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

SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                            |  |                        
|------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Subsidiary Name                             |  | Subsidiary Jurisdiction
|SeaChange Holdings, Inc.                    |  | Delaware               
|ZQ Interactive, Ltd.                        |  | British Virgin Islands 
|S.E.A.C. Ireland Limited                    |  | Ireland                
|SeaChange International UK Ltd.             |  | United Kingdom         
|ZQ Interactive (Shanghai), Ltd.             |  | China                  
|SeaChange International SARL                |  | France                 
|SeaChange Japan KK                          |  | Japan                  
|SeaChange US Pty Limited                    |  | Australia              
|SeaChange Asia Pacific Operations Pte. Ltd. |  | Singapore              
|SeaChange Philippines Corporation           |  | Philippines            
|SEAC Germany GmbH                           |  | Germany                
|SeaChange India Private. Ltd.               |  | India                  
|SeaChange Korea LLC                         |  | Korea                  
|On Demand Group, Ltd.                       |  | London, England        
|On Demand Management Ltd.                   |  | United Kingdom         
|On Demand Productions Ltd.                  |  | United Kingdom         
|ODG Deutchland GmbH                         |  | Germany
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.50

                                   AMENDMENT

This AMENDMENT dated December 1, 1997 (the "Amendment") is to that Master
Development Agreement executed January 5, 1996 by and between Roadhouse Grill,
Inc. ("Company") and Roadhouse Grill Asia Pacific (Cayman) Limited
("Developer")(the "Development Agreement").

In consideration of the mutual covenants and consideration set forth herein, and
as authorized and directed by the Board of Directors of the Company by action of
November 18, 1997, it is hereby agreed:

1.  Section 8.A. (2) of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as
    follows:

   (2)  Forty percent (40%) of the royalty fee paid by each Third Party
        Franchisee, due  and payable within ten (10) days after the end of the
        month in which the fee was received by Developer from each Third Party
        Franchisee in the Territory; subject however, that the maximum royalty
        fee due the Company shall not exceed two percent (2.0%) of gross sales
        as defined in the Franchise Agreement.

2.  Section 8.B.(2) of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to read as
    follows:

   (2)  A royalty fee in the amount of two percent (2%) of gross sales as
        defined in the Franchise Agreement, due and payable within ten (10) days
        after the end of the month in which sales were made.

3.   The amendments provided for herein shall be effective as of December 1,
     1997.

4.   Except as specifically provided in this Amendment, the terms of the
     Development Agreement are ratified.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this
Agreement in ___ counterparts on the day and year first above written.

DEVELOPER

ROADHOUSE GRILL ASIA PACIFIC (CAYMAN)
LIMITED., a Cayman Islands corporation


By:                                     Witness:
   --------------------------                   -----------------------

Title:
      -----------------------

COMPANY

ROADHOUSE GRILL, INC.
a Florida corporation

By:                                     Witness:
   --------------------------                   -----------------------

Title:
      -----------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5299 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5299

             To suspend temporarily the duty on 7-Hydroxy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2008

  Mr. LaHood introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To suspend temporarily the duty on 7-Hydroxy.

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

SECTION 1. 7-HYDROXY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902._._         2,3-Dihydro-2,2-    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          Dimethyl-7-                                                        31/2011.......
                          Hydroxybenzofuran
                          (Carbofuran
                          phenol) (CAS No.
                          1563-38-8)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2932.99.70)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Ruben Aburto DIAZ v. David L. CHURCHILL.

No. 540P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Ruben Aburto Diaz, Pro Se.

Joan M. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for David L. Churchill.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 21st day of September 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of November 2005."
96 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

RHODE ISLAND 

#43 #20 0.3% $1,519 #43 #42 #35

$1.6 B SPENT IN 2.6% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $0.7 B CONTRACT 12,747 NUMBER OF $0.9 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 1% Research and

Supplies and Development: 13%

Equipment: 38%

Service: 48%

By Service 

Army

2%

Navy/Marines

89%

Air Force

1%

Other Defense

7%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 9%

Active Duty: 25%

National 

Guard: 24%

Civilian: 42%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

23%

Navy/Marines

66%

Air Force

10%

Other Defense

1%

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions)

Raytheon $195.3 M

Systems Engineering Associates $58.6 M

McLaughlin Research Corp. $46.8 M

Rite-Solutions $32.9 M

Mikel Inc. $32.2 M

SAIC $18.3 M

Leidos $17.2 M

Network and Simulation Technologies $12.1 M

Gateway Ventures Inc. $11.0 M

Hyman Brickle & Son Inc. $10.3 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$0.8

FY13 FY14

$0.7 $0.7 $0.7

$0.6

$0.7

FY15 FY16

$0.6 $0.5

FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

$882.3 MILLION 12,747

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National Reserve Total

Duty Guard

Newport 2,436 4,741 126 930 8,233

Washington ND 287 1,184 40 ND 

Kent 36 66 1,058 ND ND 

Providence 97 195 455 233 980

Bristol ND ND 244 0 ND 
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 97

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

RHODE ISLAND FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

Newport

Providence

Kent

Washington

Bristol

(M = millions)

$617.1 M

$50.5 M

$24.6 M

$24.3 M

$6.2 M

Newport

Washington

Kent

Providence

Bristol

$712.5 M

$57.7 M

$45.8 M

$44.9 M

$6.4 M 

Bristol

Newport

Providence

Bristol

Kent

Newport

Washington

Providence

Kent

Washington
# Official Journal L 82/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.082.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 82 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5327 March 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.082.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 82

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5327 March 2010

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Regulation (EU) No 266/2010 of 26 March 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Regulation (EU) No 266/2010 of 26 March 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
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 Commerce

###### Bureau of Industry and Security

The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on July 26, 2022, at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, via teleconference. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.

## Agenda

### Public Session

1. Welcome and Introductions.

2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.

3. Industry Presentations.

4. New Business.

### Closed Session

5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

                    The open session will be accessible via teleconference on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at                     *Yvette.Springer@bis.doc.gov*                     no later than July 19, 2022.                

To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.

The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 25, 2022, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

For more information contact Yvette Springer via email.

Yvette Springer,

Committee Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2022-14402 Filed 7-6-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
68 Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions) 

Boeing $10.2 B

Express Scripts $661.5 M

World Wide Technology $294.0 M

Northrop Grumman $288.7 M

GKN America Corp. $288.0 M

Honeywell $269.2 M

Leonardo SpA $250.6 M

Cerner Corporation $117.0 M

Magellan Health $68.2 M

Eaglepicher Technologies LLC $68.0 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

MISSOURI

#11 #10 3.0% $2,475 #7 #19 #27

$15.2 B SPENT 

IN STATE

4.7% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $13.6 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

43,928 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$1.5 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$1.5 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

43,928

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Pulaski 12,074 3,063 346 440 15,923

Johnson 3,790 1,062 1,099 1,065 7,016

Jackson 115 797 729 1,855 3,496

St. Louis 66 486 1,414 1,111 3,077

Greene 23 277 966 605 1,871

Buchanan 17 325 1,313 70 1,725

St. Louis City 252 756 77 567 1,652

Cole 27 357 991 87 1,462

St. Charles ND 77 ND 856

Cass ND 16 228 442

Service: 17%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 81%

Construction: 0% Research and

Development: 2%

Active Duty: 38%

Civilian: 18%

National 

Guard: 26%

Reserve: 17%

8%

35%

44%

14%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

70%

8%

20%

1%

$8.9

$13.1

$8.1 $8.6

$6.8

$9.9

$6.9

$13.6

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 69

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Clay

Jackson

St. Charles

Johnson St. Louis

St. Louis City

Pulaski

Dent

Greene

Jasper

FISCAL YEAR 2018 MISSOURI

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

St. Louis

Jackson

Pulaski

Clay

Johnson

Jasper

St. Charles

St. Louis City

Greene

Dent

(M = millions)

$11.9 B

$678.2 M

$225.5 M

$167.0 M

$133.6 M

$127.9 M

$114.5 M

$53.5 M

$30.4 M

$29.3 M

Pulaski

Johnson

Jackson

St. Louis City

St. Louis

Buchanan

Cole

Greene

St. Charles

Platte

$580.8 M

$309.9 M

$115.5 M

$90.7 M

$82.5 M

$65.6 M

$60.5 M

$40.4 M

$24.4 M

$11.2 M

Buchanan

Platte St. Charles

Johnson St. Louis

Cole

Jackson St. Louis City

Pulaski

Greene
The HONORABLE DAVID S. DO TY, United States District Judge for

the District of Minnesota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2789

___________ Morris Lynn Johnson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 4, 1997 Filed: March 10, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Morris Johnson appeals from the district court's orde r 1 dismis singwithout prejudice for lack of subject matte r jurisdiction his motion to expunge or correct records of the Bureau of Prisons and the United States Parole Commission. Reviewing de novo, we conclude that Johnson's motion was properly construed as an a ttack on the execution of his sentence, and as such, i s cognizable in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition filed in a court wit h jurisdiction over Johnson's pr esent custodian. See Bell v. United States , 48 F.3d 1042, 1043-44 (8th Cir. 1995); Schneider v. United-2-

States , 27 F.3d 1327, 1331 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review) , cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 723 (1995). As Johnson is incarcer ated in-3-

Illinois, his petition was not properly filed in the District o f Minnesota. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN RE C.M.

No. COA04-1070.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 18, 2005.

Certification Date November 7, 2005.

Appeal from Buncombe (01J338 (A)).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of ZHONGPIN INC. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), Xianfu Zhu, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      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.





Date:      May
      11, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Xianfu ZhuXianfu
      ZhuChief
      Executive Officer









This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Idaho General Mines, Inc., a Idaho Corporation, (the Company) hereby certifies to such officers knowledge that:



1.

This quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Idaho General Mines, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Idaho General Mines, Inc.

Date:  May 13, 2005

/s/ Robert L. Russell

________________________________

Robert L. Russell

President and Chief Executive Officer
In the Matter of L.E.B. and K.T.B.

No. 218P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Julia Talbutt, Staff Attorney, for New Hanover County DSS.

Regina Floyd-Davis, Attorney Advocate, for Guardian Ad Litem.

Michelle F. Lynch, for Mother.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of May 2005 by Guardian Ad Litem for Leave to File Response to Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of June 2005."
* 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

June 21, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51215

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIE E. PHILLIPS, also known as Big Willie,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-02-CR-395-1 

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

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willie E. Phillips, federal prisoner # 31582-180, appeals

the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

conspiracy to manufacture and distribute cocaine base and

conspiracy to launder money. Phillips argues that the Government

engaged in prosecutorial vindictiveness and breached the terms of

his plea agreement by failing to file a motion for a downward

departure. He contends that the district court should have

enforced this provision or allowed him to withdraw his guilty
No. 03-51215

-2-

plea. Phillips also asserts that his sentence is

unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment in light of Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). 

We review de novo the district court’s determination whether

the Government breached a plea agreement. United States v.

Price, 95 F.3d 364, 367 (5th Cir. 1996). The defendant bears the

burden of establishing a breach. Id. As part of the plea

agreement, the Government retained the “sole discretion” to

determine whether to file a motion for a downward departure on

Phillips’s behalf. Phillips concedes that this court has held

that when the Government retains discretion whether to file a

motion for a downward departure its decision is reviewable only

to determine whether the Government acted pursuant to an

unconstitutional motive. However, he argues, citing law from

other circuits, that this court should expand its review of such

decisions to include whether the Government acted in bad faith in

deciding not to move for a downward departure.

Because the Government retained its discretion to determine

whether to move for a downward departure and Phillips has not

ascribed any unconstitutional motive to this decision, we are

bound by our prior decisions in United States v. Aderholt, 87

F.3d 740, 741-42 (5th Cir. 1996), and Price to hold that he has

not established a breach of the plea agreement and is not

entitled to relief on this issue.
No. 03-51215

-3-

Phillips’s claim of sentencing error under the Sixth

Amendment is barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision in his plea

agreement. See United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746-47

(5th Cir. 2005). 

AFFIRMED.