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



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                            |  |                  
|------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|Sequenom  Gemini, Ltd.                     |  | England and Wales
|Gemini Genomics, (UK) Ltd.                  |  | England and Wales
|Gemini Genomics, Ltd.                       |  | England and Wales
|Sequenom GmbH                               |  | Germany          
|Sequenom K.K.                               |  | Japan            
|Sequenom Hong Kong, Ltd                     |  | Hong Kong        
|Sequenom Biosciences (India) Pvt. Ltd       |  | India            
|Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC |  | United States
PROMISSORY
NOTE


 





 


$24,000.00Date:
January 27, 2016


 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Skinvisible, Inc., of 6320 South Sandhill Road, Suite 10, Las Vegas, NV 89120 promises to pay
to the order of Robert Lutz (“Lender”), whose address is 8322 W. Tonto Lane, Peoria, AZ. 85382,
or such other place as the Lender may designate in writing to the undersigned, the principal sum of Twenty Four Thousand
Dollars ($24,000.00), together with interest thereon from date hereof until paid, at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum as
follows: The entire principal amount shall be repaid on or before February 15, 2016. As payment for the loan the company agrees
to gift 200,000 shares of Skinvisible, Inc at a deemed value of $0.02 per share.


 


All
or any part of the aforesaid principal sum may be prepaid at any time and from time to time without penalty.


 


This
note is made and executed under, and is in all respects governed by, the laws of the State of Nevada.


 


 


/s/
Terry Howlett


Terry
Howlett


President
& CEO


 


Skinvisible,
Inc.
Stanley F. ALLEN, petitioner, v. Dorothy WILLIAMS, et al.

No. 16-5714.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
Cameron MOSTAGHIM, petitioner, v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-6813.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until January 30, 2017, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
In the Matter of DISBARMENT OF Richard Z. JOHNSON, Jr.

No. D-2908.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Disbarment order entered.
# C_2011204EN.01000802.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Firenze (Italy)) — Tonina Enza Iaia, Andrea Moggio, Ugo Vassalle v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Università degli studi di Pisa

(Case C-452/09) (1)

1

(Directive 82/76/EEC - Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services - Doctors - Acquisition of the title of medical specialist - Remuneration during the period of training - Five-year limitation period in respect of the right to payment of periodic remuneration)

2011/C 204/15

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Firenze

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tonina Enza Iaia, Andrea Moggio, Ugo Vassalle

Applicants:

Defendants: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Università degli studi di Pisa

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte di Appello di Firenze (Court of Appeal, Florence) — Interpretation of Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services and Directive 75/363/EEC concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors (OJ 1982 L 43, p. 21) — Training of medical specialists — Right to appropriate remuneration during the period of training — Direct effect of a directive that has not yet been transposed into national law — Whether it is possible for a Member State to rely, in relation to the period preceding the first implementing legislation, on five-year or ten-year limitation in respect of a right arising under the directive

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from relying on the expiry of a reasonable limitation period as a defence in legal proceedings brought by an individual for the purpose of safeguarding rights conferred by a directive, even though the Member State did not transpose that directive correctly, on condition that, by its conduct, that Member State was not responsible for the delay in bringing the action. The finding by the Court that there has been a breach of European Union law does not affect the starting point of the limitation period, in the case where that breach is not in doubt.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

1

---
Bernard Turon BURTON, petitioner, v. Marion SPEARMAN, Warden.

No. 15-9352.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1694 

Commending The Wall that Heals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Commending The Wall that Heals. 

Whereas since its inauguration by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund on Veterans Day, November 11, 1996, The 

Wall That Heals has offered the opportunity for those 

who lost their lives in the Vietnam War to be honored by 

family and friends in their respective hometowns; 

Whereas The Wall That Heals is a half-scale replica of the 

Vietnam Veterans Memorial located in Washington, the 

District of Columbia; 

Whereas The Wall That Heals is the only traveling replica 

directly affiliated with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in 

Washington, the District of Columbia; 

Whereas The Wall That Heals travels to communities 

throughout the United States and has been seen by milVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:11 Oct 04, 2010 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR1694.IH HR1694

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1694 IH 

lions of people in more than 300 cities and towns 

throughout the Nation; and 

Whereas the display also features a traveling museum and information center providing a comprehensive educational 

component to enrich and complete visitors’ experiences: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) commends The Wall That Heals for hon3 oring those that made the ultimate sacrifice and 

4 served honorably in the Vietnam War; and 

5 (2) embraces the remembrance it delivers to 

6 communities throughout the United States. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **@ZNERA&, 0** **’ TEXAS;**  **AUVIN**

Honcrrsbla

Ssm B. Davldsori countyAttorney,JIooklby aMlIlty terellend,

Tszcra

to whether awh sum Colleotor troll

the ‘0

,ln +atutea,



### et, ooyilty,,,or preolnot rmloer of deyatles, he pqrforaanoe



### or hla ply: +o the Cotity Oommlaalonera* y rw authority to appoint ruoh ts or aJ,erk8, atatbg **by sworn**  number needed, the peaition to be

be pal&. 8ald ap liaaby a statementa owlag

ii the .probabl.a

moelpta rronr

reea, aoanaia6lona

and ooqwinsstlonto ‘beoolleated by aald orrCm dur- ,ingthe rlaoal year and the probable dlsburaement~ whiah ahall lnalude all salariesand expeasea ofHonorable8am IL Davidson,pQg& 2

said ofHoe; an& said aourli ahall make its order authorizingthe appointmentof sutihdeputies, aasIaQutteau4 alerks and fix the oompendatPon to be pa&l them dthln the l.lmite&ns httreln presarlbedand determinethe number to ,beappointedae In the dlsoretlonof seld aourt may be proper;provided that in no aase nhell. the Coamle,slon6rs~ Court or any member thereor attem& to lnrluenosthe appointment or any peraon as deputy, esslstantor alerk in any~oiflae. Upon the entry or a*uoh order the orflaers applylng ror 8uah assistanta, deputies or clerks shall be authorized

to appoint them; provided that said aompensatloa

shill. not eraeed 'the

z~xlmum amount,hereInaiter set out. The aompeadatlon wblah laay

be allowed to the deputies aaslatenta

or oltirks

above maed ror the&r mmrkw ahal% be a reasonableone, not to exaeeb the rollowIng amoudte:

*1. In oountie#-having a~populatiioti

or twenty-rive tbousand.,(25,000) or leas Inhebltants, tint eW8tqnt or. ehier deputy 

### not,

## ..to. ..uaeed Eighteen Hundred '~($lSOO,OO) Dollars per annun; other assistante,deputiesor olerk8 not to exteed FIrteen:-Qmdrea ~$15~00.00) Dollara per annum eaoh.*
Reading the term *eeoond deputyn aa meaning deputy other than the rlrst easlrtantor oh% deputy, it la apparent that the &50&00 present amount now paid to him la the maximum clalary

euthorlzedend rlxed by the tortkgolng statute.

We have rully oomsidered the provisionaof the Certlf5oete,of

Tltle Aot, [Art. i4364,~Bernon*s Annotated Penal aodo), in oonneotlon with your ~requ&at., The ldsntloal

~questlon rdsed by you, honver, was presqnted to thls departmentby the county Auditor OrtJefreraon aounty. ?& hereto attaoh a oopy of our Oplnlon40. O-5379, eddresaed to the County dtiltor Or Sorterson County; epprovs(l'June 21, 1943. Ins

answer to his I%- quest. AlthoughJefier&onCounty has a larger population breokst,nevertheless the opinion IS a#plldableto Oakley county.ikmorable Ssn ii. Davidson, ptige 3

It 1s thkmfora the opinion of thia.dcpartment that where 8 deputy tax esseesor-oolleator in e aounty having s populetlonof 25,000 or less Inhebltantsis reoelvlag the mxlmwn salary fixed by Artfale, 3902, Vernonso knnotets~lv~l Statutes, such maxlnrum salary may not be inoreesedfrom the CertUlaute of Title Fund or any other fund belonging to the oounty.

Yours very truly,

aY (8) Wm. J. R. ICiw

Assistant

WJRK/JGP Ella.

OF 'MCXAB APPROVSD: 0P1Hx0lV

COMUxwicE By 8. W. B., Chairmen

B.B.8,
Jorge A. MARTINEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7487.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Barry NAKELL, petitioner, v. John M. BARTH, Sr.

No. 16-537.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.02
                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------

I, Debi B. Halbert, the Chief Financial Officer of ProFutures, Inc., as
General Partner of Alternative Asset Growth Fund, L.P., certify that (i) the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 of Alternative Asset Growth
Fund, L.P. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Alternative Asset Growth Fund, L.P.

                                ALTERNATIVE ASSET GROWTH FUND, L.P.
                                By: ProFutures, Inc., General Partner

                                By:      /s/ DEBI B. HALBERT
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Debi B. Halbert
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         May 13, 2005
Kenneth KOAN, petitioner, v. Bonita J. HOFFNER, Warden.

No. 15-9238.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0929. EDITH GITTENS v. REGINALD GITTENS.

On July 24, 2017, the trial court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce

between Reginald Gittens and Edith Gittens. On August 25, 2017, Edith Gittensfiled

a notice of appeal of the divorce decree in the trial court. Edith Gittens filed an

amended notice of appeal of the same order on September 18, 2017 and again on

December 1, 2017. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Where, as here, the underlying action involves rights and obligations arising

out of a divorce decree, the case is a domestic relations matter within the meaning of

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). See Walker v. Estate of Mays, 279 Ga. 652, 653 (1) (619

SE2d 679) (2005). Appeals in such matters must be initiated by filing an application

for discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), (b); accord Voyles v. Voyles,

301 Ga. 44, 47 (799 SE2d 160) (2017) (an appeal in a domestic relations case in

which child custody is not at issue must be brought by discretionary application).

“[C]ompliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Fabe v.

Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 332 (1) (405 SE2d 265) (1991).

Even if Edith Gittens had a right of direct appeal, this appeal is untimely. To

be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order on

appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is

an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See Rowland v. State,

264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Because Edith Gittens did not file her

first notice of appeal until 32 days after the entry of the order she seeks to appeal, her

appeal is untimely.

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

January 30, 2018
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/30/2018
# C_2009282EN.01002902.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 17 September 2009 — Josep Penarroja Fa v Procureur général près la Cour d’appel de Paris

(Case C-372/09)

2009/C 282/50

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Josep Penarroja Fa

Applicant:

Defendant: Procureur général près la Cour d’appel de Paris

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 50 EC be interpreted as applying to the duties entrusted to a professional, acting as an expert, in a dispute brought before the national courts, and appointed by the court seised of the dispute, under the conditions described [in the order for reference]? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 50 EC be interpreted as applying to the duties entrusted to a professional, acting as an expert, in a dispute brought before the national courts, and appointed by the court seised of the dispute, under the conditions described [in the order for reference]?

| 2. | Must the connection with the exercise of official authority, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 45 EC, be interpreted as applying to the duties of an expert appointed by a French court, as governed by the French Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, and by Law No 71-498 of 29 June 1971 and Decree No 2004-1463 of 23 December 2004? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the connection with the exercise of official authority, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 45 EC, be interpreted as applying to the duties of an expert appointed by a French court, as governed by the French Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, and by Law No 71-498 of 29 June 1971 and Decree No 2004-1463 of 23 December 2004?

| 3. | Must Articles 43 EC and 49 EC be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that resulting from Law No 71-498 of 29 June 1971 and Decree No 2004-1463 of 23 December 2004, as amended, which makes enrolment on a register maintained by a cour d’appel subject to conditions relating to age, competence, character and independence, and which does not take into account the fact that the applicant has already been recognised as an expert by the courts of his State of origin or introduce other arrangements for assessing his competence? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Articles 43 EC and 49 EC be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that resulting from Law No 71-498 of 29 June 1971 and Decree No 2004-1463 of 23 December 2004, as amended, which makes enrolment on a register maintained by a cour d’appel subject to conditions relating to age, competence, character and independence, and which does not take into account the fact that the applicant has already been recognised as an expert by the courts of his State of origin or introduce other arrangements for assessing his competence?

---
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1899/2004

of 29 October 2004         

amending Regulation (EC) No 2342/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal as regards premium schemes

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (1), and in particular Article 155 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 2342/1999 is amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 October 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 (OJ L 161, 30.4.2004, p. 48).

(2)OJ L 281, 4.11.1999, p. 30. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1777/2004 (OJ L 316, 15.10.2004, p. 66).

(3)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).

----
```

[Federal Register: January 7, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 4)]

[Corrections]

[Page 924]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr07ja98-123]







[[Page 924]]







COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION





Application of the NYFE for Designation as a Contract Market in

Futures on the NYSE Small Composite Index



Correction



    In notice document 97-33627, beginning on page 67630, in the issue

of Monday, December 29, 1997 make the following correction:

    On page 67630, in the third column, in the DATES section, "January

8, 1998" should read "January 13, 1998".

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```

----

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

----
RICHARD TT., petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 16-7079.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.
**Exhibit 31.2**I, Steven S. Schumm, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) of Thermadyne Holdings Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;3. [Not applicable]4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: August 13, 2007   /s/ Steven S. Schumm Steven S. Schumm  Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)