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

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

1)    Starfon Telecom Services AG ("Starfon "), formerly known as UTG Telecom AG
      and UTG Telecommunications Holding AG, incorporated under the laws of
      Switzerland on February 29, 1996 (owned 100% by the Company);

2)    UTG Communication Belgium N.V. ("UTG Belgium"), incorporated under the
      laws of Belgium on June 27, 1996 (owned 100% by Starfon);

3)    United Telecom GMBH ("UTG GMBH"), incorporated under the laws of
      Switzerland on May 28, 1996 (owned 100% by Starfon); and

4)    Multicom NV ("Multicom"), incorporated under the laws of Belgium (owned
      100% by UTG Belgium); and

5)    Telelines International SA ("Telelines"), incorporated under the laws of
      Panama on July 28, 1998 (owned 100% by the Company); and

6)    StarPoint Card Sales Ltd. ("StarPoint"), incorporated under the laws of
      the United Kingdom on November 18, 1998 (owned 51% by Telelines); and

7)    StarGlobal Ltd. ("StarGlobal"), incorporated under the laws of Jersey,
      Channel Islands on November 24, 1998 (owned 100% by Telelines).
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1115

In re: PERCY JAMES TUCKER , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 2:09

- cr - 00182

- AWA

- DEM

- 1 )

Submitted : May 3, 2018 Decided: May 23, 2018

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Percy James Tucker, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Percy James Tucker petitions for a w rit of mandamus asking this Court to find that the district court erred. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United
States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3 d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). The party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other adequate means to attain relief, and he bears the burden of showing that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d at 517 (citations omitted ). We have reviewed the petition and conclude that Tucker fails to make this showing. Accordingly, although we grant Tucker’s motion to supplement his petition and grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We d ispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
The Humane Equity Fund:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the Humane
Equity Fund (the "Fund") for the period February 2, 2000 (commencement of
operations) to September 30, 2000, we considered its internal control,
including control activities for safeguarding securities, in order to
determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on
the financial statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR,
not to provide assurance on the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and maintaining
internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments
by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs
of controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the
entity's objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.  Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or fraud may occur
and not be detected.  Also, projection of any evaluation of internal control
to future periods is subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because
of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily disclose all
matters in the internal control that might be material weaknesses under
standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants.  A material weakness is a condition in which the design or
operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to
a relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in
amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in
the normal course of performing their assigned functions.  However, we noted
no matters involving the internal control and its operation, including
controls for safeguarding securities that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, the
Board of Directors of the Fund, and the Securities and Exchange Commission and
is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these
specified parties.



New York, New York
November 13, 2000
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Medical Imaging Investigations.                    

*Date:*                         July 26, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Yuanna Cheng, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4138, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1195,                         *Chengy5@csr.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 17, 2022.

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-13478 Filed 6-23-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Larry Wayne PARR, Petitioner v. Simon E. RODRIGUEZ

No. 19-6771

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
/www.tsunami.gov/

https://www.weather.gov/marine/ https://www.weather.gov/marine/

https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/ https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning https://www.omao.noaa

.gov/learn/diving-program

https://www.weather.gov/nwr/ https://www.weather.gov/nwr/
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov

/geodesy/aerialphotos/ https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/report

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/sea-turtles https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov /topic/sustainable-fisheries
Hydrographic surveys are 

conducted using multibeam 

echo sounders.

NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE oceanservice.noaa.gov

square nautical miles of U.S. 

waters surveyed by NOAA and 

commercial contractors 

annually.

43,000 2,000-3,000

square nautical miles of U.S. 

waters considered critical to 

navigation. 

nautical charts cover 95,000 

miles of shoreline and 3.6 

million square nautical miles 

of U.S. waters.

>1,000

multibeam echo 

sounder beams 

bounce off the 

seafloor and return to 

the ship where the 

depth is recorded

multibeam echo sounder beams 

sweep the seafloor as the ship 

passes over the survey area

What products are made

from hydrographic survey data?

nautical charts

essential maps for safe 

marine navigation

hydrographic models

baseline data for 

research and marine 

geospatial products and 

services

Did you know?

In 1807, President Thomas Jefferson 

signed a mandate ordering a survey of 

the nation’s coast. 

Who conducts hydrographic surveys?

NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey conducts 

hydrographic surveys and creates nautical 

charts of U.S. waters.

Hydrography is the science 

that measures and describes 

the physical features of bodies 

of water and the land areas 

adjacent to those bodies of 

water.

Surveying with multibeam 

echo sounders is the primary 

method of obtaining 

hydrographic data.

By mapping out water depth, 

the shape of the seafloor and 

coastline, the location of 

possible obstructions, and 

physical features of water 

bodies, hydrography helps to 

keep our maritime 

transportation system moving 

safely and efficiently.

measure water depth, 

and search for shoals, 

rocks, & wrecks that 

could be hazards to 

navigation. They also 

collect information on:

HYDROGRAPHERS

water levels & tides

currents

temperature

salinity

HYDROGRAPHY
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1435 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1435

To amend titles 28 and 10, United States Code, to allow for certiorari 
 review of certain cases denied relief or review by the United States 
                 Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 9, 2013

   Mrs. Davis of California introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend titles 28 and 10, United States Code, to allow for certiorari 
 review of certain cases denied relief or review by the United States 
                 Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Equal Justice for Our Military Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED 
              FORCES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1259 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or denied'' after 
        ``granted''; and
            (2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``or denied'' after 
        ``granted''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Title 10.--Section 867a(a) of title 10, United States 
        Code, is amended by striking ``The Supreme Court may not review 
        by a writ of certiorari under this section any action of the 
        Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in refusing to grant a 
        petition for review.''.
            (2) Time for application for writ of certiorari.--Section 
        2101(g) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read as 
        follows:
    ``(g) The time for application for a writ of certiorari to review a 
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, or 
the decision of a Court of Criminal Appeals that the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces refuses to grant a petition to 
review, shall be as prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the amendments made by 
this Act shall take effect upon the expiration of the 180-day period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to 
any petition granted or denied by the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Armed Forces on or after that effective date.
    (b) Authority To Prescribe Rules.--The authority of the Supreme 
Court to prescribe rules to carry out section 2101(g) of title 28, 
United States Code, as amended by section 2(b)(2) of this Act, shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
The Massachusetts Municipals Fund:

We consent to, to the use of our report dated January 15, 1998 with 
respect to the Massachusetts Municipals Fund, incorporated herein by 
reference to the references to our Firm under the headings "Financial 
Highlights" in the Prospectus and "Auditors" in the Statement of 
Additional Information.



	KPMG LLP


New York, New York
January 21, 1999
# L_2016108EN.01003501.xml

| 23.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 108/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 108/35

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/643

of 21 April 2016

appointing a member, proposed by the Italian Republic of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Italian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

| (2) | A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the mandate on the basis of which Mr Mauro D'ATTIS (Consigliere comunale di Brindisi) was proposed, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the mandate on the basis of which Mr Mauro D'ATTIS (Consigliere comunale di Brindisi) was proposed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:

| — | Sig. Mauro D'ATTIS, Assessore del Comune di Roccafiorita (ME) (change of mandate). |
| --- | --- |

—

Sig. Mauro D'ATTIS, Assessore del Comune di Roccafiorita (ME) (change of mandate).

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 21 April 2016.

For the Council

The President

G.A. VAN DER STEUR

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

2

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).

3

---
EXPLORING EARTH SURFACE 

CHANGES ALONG NORTH 

CAROLINA'S COAST

Section 1. North Carolina’s Barrier Islands
What is a Barrier Island?

A

B

C

D

E

A. Ocean

B. Barrier Island

C. Sound or Lagoon 

D. Mainland 

E. Inlet 
Where are the Outer Banks?
Where are the Outer Banks?
Hatteras Island

After Hurricane Isabel
Problems for the Outer Banks

⦿ The impact of storms on infrastructure

⦿ Limited space on the islands

⦿ High cost trying to stop natural 

processes

⦿ Infrastructure impact on nature
“Windy People, Dynamic Landscapes”

⦿ https://www.dropbox.com/s/d8lqctur7c32

9e6/Windy%20People.mov
“Windy People, Dynamic Landscapes”

⦿ Discussion Questions

⚫What is the major cause of change on the 

Outer Banks?

⚫Why is this a much bigger problem today 

than in the past?
Environments of the Island

A

B

C

D
The Island Profile

Ocean Lagoon

Beach

Dune

Maritime Forest

Salt Marsh
Beach

• Winds and waves are 

the dominant 

processes in this 

environment
Dunes

• Grasses and shrubs 

help to stabilize dunes

• Dunes built by wind

• Eroded by waves
Maritime Forest

• Trees, grasses, and shrubs can be quite dense

• Sandy organic soil forms as plant material dies 

and decays

• Wind is main physical process; storm surge may 

reach forest during large hurricanes
Backbarrier Salt Marsh

• Grasses dominate

• Tides and waves 

build or erode 

marsh

• Overwash can 

cover marsh 

during storms
End of Section Quiz

⦿ Draw an island cross-section and label 

each of the major environments.

⦿ For each environment, describe the 

physical processes at work and 

distinguishing features.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6303

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SCOTT MATTHEW PIERCE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg

. Michael F. Urbanski , Chief District Judge. ( 5:14

- cr - 00053

- MFU

- RSB

- 1 )

Submitted : May 17 , 2018 Decided: May 21, 2018

Before KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Scott Matthew Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Marie Harrigan Kulpa, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are n ot binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Scott Matthew Pierce appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the re cord and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Pierce’s motion for transcript and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in the “Additional Comments” section of the order

. See United States v.
Pierce , No. 5:14

- cr - 00053

- MFU

- RSB

- 1 (W.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**74 KA 09-01202**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CYRESS JONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT B. HALLBORG, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (JOHN PATRICK FEROLETO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered May 27, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2], [4]) and one count each of robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [4]) and robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [2] [a]), defendant contends that Supreme Court failed to comply with CPL 310.30 in responding to three notes from the jury during its deliberation. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention with respect to the second and third jury notes. We conclude that the court provided defense counsel with notice of the content thereof and with the substance of the court’s intended response ( cf. People v Cook , 85 NY2d 928, 931), and defendant failed to object at that time ( see People v Starling , 85 NY2d 509, 516; People v Cooley , 48 AD3d 1091, lv denied 10 NY3d 861; see also People v DeRosario , 81 NY2d 801, 803). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court was not required to read the contents of those notes verbatim into the record ( see generally People v Kadarko , 14 NY3d 426, 428-429). We conclude that defendant waived his contention with respect to the first jury note by consenting to allow the court to respond to requests for exhibits without consulting the attorneys ( see People v Ming Yuen , 222 AD2d 613, lv denied 88 NY2d 851). In any event, that contention is without merit ( see id. ).

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we**-2- 74 KA 09-01202** 
reject defendant’s further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley
, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
STATE v. WADE

No. COA04-571.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 1, 2005.

Certification Date March 21, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. No error in defendant's trial; vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Charley JOE, Jr., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-7034

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

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