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

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


<TABLE><CAPTION>
                                                                              State of
                                                                            Incorporation
                                                              Percentage         or
       Parent                    Subsidiary                  of Ownership    Organization
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                         <C>                                   <C>           <C>
AMB Financial Corp.         American Savings, FSB                 100%          Federal

American Savings, FSB       NIFCO, Inc.                           100%          Indiana

NIFCO, Inc.                 Ridge Management, Inc.                100%          Indiana

AMB Financial Corp.         AMB Financial Statutory Trust I       100%        Connecticut
</TABLE>
#### Fanny Quirk, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Laughlin, J., dissented.
#### STATE v. WILSON

No. 610P87.

Case below: 87 N.C. App. 399.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 February 1988.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 467

To amend title 39, United States Code, to exempt veterans’ organizations

from regulations prohibiting the solicitation of contributions on postal

property.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 11, 1995

Mr. BILIRAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To amend title 39, United States Code, to exempt veterans’

organizations from regulations prohibiting the solicitation

of contributions on postal property.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 403 of title 39, United States Code, is

4 amended by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(d)(1) For the purpose of this subsection—

6 ‘‘(A) the term ‘veterans’ organization’ means an

7 organization described in section 501(c)(19) of the

8 Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
2

•HR 467 IH

1 ‘‘(B) the term ‘postal property’ means any real

2 property under the charge or control of the Postal

3 Service, including any real property leased by or for

4 the Postal Service.

5 ‘‘(2) The Postal Service shall take appropriate meas6 ures to ensure that nothing in its regulations shall prevent

7 a veterans’ organization from soliciting contributions on

8 postal property, so long as those activities do not impede

9 or disturb—

10 ‘‘(A) postal employees in the performance of

11 their duties; or

12 ‘‘(B) the general public in transacting business

13 or obtaining services provided on such property.’’.

Æ
191 La. 555

#### Bertha Guillory FONTENOT, Widow, v. Emile LUDEAU et al.

No. 34874.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 28, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1939.

Philo Coco, of Marksville, and Chester Coco, of Ville Platte, for appellant.

McCoy, King & Jones, of Lake Charles, and Atlee P. Steckler and Roland B. Reed, both of Ville Platte, for appellees.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The issue in this case is the same as in the case of Mrs. Emma Rosa Tate Fontenot v. Emile Ludeau et al., La.Sup., 186 So. 21. For the reasons given in the opinion rendered in that case, the judgment appealed from in this case is annulled, and the case is ordered remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion referred to. The defendants are to pay the costs of this appeal. The liability for all other court costs is to abide the final disposition of the case.
Samer Bishay is also the president and CEO of Iristel,
Canada’s leading provider of wireless IP services. As Iristel’s founder, Samer led the company from a small
startup to an international telecommunications service provider with domestic infrastructure licenses on three continents.
Prior to founding Iristel, Samer was a lead systems engineer in the Radarsat program at the Canadian Space Agency. Samer is a
graduate of the Space & Communications program at York University, with an Honors Bachelor of Science Degree.
ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONT

PR 20-0004

IN RE PETITION OF DAVID GORDON FOR

REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN

THE BAR OF MONTANA

LE

APR 1 4 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

0 R D

Smelt Mnntana

David Gordon has petitioned this Court for reinstatement to active status in the State

Bar of Montana. Gordon voluntarily chose inactive status in April 2016, and was

suspended for nonpayment of dues in June 2017. Therefore, given the circumstances and

length of time since Gordon has been on active status,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner shall submit to an investigation by the

Commission on Character and Fitness. Petitioner shall comply with the character and

fitness process and timely produce information and documentation as requested by the

Commission. The Commission will investigate Petitioner's character and fitness in

accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Character and Fitness. The

Commission may, in its discretion, conduct a limited investigation. The Commission will

advise the Court whether the Petitioner has been certified, conditionally certified, or denied

certification. If the Commission denies certification, the Commission will issue written

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decision pursuant to Section 5(c)(6) of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission on Character and Fitness. If the Petitioner is certified or

conditionally certified by the Commission on Character and Fitness, the Petitioner shall be

admitted to the active practice of law in Montana upon payment of appropriate dues and

fees and penalties to the State Bar of Montana.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if admitted, within six months of admission to

the active practice of law, Petitioner shall submit to the Board of Continuing Legal

Education, P.O. Box 577, Helena, MT 59624, proof of attendance at thirty hours of

approved Continuing Legal Education to be credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive

status.

04/14/2020

Case Number: PR 20-0004
The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to the Petitioner and the State

Bar of Montana.

DATED this I L\ day of April, 2020.

Justices

2
<PAGE>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-68801, No. 333-62767, No. 333-85556, No.
333-07409, No. 333-13887 and No. 333-62767) and in the Registration Statements
on Form S-3 (No. 333-63991, No. 333-11391, No. 333-23317 and No. 333-63891) of
Oryx Technology Corp. of our report dated April 27, 2001 relating to the
financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-KSB.

/s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
May 24, 2001
#### PAGETT v. McCAULEY, Warden.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 2, 1938.

Chester W. Pagett, in pro. per.

Before WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

In a letter addressed to me by Chester W. Pagett, he states, among other things, his desire to appeal from a decision of the District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The letter is accompanied by the record in that case and will be considered as an application for leave to appeal from such order.

The letter is accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. In the petition for writ of habeas corpus addressed to the District Court, petitioner complains that he was forced to trial on an indictment for forgery without his employed counsel and with the assistance of á court appointed attorney, in the absence of witnesses he desired to summon. He claims that he was thereby denied a right guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States. This question could be raised on appeal from the judgment of conviction, and it is doubtful if it can be raised collaterally by petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Johnson v. Zerbst, 5 Cir., 92 F.2d 748.

The District Court denied the application upon the ground that two similar applications by the petitioner already had been heard and denied. In the order denying the present application the court stated that the testimony adduced by the petitioner upon the previous applications did not sustain the allegations of the petition in that the only facts alleged in the petition which gave this court jurisdiction in the premises were not true, and this was established by the record of the superior court in which the petition was tried. The court further stated in its order that the matters and things presented in the present petition were the same as those considered by the court on two previous petitions by the petitioner, one denied June 8, 1937, and the other December 30, 1937.

In denying the present petition the court properly took judicial notice of its own records. Petitioner had a right of appeal, but did not exercise it. In view of the two previous hearings wherein the court finds the same issue had been presented, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a third application based on the same ground. The opportunity to be heard upon the second application for a writ of habeas corpus before the same judge or another judge of the *840same jurisdiction who had denied a prior similar application justifies a denial of the renewed application. In Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224, 44 S.Ct. 519, 68 L.Ed. 989, the Supreme Court held that a prior refusal to discharge a petitioner on an application for writ of habeas corpus was a matter to be considered upon a subsequent application made on similar grounds. The court cited the decision of Ex parte Cuddy, C.C., 40 F. 62, rendered by Mr. Justice Field while on circuit. See all other cases cited by the Supreme Court in Salinger v. Loisel, supra; In re Simmons, C.C., 45 F. 241; Ex parte Moebus, C.C., 148 F. 39; In re Kopel, D.C., 148 F. 505.

Application for leave to appeal is denied.
Exhibit 31.2

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification

I, Anthony R. Cole, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 of BCSB Bancorp, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4 The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying
officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: February 24, 2009



/s/ Anthony R. ColeAnthony R. ColeExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### In the Matter of Steven J. Mandel (Admitted as Steven Jay Mandel), an Attorney.

[677 NYS2d 461]

Application granted, and the Hearing Panel’s Findings and Recommendations confirmed, and respondent publicly censured. No opinion. *380Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                       
                   SUBSIDIARIES OF NEXSTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

     Name of Subsidiary                           Country/State in Which Incorporated
     ------------------                           -----------------------------------
<S>                                               <C>
NeXstar Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.            United States (Delaware)

NeXstar Pharmaceuticals GmbH                           Germany

NeXstar Farmaceutica, S.A.                             Spain

NeXstar Pharmaceuticals Italia, Srl                    Italy

NeXstar Pharmaceuticals Limited                        United Kingdom

NeXstar Pharmaceuticals International Limited          United Kingdom

NeXstar Farmaceutica Porugal, LDA                      Portugal

NeXstar Pharmaceuticals B.V.                           The Netherlands

NeXstar Pharmaceutique Sarl                            France

NeXstar Pharmaceuticals PTY Limited                    Australia

NeXstar Pharmaceuticals Limited                        Ireland

</TABLE>
OFFICE OF 

? fy- -gg ;,j 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AUSTIN.TEXAS 

PRICE DANIEL 

.4TTORNEY GEXERAI. October 7, 1947 

State Board of Barber Examiners 

202 Brueggerhoff Building 

Austin, Texas Opinion No.V-401 

_I 

Re: Whether salaries can 

be paid out of Item 7 

in Appropriation Bill 

for the State Board 

of Barber Examiners 

Attention: Mr. L. R. Holder, Secretary 

Gentlemen: 

You request our opinion as to whetner salaries 

may be paid out of ,Item 7 of your Departmental Appropriation for the biennium of 1947-1948. This item which 

appears under the neadlng of 94alntenance and MIscellaneous” , reads as follows: 

“7. Inspectors and other 

employees travel expense, shop rent, ofrice rent, orrice expense (stamps, utllities, stationery, telephone, telegraph, equlpment, etc.), court costs, 

pontlnaen$ services-, 

bond pre&s, and 

consumable supplies..$ 23,ooo.oo S 23 opo.00” 

Vol. 6, Vernon’s Texas Session Laws, 50th ieglslature, 1947, p. 821. (Emphasis added) 

Immediately following this itemization is the 

statement that: 

“Subject to the limltatlons set forth 

in the provisions appearing at the end of 

this Act, the foregoing amounts for the 

State Board of Barber Examiners are hereby appropriated . . . .v 
States Board of 

Barber Examiners, page 2 (V-401) 

2, 

the end of 

Paragraph (1411, of Section 2, appearing at 

the Act provides: 

“S. Contingent Expenses. None of the 

funds hereinabove appropriated for ‘contlngent expenses’ or ‘maintenance and miscellaneous’ shall be used for the payment of 

any salaries unless specifically authorlzed to be paid In the Itemization under the 

contingent maintenance and miscellaneous 

Items hereinabove set out and designated 

therein as ‘salaries ( ‘extra help,’ or 

‘seasonal labor. I ‘I IP. 938) 

It is our oplnion that item 7 of your Appropriation Bill is limited by paragraph (14)f, of Section 2, and that salaries cannot be paid therefrom. 

There is nothing in the itemization of Item No. 7 to 

take it out of the category of %aintenance and miscellaneous” . 

tingent”. 

Item 7, Itself, contains the word “conThe word ~‘services’~ following the word contingent must be held to mean services other than the 

payment of salaries, in order to harmonize Item 7 with 

paragraph (l&)f, of Section 2. 

SUMMARY 

Item 7 of the current appropriation for 

the State Board of Barber Examiners cannot be 

used to pay salaries In view of paragraph (14)f 

of Section 2 of the Rider to the Departmental 

Appropriation Bill. Ch.400, Acts 50th Leg., 

R. S. 1947, pp. 821, 938. 

Yours very truly, 

FD:mw 

Fag Dickson 

Fir Assistant
**AUUTIi.-. %-KXA~**  **%?#vPl ClL4W** **’ I** **’ OHlD**  **CT. PlAlvr1S**  **.&TX-OHNSSSV OICNICHAI**  January 12, 

### 1967

Honorable Wallace Shropshire Opinion No. 

### M-5 County At,torney Travis County Courthouse Re: Does evidence obt~ained Austin, Texas by an arresting officer become lnadmlsslble by reason of the arrested person being taken before amagistrate by an officer other than Dear Mr. Shropshire: the arresting officer? In your opinion request you state:

“A request is madefor an opinion from your office concerning the Interpretation of Article 

### 14.06of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states as follows:

“In each case enumerated in this Code, the person making the arrests shall immediately take the’ person arrested before the magistrate who mayhave ordered the arrest or before somemaglstrate of the county where the arrest was made without an order. Themagistrate shall Immediately perform the duties described in Article 15.17 of this Code.

“This opinion is requested because of the following facts: The Sheriff ’s Department of Travis County and the Police Department of the City of Austin during the night shift of their personnel have the occasion to makearrest of an accused during a period of time In which there is nomagistrate available in the morning, but because the night, shift goes off duty prior to the availability of the magistrate, an accused is taken before amagistrate by an officer other than the arresting officer.” Your specific questions read as follows:

“(1) Under the above circumstances, as outlined, is the State in any wayprejudiced in the criminal proceeding against the accused?



### - 18-Honorable Wallace Shropshlre, page 2 (M-5)

“(2) Underthe above circumstances, as outlined, would any physical evidence acquired by the arresting officer become inadmissable by reason of the fact that the arresting officer is not the onewhotakes the accused before the magistrate?” Article 

### 14.06,Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and Rule 5A, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, are similar in purpose andwording. This office found no construction by the courts of either of these statutes regarding the exact questions which you propounded, It Is the opinion of this office, however that under the circumstances set forth in your letter, an office other than the arresting officer maytake an accused before the magistrate if otherwise done in compliance with said Article 

### 14.06. Wetherefore answer both of your questions in the negative. SUMMARY

Anofficer other than the arresting officer may take an arrested person before the magistrate, if otherwise done in compliance with the provisions of Article 

### 14.06,whena magistrate is not available at the time of the arrest and prior to the time a magistrate becomes available, the arresting officer goes off duty. very/

REO’,lk Prepared by Robert E. Owen Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEI? Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman W.V. Geppert, Co-Chairman R. L. Lattimore Robert Norris LonnyZwiener John Banks Staff Legal Assistant A. J. Carubbi, Jr.



### - 19-
EXHIBIT 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No.  333-68801,  No. 333-62767,  No. 333-07409,  and No.
333-13887) and in the Registration  Statements on Form S-3 (No.  333-63991,  No.
333-11391 and No.  333-23317) of Oryx  Technology  Corp. of our report dated May
28,  2004  relating  to the  financial  statements,  which  appears in this Form
10-KSB.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
May 26, 2005
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Quicksilver Gas Services LP;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
   evaluation;
and
  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ Thomas F. Darden

Thomas F. DardenPresident and Chief Executive Officer