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

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                   |  |                               |  |               
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------- |  | --------------
|Name of Subsidiary |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|1.                 |  | DSP Group Ltd.                |  | Israel        
|                   |  |                              
|2.                 |  | Nihon DSP K.K.                |  | Japan         
|                   |  |                              
|3.                 |  | RF Integrated Systems, Inc.   |  | Delaware, U.S.
|                   |  |                              
|4.                 |  | DSPG Edinburgh Ltd.           |  | Scotland      
|                   |  |                              
|5.                 |  | DSP Video Korea Ltd.          |  | Korea         
|                   |  |                              
|6.                 |  | DSP R&D Ireland Ltd.          |  | Ireland
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Ampersand Medical
Corporation Consolidated Balance Sheet (Unaudited) for September 30, 2000 and
the Consolidated Statement of Operations (Unaudited) for the Nine-Months ended
September 30, 2000 and is qualifed in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              21
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      517
<ALLOWANCES>                                        22
<INVENTORY>                                        159
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2091
<PP&E>                                             451
<DEPRECIATION>                                     109
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5327
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2623
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               30
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       13095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5327
<SALES>                                            839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   839
<CGS>                                              543
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5769
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  65
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5260)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5260)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5260)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)


</TABLE>
The Honor able Ka rl S. Fore ster, Senior United States District Judge for the E astern * District of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0298n.06 Filed: Apr il 30, 2007 No. 06-5935 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
B ET TYA. CA L AB RA CE Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
V.
JOHNE. POT TE R, Po stm a ste r G e ne ra l, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE MI DDL E DI STRI CT OF TENNESSEE

Before: MARTIN and MERRITT, Circuit Judges; F OREST ER, Senior District

Judge. * KA RL S. FORESTER, S enior Distric t Judge. The Plaintiff-Appe llant , Be tty A. Calabra ce, f

iled this action ag ainst the Postmaster Gene ral of the U.S. Post al Service alleg ing that she wa s subjected to sex discrimination, sexual ha rassment, and reta liation f or eng ag ing in pr otected activity causing her to r esig n from her employ ment in violation of Title VI Iof the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Upon the completion of discovery , the def endant fi le d h is m oti on

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt on the g ro un ds that Ca la br a c e ’s c omp la int

fa ile d to e sta

bli sh a prima f acie case of sex discrimination, sex ual harassment, or retaliation. The district cour t gr anted2

the de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt, and jud g me nt wa s e nte re d in f avo r o f t he de fe nd ant.

Calabra ce ha s appea led the portion of the district c ourt’s judg ment in favor of the def endant
on h er cl ai m fo r retaliation under Title VI I . After car efully consideringthe re cord on a ppeal, the briefs of the par ties, and the a

pplicable law , and havinghad the benef it of oral a

rgument, we a g ree with the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme n t t o t h e d ef

endant. Bec ause the rea soning that
su pp or ts t he jud g me nt f

or the de fe nd ant o n C ala

br a c e ’s c la im o f r e ta liatio n h a s b e e n c le arl y articulated by

the district court in a thoroug h and compr ehensive opinion, the issuance of a deta iled writteno p in io nb y

u s w o u ld

b e un d u ly d u p li c a ti v e . T h e r e f

o r e , th e ju d g me n t r e n d e r e d b y the Ho no ra ble Willi am J. H ay

ne s, Jr., Di st ri c t Judg e fo r t he Mid dle Di str ic t of

Te nn e sse e , is AFF I RMED on the basis of the r easoningdetailed in his Opinion and Orde r date d J une 8, 2006.
#### Edwin P. Shattuck, as Receiver of New York Investment and Improvement Company, Respondent, v. Guardian Trust Company of New York, Appellant.

*899Order affirmed, with, ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. (Clarke and Houghton, JJ., dissented.)
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 570

To provide for the improved enforcement of the employer sanctions law,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 19, 1995

Mr. BEILENSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and, in addition, to the Committee on the

Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide for the improved enforcement of the employer

sanctions law, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SOCIAL SECURITY

4 CARD.

5 (a) DEVELOPMENT OF NEW CARD.—Not later than

6 January 1, 1998, the Secretary of Health and Human

7 Services, acting through the Social Security Administra8 tion and in cooperation with the Attorney General and the

9 Secretary of Labor, shall consider and develop a counter-
2

•HR 570 IH

1 feit-resistant social security card which contains finger2 print identification, barcode validation, a photograph, or

3 some other identifiable feature.

4 (b) WORK AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENT.—Not later

5 than January 1, 1998, the Attorney General shall des6 ignate the social security card as the single acceptable

7 work authorization document under the Immigration

8 Reform and Control Act.

Æ
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aubrey Jones, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 65-9.

Fifth District.

August 10, 1966.

Ralph J. Derango, of Belleville, for appellant.

John M. Karns, Jr., State’s Attorney, of Belleville (Paul M. Storment, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee.

MORAN, J.

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois. The defendant, Aubrey Jones, was indicted, tried before a jury, and found guilty of armed robbery. He was subsequently sentenced to the Illinois State Penitentiary for a term of not less than five nor more than fifteen years.

We believe that highly prejudicial testimony was erroneously admitted and that the judgment must there*173fore be reversed. In view of this error, it is unnecessary to state all of the evidence. One of the witnesses for the prosecution was Richard McCall, who had pleaded guilty to the same charge and had already been sentenced to Menard State Penitentiary. He testified that he was awakened at about 1:00 a. m. by Aubrey Jones, who wanted McCall to go with him “to keep his children.” He testified that he did not go anywhere with Jones and that, even though he met a white man somewhere, Jones was not with him. At this point, the Assistant State’s Attorney claimed surprise, based upon a statement McCall had given to the East St. Louis Police and asked the court to declare him a hostile witness. The court, stating that it had read the statement, declared McCall a hostile witness. He was questioned about his signature and admitted that he had signed the statement. The entire statement was then admitted into evidence and was passed to the jury to read. The court made no comment to the jury, and the jury was not instructed concerning the purpose of the admission or the weight to be given to the assertions contained in the statement. The statement introduced for impeachment contained many more assertions than those testified to by McCall and constituted a rather complete description of the events which took place on the night of the robbery.

 The principal purpose of the introduction of McCall’s statement was not to impeach McCall, but rather to use McCall’s confession as evidence against the defendant. No man can confess to a crime for anyone but himself. The introduction of the statement under these circumstances was reversible error. People v. Tate, 30 Ill2d 400, 197 NE2d 26; People v. Tunstall, 17 Ill2d 160, 161 NE2d 300; People v. Barrigan, 337 Ill 531, 169 NE 180.

*174For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the lower court is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

GOLDENHERSH and EBERSPACHER, JJ., concur.
#### LOUISIANA HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. TREADWAY et al.

No. 16558.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 14, 1937.

. For former opinion, see 173 So. 209.

Loys Charbonnet and James Wilkinson, both of New Orleans, for appellants.

A. S. Cain, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellee.

WESTERFIELD', Judge.

We granted a rehearing to seven of the defendants, namely, Maurice Barthelmy, C. Barthelmy, Lothrop Encalade, Ernest En-calade, Pierre Encalade, Orne St. Ann, and Norbert Thiel, limited to the question of quantum. We have thoroughly reconsidered the question and have reached the conclusion that the amount allowed in each case, which was approximately $35 per acre, being the value of the land as fixed by the jury, is correct. Four, of the defendants, C. Barthelmy, Maurice Barthel-my, Norbert Thiel, and Pierre Encalade testified that their land was worth considerably more, but on cross-examination admitted that $35 per acre was a fair valuation of the land expropriated by the highway commission. Orne St. Ann thought his land to be worth $150 per acre and Lothrop Encalade, who testified for himself and on behalf of his brother Ernest, that $95 per acre should be the basis of the award.

In view of the fact that a majority of these seven defendants have admitted that the jury made a fair award, we do not feel justified in overriding their verdict by accepting either of the two larger amounts, which a minority of the defendants fixed. All of the lands, if not contiguous, are adjacent and are worth about the same amount. The jury of freeholders residing in the vicinity were in a much more advantageous position to determine the question of value than we can possibly be, consequently, we do not believe that we should disturb their award since it does not appear to be erroneous.

In the case of Orne St. Ann we are asked to add $235, the alleged value of 65 satsuma orange trees at $5 per tree. We gave our reasons for disallowing this claim in our original opinion, and it was not our intention to reopen that subject when granting the rehearing since we proposed only to reconsider the value of the land.

For the reasons assigned, our original decree is reinstated and made the final judgment of this court

Our original decree reinstated.
UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

__________________________________________ ) CHRI STOPHER S ANDERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 06-1411 ) DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA, et al., ) ) De fe nd ants . ) __________________________________________)
ORDER This matter is befor e the Court on plaintiff’ s motion t o amend his complaint and defe ndants’ motion for judg ment on the pleading s pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the F eder al Rules of Civil Procedur e (a dditionally dockete d as a Motion to Dismiss). For the r easons state d in the Memorandum Opinion issued this same day , it is hereby

ORDE RED that pl a int if

f’ s Mo tio n to Am e nd

the Com pla int [30] i s G RA

NT ED ;
and it i s FURTHE R ORDERED that defe ndants’ Motion to Dismis s [50] and for J udg ment on the Pleading s [51] is DENI ED.

SO ORDERED.
_/s/_________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: F ebrua

ry 27, 2009
| Signature                   | Title                | Date          |
|-----------------------------|----------------------|---------------|
|                        |                 |          |   |
| By /s/ Byron J. Anderson    | Director             | June 16, 2010 |
|                        | Byron J. Anderson    |          |   |
|                        |                 |          |   |
| By /s/ Robert G. Dutcher    | Director             | June 16, 2010 |
|                        | Robert G. Dutcher    |          |   |
|                        |                 |          |   |
| By /s/ Nancy D. Frame       | Director             | June 16, 2010 |
|                        | Nancy D. Frame       |          |   |
|                        |                 |          |   |
| By /s/ Aelred J. Kurtenbach | Director             | June 16, 2010 |
|                        | Aelred J. Kurtenbach |          |   |
|                        |                 |          |   |
| By /s/ Frank J. Kurtenbach  | Director             | June 16, 2010 |
|                        | Frank J. Kurtenbach  |          |   |
|                        |                 |          |   |
| By /s/ James B. Morgan      | Director             | June 16, 2010 |
|                        | James B. Morgan      |          |   |
|                        |                 |          |   |
| By /s/ John L. Mulligan     | Director             | June 16, 2010 |
|                        | John L. Mulligan     |          |   |
|                        |                 |          |   |
| By /s/ Duane E. Sander      | Director             | June 16, 2010 |
|                        | Duane E. Sander      |          |   |
|                        |                 |          |   |
| By /s/ James A. Vellenga    | Director             | June 16, 2010 |
|                        | James A. Vellenga    |          |   |

----
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-94914 on Form S-8, Registration No. 333-30237 on Form S-8, Registration No.333-122627 on Form S-8, Registration No. 333-138971 on Form S-8, Registration No. 333-33535 on Form S-3, Registration No. 333-26539 on Form S-3 and Registration No. 333-11507 on Form S-3 of Hirsch International Corp. and Subsidiaries of our reportsdated March 24, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hirsch International Corp. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLPBDO Seidman, LLP  Melville, New York  March 24, 2008
Exhibit 31.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Mark P. Cattini, President and Chief Executive Officer of MapInfo Corporation certify that: 
1)  
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MapInfo Corporation (the "Registrant");
2)
Based on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual Report;
3)
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Annual 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 Annual Report;
4)
The Registrant's other certifying officers 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 Annual Report is being prepared;
 
b)
[paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986]
 
c)
evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Annual Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report based on such evaluation; and
 
d)
disclosed in this Annual 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;
 
 
5**)**
The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal controls 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 controls 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 controls over financial Reporting.
Dated: December 10, 2003
/s/ Mark P. Cattini
 
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Adelheid Welcke and Others, Suing in Their Own Right and on Behalf of Any Other Stockholder of the John Trageser Steam Copper Works Who May Come in and Contribute to the Expenses of This Action, Appellants, v. William C. Trageser and Others, Respondents.

Order affirmed. No opinion.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED BRIAN EVAN ROTH ,

Appellant ,
v. Case No

. 5D 21
- 2448 LT Case No. 2016
- CF

- 036747
- A STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed November 15, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Stev e Henderson, Judge. Michael Ufferman, of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. EDWARDS, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightning Gaming, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  (the “Report”), each of us certifies as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, to the best of our respective knowledge, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Registrant at the dates and for the periods indicated.





A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





Date: May 16, 2011


By:  /s/ Brian Haveson


Brian Haveson


Chief Executive Officer








Date:  May 16,2011


By:  /s/ Robert Ciunci


Robert Ciunci


Chief Financial Officer
#### Frank Morrison and Others, Appellants, v. Claude S. Washburn, Respondent.

—Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred.
Exhibit
32




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL


FINANCIAL
OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Green Planet Bioengineering Co. Limited
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mr.
Min Zhao, CEO and CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350 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 15, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/ Min
      ZhaoMin
      Zhao
                    Chief
      Executive Officer and
                    Chief
      Financial Officer
                    (Principal
      Executive Officer and
                    Principal
      Financial
Officer)
#### Earl SAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. STEELE, Corrections Officer; L. Ricks, Corrections Officer, 6-2 Shift; Darling, Corrections Officer; B. Mohead, Inmate Hearings Officer A, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-7336.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 19, 2003.

Decided Aug. 8, 2003.

Earl Sand, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

*235Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM:

Earl Sand appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Sand v. Steele,*218 F.Supp.2d 788 (E.D.Va. 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*