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

                 Subsidiaries of the Registrant

                    (Global Industries, Ltd.)

          NAME                   INCORPORATION

Global Divers and Contractors, LLC			Louisiana
Global Pipelines PLUS, LLC				Louisiana
Pipelines, Incorporated					Louisiana
Global Movible Offshore, LLC				Louisiana
Pelican Transportation, LLC				Louisiana
The Red Adair Company, LLC				Louisiana
Global Industries Offshore, LLC				Louisiana
Global Offshore International, LTD			Cayman Islands
Global International Vessels, Inc.			Cayman Islands
Norman Offshore Pipelines, LLC				Louisiana
Global Pipelines Plus Nigeria, Ltd.			Nigeria
Global Offshore, Pty. Ltd.				Australia
Global Industries Asia Pacific PTE, Ltd.		Singapore
Global Industries (B)Sdn. Bhd.				Brunei
PT Global Industries Asia-Pacific			Indonesia
Global Asia Pacific Industries, Sdn. Bhd.		Malaysia
Subtec Marine Services, Ltd.				Cyprus
Subtec Offshore Support, Ltd.				Cyprus
Subtec National Company, LLC                            United Arab Emirates
GIL Holdings, LLC					Louisiana
Global Production Services, LLC				Louisiana
Global Industries Mexico Holdings, S.
  de R.L. de C.V.					Mexico
Global Vessels Mexico, S. de R.L.de C.V.		Mexico
Global Industries Offshore Services, S.
  de R.L. de C.V.					Mexico
Global Industries Services, S. de R.L.
  de C.V.						Mexico
Global Offshore Mexico,S. de R.L. de C.V.		Mexico
Global Offshore (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.			Malaysia
Global Industries Offshore(Thailand), Ltd.		Thailand
Global Offshore International, LLC			Louisiana
Global Industries Offshore Labuan, Ltd.			Lubuan
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ernest LAMPKIN, Appellant.

No. 67792.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Jan. 23, 1996.

N. Scott Rosenblum, Katherine P. Scan-nell, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Kocot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of assault in the first degree, § 565.050 RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action, § 571.015 RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to two consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The Judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4148

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THOR
VENTURES CORP. 9 MONTH INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT SEPTEMBER 30, 2000,
UNAUDITED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           6,573
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,570
<PP&E>                                           2,663
<DEPRECIATION>                                     873
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          267,361
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,600
<OTHER-SE>                                   (243,601)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,360
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               186,138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (186,911)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (186,911)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (186,911)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7233]



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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675

[Docket No. 950206040-5040-01; I.D. 032095C]


Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Pacific 
Cod by Vessels Using Trawl Gear in Bycatch Limitation Zone 1

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the directed fishery for Pacific cod by 
vessels using trawl gear in Bycatch Limitation Zone 1 (Zone 1) of the 
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is 
necessary to prevent exceeding the prohibited species catch (PSC) 
allowance of C. bairdi Tanner crab apportioned to the trawl Pacific cod 
fishery category in Zone 1.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 20, 1995, 
until 12 midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew N. Smoker, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 
under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing 
the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 675.
    The 1995 PSC allowance of C. bairdi Tanner crab in Zone 1 for the 
trawl Pacific cod fishery category, which is defined at 
Sec. 675.21(b)(1)(iii)(E), was established as 225,000 crabs by the 1995 
final initial specifications (60 FR 8479, February 14, 1995).
    The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined, in accordance 
with Sec. 675.21(c)(1)(i), that the PSC allowance of C. bairdi Tanner 
crab for the trawl Pacific cod fishery in Zone 1 has been reached. 
Therefore, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by 
vessels using trawl gear in Zone 1 of the BSAI.
    Directed fishing standards for applicable gear types may be found 
in the regulations at Sec. 675.20(h).

Classification

    This action is taken under Sec. 675.21 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.

    Dated: March 20, 1995.
David S. Crestin,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-7233 Filed 3-20-95; 4:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Exhibit 10.14
 SIXTH AMENDMENT
TO
LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
 SIXTH AMENDMENT
 Recitals
 A.
 B.
 C.
 D.
 Agreement
 Now,
Therefore,
 1. Definitions.
 2. Amendments to Loan Agreement.




---



##### 



2.1 Section 6.2 (Additional Warranties, Representations and Covenants)
  2.2 Section 17 (Term and Termination).
  3. Limitation of Amendments.
 3.1 Section 2
 3.2
 4. Representations and Warranties.
 4.1
 4.2
 4.3
 4.4




---



##### 



4.5
 4.6
 4.7
 5. Counterparts.
 6. Effectiveness.




---



##### 



In Witness Whereof,
 BANK
    
    
    
    BORROWERSilicon Valley Bank
    
    
    
    Superconductor Technologies, Inc.By:
    
    /s/ Ben Fargo
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ William BuchananName:
    
    Ben Fargo
    
    
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    William BuchananTitle:
    
    Relationship Manager
    
    
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Controller




---



##### 



Schedule 1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENT
AND REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY
 Section 1.
 Section 2.
 Section 3.
  GUARANTOR
    Conductus, Inc.By:
    /s/ William BuchananName:
    William BuchananTitle:
    Controller
EXHIBIT 10.4



                                  Statement of
    Red Mountain Resources, Inc., Black Rock Capital, Inc. and Alan Barksdale
                                      as to
                        the Joint Filing of Schedule 13D



We, the Undersigned,  hereby consent to the joint filing with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  ("SEC") of the  Schedule  13D,  dated June 22, 2011 on our
behalf by Red Mountain Resources, Inc.


Date:  June 22, 2011



                                        RED MOUNTAIN RESOURCES, INC.




                                        /s/ Alan Barksdale
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Alan Barksdale, Chief Executive Officer


                                        BLACK ROCK CAPITAL, INC.


                                        /s/ Alan Barksdale
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Alan Barksdale, President


                                        ALAN BARKSDALE



                                        /s/ Alan Barksdale
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Alan Barksdale, Individually
**EXHIBIT99.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Patrick J. Dirk,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report Troy Group, Inc.on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2002 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q/A fairly presents inall material respects the financial condition and results of operations of TroyGroup, Inc.

 
|   | By:                                           | /s/ Patrick J. Dirk |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------|
|   | Name: Patrick J. Dirk                         |
|   | Title: President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the following Registration Statements:





| | (1) | Registration Statement Number 33-60730 on Form S-8 filed March 31, 1993,
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | Registration Statement Number 333-27459 on Form S-8 filed May 20, 1997,
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | Registration Statement Number 333-67033 on Form S-8 filed November 10, 1998,
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | Registration Statement Number 333-87996 on Form S-8 filed May 10, 2002,
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (5) | Registration Statement Number 333-89862 on Form S-4/A filed October 24, 2002,
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (6) | Registration Statement Number 333-105081 on Form S-8 filed May 8, 2003,
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (7) | Registration Statement Number 333-109353 on Form S-4 filed October 1, 2003,
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (8) | Registration Statement Number 333-123218 on Form S-3/A filed May 16, 2005,
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (9) | Registration Statement Number 333-129636 on Form S-3 filed November 10, 2005, and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (10) | Registration Statement Number 333-129632 on Form S-8 filed November 10, 2005;
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 
| | 



of our report dated March 3, 2006,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Jarden Corporation and our report dated March 3, 2006, with respect to Jarden Corporation managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Jarden Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Jarden Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York

March 3, 2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie Tufino, Also Known as Eddie Tuffino, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stephen Barrett, J.), rendered March 30, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05), for which defendant was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to 3^ to 7 years’ incarceration, unanimously affirmed.

*162The victim, after leaving church around midnight, had her attention drawn to a bystander on the street when an unidentified woman called out "Eddie”. Defendant responded. Moments afterwards, defendant confronted the victim, punched her in the face, threatened to kill her, and struggled with her over a radio. As defendant fled, the victim and the unidentified woman pursued him. When they apprehended him, a crowd held him for police. The victim made an immediate positive identification of defendant, and of the radio. After a hearing, the trial court permitted the introduction into evidence of the exclamation "Eddie” by the unidentified woman, who did not testify. Defendant has waived State and Federal constitutional claims by failure to make the appropriate objection below. *(People v Iannelli,*69 NY2d 684, 685, *cert denied*482 US 914.) Defendant also failed to preserve his bolstering claim (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gonzalez,*55 NY2d 720, 722). He also failed to preserve any challenge to the prosecution’s reference to the exclamation on summation, and the lack of a hearsay instruction when the summation comment was made, by appropriate objection, by a request for an instruction, or an exception to the lack of instruction. *(People v Balls,*69 NY2d 641; *People v Ford,*66 NY2d 428, 443.) In any event, we note that this testimony was not offered for the truth of its contents. As such, it was not hearsay (Richardson, Evidence § 203 [Prince 10th ed 1973]). Defendant’s other challenges to the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved as a matter of law *(People v Balls, supra)*and review in the interest of justice is not warranted. Were we to reach the issue we would find it to be without merit. The District Attorney’s comments were fair reply to defendant’s counsel’s repeated efforts to undermine the complainant’s credibility. Finally, there is no basis to conclude that the court in imposing sentence abused its discretion. Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7916]



[[Page 16653]]

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Pikeville National Corporation, et al.; Formations of; 
Acquisitions by; and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than April 24, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (John J. Wixted, Jr., Vice 
President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101:
    1. Pikeville National Corporation and Pikeville Acquisition 
Corporation, both of Pikeville, Kentucky; to acquire 100 percent of the 
voting shares of Woodford Bancorp, Inc., Versailles, Kentucky, and 
thereby indirectly acquire Woodford Bank and Trust Company, Versailles, 
Kentucky.
    In connection with this application Pikeville Acquisition 
Corporation, Pikeville, Kentucky, has applied become a bank holding 
company by acquiring Woodford Bancorp, Inc., Versailles, Kentucky.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice 
President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198:
    1. First Mountain Company Profit Sharing/401k and First Mountain 
Company, both of Montrose, Colorado; to become bank holding companies 
by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of First Mountain State 
Bank, Montrose, Colorado.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 27, 
1995.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-7916 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
              ----------------------------------------------------


     We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements
(No.  33-70478 and  333-62245) on Form S-8 and (No.  333-12893 and 333-47621) on
Form S-3 of Prime  Medical  Services,  Inc.  of our report  dated March 6, 2001,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Prime Medical Services,  Inc. and
subsidiaries  as of  December  31, 2000 and 1999,  and the related  consolidated
statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year  period ended  December 31, 2000,  which report appears in the
December 31, 2000, Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Prime Medical  Services,  Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP
--------------------------
Austin, Texas
March 30, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

April 6, 2010 Session

AMANDA ELLIOTT v. R. MICHAEL COBB

Interlocutory Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

No. C-05-436 Donald H. Allen, Judge

No. W2009-00961-SC-S09-CV - Filed September 23, 2010

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J., concurring.

I concur with the Court’s conclusion that Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-9-304 (2009) permits

lawyers to “argue the worth or monetary value of pain and suffering to the jury” in medical

malpractice cases. I have prepared this separate opinion to call attention to two related

matters.

First, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-9-304 requires lawyers’ arguments regarding the worth

or value of pain and suffering to “conform to the evidence or reasonable deduction[s] from

the evidence.” Thus, without evidence of pain and suffering, an argument regarding the

worth or monetary value of pain and suffering should not be permitted. When an argument

regarding the worth or monetary value of pain and suffering is made, the trial court should

instruct the jury, in accordance with T.P.I. – Civil 15.03 (2010), that “statements or

arguments made by the attorneys during the trial are not evidence.”

Second, our interpretation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-9-304 in this case did not require

us to review or to approve any particular argument regarding the worth or monetary value

of pain and suffering. Accordingly, this opinion should not be construed as necessarily

approving “per diem” arguments that are frequently used by lawyers to guide jurors in

assessing noneconomic damages. See generally Joseph H. King, Jr., Counting Angels and

Weighing Anchors: Per Diem Arguments for Noneconomic Personal Injury Tort Damages,

71 Tenn. L. Rev. 1, 49 (2004). Issues relating to the propriety of particular arguments must

await the appropriate cases.

_______________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUSTICE
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 27, 2010

d0419 

# Order

April 27, 2010

140380

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140380 COA: 284893 Jackson CC: 07-004510-FC HAROLD JAMES CARGILL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.