118,631
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>
2,537,957
<RECEIVABLES>
39,863
<ASSETS-OTHER>
0
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>
0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>
2,577,820
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>
29,951
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>
0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>
11,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>
41,221
<SENIOR-EQUITY>
0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>
2,084,886
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>
132,997
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>
113,026
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>
0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>
4,529
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>
36,860
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>
0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>
419,382
<NET-ASSETS>
2,536,599
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>
19,263
<INTEREST-INCOME>
3,410
<OTHER-INCOME>
(1,783)
<EXPENSES-NET>
13,208
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>
7,682
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>
48,017
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>
264,570
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>
320,269
<EQUALIZATION>
0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>
26,415
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>
53,971
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>
0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>
63,178
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>
47,664
<SHARES-REINVESTED>
4,457
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>
591,784
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>
23,593
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>
68,559
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>
0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>
0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>
9,459
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>
0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>
13,589
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>
2,231,544
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>
17.210
<PER-SHARE-NII>
 .060
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>
2.500
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>
 .230
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>
 .470
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>
0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>
19.070
<EXPENSE-RATIO>
123





</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7282
CHARLES GENE ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. A. MUNNS, Sergeant; FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; GARY DIXON; TED PERRY, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-93-435) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Gene Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Rogers v. Munns , No. CA-93-435 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 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
# C_2011232EN.01000402.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Chambre de recours des écoles européennes) — Paul Miles and Others v European Schools

(Case C-196/09) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU - Complaints Board of the European Schools - System of remuneration of teachers seconded to the European Schools - No adjustment of remuneration following depreciation in sterling - Compatibility with Articles 18 TFEU and 45 TFEU)

(2011/C 232/06)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Chambre de recours des écoles européennes

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Paul Miles, Robert Watson Mac Donald

Defendant: European Schools

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Complaints Board of the European Schools — Interpretation of Articles 12, 39 and 234 of the EC Treaty — Meaning of national court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC — Remuneration system for teachers on secondment to the European Schools — No arrangements for adapting the remuneration by reason of the pound sterling being devalued — Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and the freedom of movement for workers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to rule on a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Complaints Board of the European Schools.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.

---