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



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                                                      |  |                                  |  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------- | -
|NAME AND STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION                 |  | REGISTRANTS PERCENTAGEOWNERSHIP |  
|Foothill Independent Bank, a California corporation                   |  | 100                              | %
|Foothill BPC, Inc., a California corporation                          |  | 100                              | %
|Foothill Independent Statutory Trust I, a Connecticut statutory trust |  | 100                              | %



In accordance with the
instructions set forth in Paragraph (b) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K, there have been omitted those subsidiaries that, if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary as of December 31, 2003.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

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

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

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

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group; Health, Behavior, and Context Subcommittee.                     

*Date:*                         October 27-28, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 12 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Michele C. Hindi-Alexander, PhD, Division of Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Development, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5b01, Bethesda, MD 20812-7510, (301) 435-8382,                         *hindialm@mail.nih.gov*.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: September 23, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. E8-23095 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS

KATHRYN KIPLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Minnesota

Division of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,

Defendant.

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

The parties appeared this morning for a status conference. Consistent with matters

discussed at the status conference,

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The pretrial conference on October 29, 2012, and all related deadlines, and the

trial set to commence on November 26, 2012, are VACATED, to be reset at a later date;

(2) The plaintiff is granted leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 26]. The sur-reply may not exceed five pages and shall

be filed on or before October 17, 2012; and

(3) Argument on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 26] is set for

one hour on November 2, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 401, 4th floor, Alfred A. Arraj

United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.

Case 1:11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS Document 51 Filed 10/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Dated October 10, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS Document 51 Filed 10/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 21
  SUBSIDIARIES
    OF THE REGISTRANT
  Jurisdiction ofIncorporation orOrganizationSchawk Thailand Ltd.

ThailandAnthem Design & Consulting (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.

ChinaSchawk Japan, Ltd.

JapanSchawk Worldwide Holdings Inc.

United StatesSchawk Holdings, Inc.

United StatesSeven Seattle, Inc.

United StatesSchawk USA Inc.

United StatesKedzie Aircraft LLC

United StatesSchawk LLC

United StatesSchawk de Mexico SRL de CV

MexicoSchawk Servicios Administrativos SRL de CV

MexicoMiramar Equipment, Inc.

United StatesSchawk Digital Solutions Inc.

United StatesSeven Worldwide UK Ltd.

United KingdomSchawk Holdings (Gibraltar) Ltd

GibraltarWinnetts UK Ltd.

United KingdomSchawk (Gibraltar) Ltd

GibraltarSchawk (Gibraltar) Ltd. Luxembourg SCS

LuxembourgSchawk Luxembourg SARL

LuxembourgSchawk Hong Kong Ltd

HongkongSchawk Belgium BVBA

BelgiumSchawk Poland Sp z.o.o.

PolandSchawk Spain, SL

SpainSchawk Wace Group

United KingdomSchawk UK Holdings Ltd.

United KingdomSeven Worldwide Ltd.

United KingdomSchawk UK Ltd.

United KingdomWace Wiltshire Ltd.

United KingdomSchawk UK Corporate Packaging Ltd.

United KingdomSchawk Germany GMBH

GermanySchawk UK Overseas Investments Ltd.

United KingdomGallions Estates Ltd.

United KingdomRipley Group Ltd.

United KingdomClyde Gravure Ltd.

United KingdomRiddington and Co. Ltd.

United KingdomRipley and Co. Ltd

United KingdomRipley Roll Lable Ltd.

United KingdomScrutton Speed Ltd.

United KingdomDulip Ltd

United KingdomSchawk Canada, Inc.

CanadaProtopak Innovations, Inc.

CanadaBrandmark International Holding B.V.

Netherlands




---



##### 



Jurisdiction ofIncorporation orOrganizationDJPA Partnership B.V

NetherlandsDJPA Partnership Ltd

United KingdomSchawk Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.

SingaporeAnthem Design Singapore Pte. Ltd

SingaporeSchawk India Pty. Ltd.

IndiaSchawk Holdings Australia Pty Ltd.

AustraliaSchawk Australia Pty. Ltd.

AustraliaAnthem! Design Pty Ltd.

AustraliaMarque Brand Consultants Pty Ltd.

AustraliaSchawk Labuan, Inc.

MalaysiaSchawk BVI Services, Inc.

British Virgin IslandsSchawk BVI Holdings, Inc.

British Virgin IslandsSchawk Imaging Sdn. Bhd.

MalaysiaSchawk Kuala Lumpur Sdn. Bhd.

MalaysiaSchawk Penang Sdn. Bhd.

MalaysiaSchawk Imaging (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.

ChinaLaserscan Technology (M) Sdn. Bhd.

Malaysia
Amendment to Shared Sevices Agreement



 Exhibit 10.94 
  
 AMENDMENT TO SHARED SERVICES AGREEMENT 
  
 This Amendment dated as of December 30, 2003 by and between Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (“Nexstar”) and Mission Broadcasting, Inc.
(“Mission”) is made to that certain Shared Services Agreement dated as of February 16, 1999 by and between VHR Broadcasting of Springfield, Inc. (“VHR”) and Quorum Broadcasting of Missouri, Inc. (“Quorum”), as amended
(the “Agreement”). 
  
 WHEREAS, VHR is the operator of
television broadcast station KOLR, Springfield, Missouri (the “Station”) and its subsidiary VHR Springfield License, Inc. (“VHR License”) is the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) licensee of the Station;

  
 WHEREAS, Quorum is the operator of television broadcast
station KDEB-TV, Springfield, Missouri and its subsidiary Quorum of Missouri License, LLC is the FCC licensee of station KDEB-TV; 
  
 WHEREAS, VHR and Quorum entered into the Agreement for their mutual benefit; 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to FCC consent, Kenos Broadcasting, Inc. is (i) acquiring all of VHR’s and VHR License’s rights,
title and interest in and to the Station and then (ii) merging with and into Mission; and 
  
 WHEREAS, also pursuant to FCC consent, Nexstar is acquiring Quorum’s and Quorum License’s rights, title and interest in and to KDEB-TV; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Mission and Nexstar intend that the Agreement between VHR and Quorum remain in effect with certain changes in
terms. 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the
foregoing, Nexstar and Mission hereby amend the Agreement as follows: 
  
 1. Mission is hereby assuming all of VHR’s and VHR License’s rights and obligations under the Agreement. 
  
 2. Nexstar is hereby assuming all of Quorum’s and Quorum License’s rights and obligations under the Agreement. 
  
 3. Paragraph 4(g) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the
following is substituted in its place: “4(g) Services Fee. In consideration for the services to be provided to KOLR by Nexstar personnel as described in Sections 4(a) through 4(f), Mission will pay to Nexstar the fee (the “Services
Fee”) described in this Section 4(g). 
  
 (i) Base Amount. Subject to the remaining provisions of this Section 4(g), the base amount of the Services Fee will be $150,000 per month. 
  









 (ii) Payment Terms. The Services Fee will be payable monthly, in arrears, from and after
the month during which this Agreement is executed, and will be prorated on a daily basis for first and last months during which the sharing arrangements described in Sections 4(a) through 4(t) are in effect. 
  
 4. As so amended, all sections and provisions of the Agreement are hereby
ratified in full. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
executed this amendment as of the date first written above. 
  

			
	 NEXSTAR BROADCASTING, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ G. Robert Thompson

	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	 G. Robert Thompson

	 Title:
	 	 Chief Financial Officer



  

			
	 MISSION BROADCASTING, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ David S. Smith

	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	 David S. Smith

	 Title:
	 	 President



  

 2
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 11.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                           Quarter Ended
                                                                                             March 31,
                                                                                   --------------------------------
                                                                                       1999               1998
                                                                                   -------------      -------------
                                                                                        (Dollars in thousands
                                                                                          except share data)
<S>                                                                                <C>                <C>
Diluted net loss per share:
 Net loss                                                                          $    (25,953)      $      (4,665)
 Preferred Stock dividend                                                                                       417
                                                                                   -------------      --------------
 Net loss available to common shareholders                                         $    (25,953)      $      (5,082)
                                                                                   =============      ==============
 Average number of shares outstanding                                                10,885,000           9,742,778
 Net effect of dilutive stock options-based on treasury stock method                                            ---
                                                                                   -------------      --------------
    Total average shares                                                           $ 10,885,000           9,742,778
                                                                                   =============      ==============
 Diluted net loss per share                                                        $      (2.38)       $      (0.52)
                                                                                   =============      ==============
</TABLE>

                                      27
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00356-PAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. MICKEY MARIE PALMORE,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Disclose Matters

Occurring Before Grand Jury [Docket No. 3]. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i),

the government seeks permission “to disclose to the defendant and her attorney the

following matters occurring before the grand jury: (1) The transcript of the testimony of

the witness who testified before the grand jury and provided the evidence that resulted

in the Indictment in this case and (2) the exhibits that were used during that testimony.” 

Docket No. 3 at 1.

“There is ‘a long-established policy that maintains the secrecy of the grand jury

proceedings in the federal courts.’” In re Lynde, 922 F.2d 1448, 1452 (10th Cir. 1991)

(quoting United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 (1958)). As the

party seeking disclosure, the government must show that “the material [it] seek[s] is

needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding, that the need for

disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy, and that [its] request is
2

structured to cover only material so needed.” Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops

Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979); see United States v. Edge, 315 F. App’x 92, 96

(10th Cir. 2009) (Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) & (ii); United States v. Riley, 292 F. App’x 717, 722

(10th Cir. 2008) (Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii)). “The most significant of these factors is that the

party seeking disclosure must sufficiently demonstrate the requisite ‘particularized

need.’” In re Lynde, 922 F.2d at 1452. These “prerequisites for disclosure of grand jury

materials are demanding.” In re Grand Jury 95-1, 118 F.3d 1433, 1437 (10th Cir.

1997). The government’s motion, however, is silent as to whether Ms. Palmore has

requested grand jury materials and, if so, what limitations may be appropriate regarding

Ms. Palmore’s use or retention of such materials in connection with this case.

Therefore, it is

ORDERED the Government’s Motion to Disclose Matters Occurring Before

Grand Jury [Docket No. 3] is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED September 7, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02391-RPM-KMT

MARVIN J. THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,

d/b/a Denver Public Schools,

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

____________________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to and in accordance with the Order entered by Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch,

at the Pretrial Conference on June 21, 2013 [32], incorporated herein by reference, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff’s race discrimination claim under C.R.S. § 24-34-402 is dismissed.

This matter was tried on November 4, 2013, through November 6, 2013, before an empaneled jury

of twelve, Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch presiding. The trial proceeded to conclusion and the jury

found that plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant discriminated against

him because of his race, African American, in terminating his employment as a custodian at East High

School.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of defendant School District No. 1

in the City and County of Denver, d/b/a Denver Public Schools and against plaintiff Marvin J. Thomas.

It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver,

d/b/a Denver Public Schools shall have its costs by the filing of a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of this Court

within fourteen days of the entry of judgment. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint and this civil action are dismissed.

Case 1:11-cv-02391-RPM-KMT Document 47 Filed 11/06/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02391-RPM-KMT

Page 2

 DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 6th day of November , 2013.

FOR THE COURT:

Jeffrey P. Colwell, Clerk

s/J. Chris Smith

By: ____________________________________

 Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02391-RPM-KMT Document 47 Filed 11/06/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

JUDGE R. BROOKE JACKSON

Courtroom Deputy: Laura Galera

Court Reporter: Kara Spitler

Date: September 11, 2012

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01950-RBJ 

Parties:

TERESA GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

J GRAYSON ROBINSON,

DAVID WALCHER,

VINCE LINE,

DAVID WELLMAN, and

MARK CAMPBELL, 

Defendants.

Counsel:

Joseph Salazar

Lisa Shellenberger

Robin Cochran

John Christofferson

COURTROOM MINUTES

MOTION HEARING 

Court in session: 1:30 p.m.

Appearances of counsel.

Court addresses the parties regarding a possible conflict.

1:34 p.m. Argument by Ms. Cochran as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a

Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 15(a)(2) #[58].

1:38 p.m. Argument by Ms. Cochran as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment #[43].

2:02 p.m. Argument by Mr. Salazar as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary

Case 1:11-cv-01950-RBJ-CBS Document 68 Filed 09/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Judgment #[43].

2:33 p.m. Argument by Mr. Salazar as to Defendants’ Arapahoe County Sheriff’s

Office, J. Grayson Robinson, Mark Campbell, David Walcher, Vince Line,

David Wellman and Tom McNevin Motion for Summary Judgment #[46]. 

Court in recess: 2:52 p.m.

Court in session: 3:05 p.m.

Argument by Ms. Cochran as to Defendants’ Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office, J.

Grayson Robinson, Mark Campbell, David Walcher, Vince Line, David Wellman and

Tom McNevin Motion for Summary Judgment #[46]. 

3:50 p.m. Rebuttal argument by Mr. Salazar.

Mr. Salazar makes an Oral Motion to Dismiss Defendants David Wellman and David

Walcher.

Defendant has no objection.

4:19 p.m. Ms. Cochran addresses the Court.

For the reasons and findings as stated on the record, it is;

ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint Pursuant

to F.R.C.P. 15(a)(2) #[58] is GRANTED.

ORDERED: Substitution of Counsel and Entry of Appearance #[66] is GRANTED.

ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Oral Motion to Dismiss Defendants and David Wellman and

David Walcher is GRANTED.

Court will issue a written ruling as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

#[43] and Defendants’ Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office, J. Grayson Robinson, Mark

Campbell, David Walcher, Vince Line, David Wellman and Tom McNevin Motion for

Summary Judgment #[46].

Court in recess: 4:26 p.m.

Hearing concluded.

Total time: 02:44

Case 1:11-cv-01950-RBJ-CBS Document 68 Filed 09/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,278
<SECURITIES>                                    26,585
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,248
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                      2,449
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,840
<PP&E>                                           2,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                     614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,795
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           111
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,588
<SALES>                                          2,866
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,086
<CGS>                                            1,268
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,674
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   848
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,370
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,507
<INCOME-TAX>                                       625
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,882
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,882
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        


</TABLE>
#### DEFILICE v. AUTIN.

No. 1202.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1933.

Harvey Peltier and Hubert A. Lafargue, both of Thibodaux, for appellant.

Howell & Deramee, of Thibodaux, for ap-pellee.

LE BLANC, Judge.

We search the record in this case in vain for an order of appeal granted by the district judge. Neither do we find an extract of the minutes of court to show that an appeal was granted on motion made in open court. True, we find a bond for a devolutive appeal furnished by the defendant, but even this bond does not show that the appeal was taken to this court.

The order of the judge granting the appeal is the foundation of the appeal, and the appellate court will ex officio notice the lack of such an order,.and on their own motion dismiss the appeal. Gagneaux v. Desonier, 104 La. 648, 29 So. 282. The mere filing of an appeal bond, conceding the bond in this case to be valid, does not divest the lower court of jurisdiction. The order of appeal, no matter ill what form the application is made, is essential. McKnight v. Denouvion, 22 La. Ann. 373.

This whole subject is extensively discussed in the case of Gagneaux v. Desonier, supra, and is also commented on at length by this court in the case of Nona Mills Co., Ltd., v. W. W. Gary Lumber Company, 15 La. App. 560, 132 So. 257 (on rehearing).

Further remarks would be more in the nature of repetition, which we deem unnecessary.

For the reasons stated, it is ordered that the appeal herein be, and the same is hereby, dismissed at the appellant’s costs.

MOUTON, J., not participating.