alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit No. 21.1

                           Fisher Communications, Inc.
                                  Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Subsidiary                                                         Jurisdiction in Which Organized
<S>                                                                <C>
Fisher Broadcasting Company                                        Washington
Fisher Mills Inc.                                                  Washington
Fisher Properties Inc.                                             Washington
Fisher Media Services Company                                      Washington
Fisher Pathways, Inc. /(1)/                                        Washington
Fisher Radio Regional Group Inc. /(2)/                             Washington
Valley Milling Company /(3)/                                       Washington
Fisher Broadcasting - Georgia, L.L.C. /(2)/                        Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Seattle TV, L.L.C. /(2)/                     Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Seattle Radio, L.L.C. /(2)/                  Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Portland TV, L.L.C. /(2)/                    Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Portland Radio, L.L.C. /(2)/                 Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Oregon TV, L.L.C. /(2)/                      Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Washington TV, L.L.C. /(2)/                  Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - Idaho TV, L.L.C. /(2)/                       Delaware
Fisher Broadcasting - S.E. Idaho TV, L.L.C. /(2)/                  Delaware
Fisher Entertainment, L.L.C. /(1)/                                 Delaware
Civia, Inc. /(1)/                                                  Delaware
</TABLE>

(1) Wholly owned by Fisher Media Services Company
(2) Wholly owned by Fisher Broadcasting Company
(3) Wholly owned by Fisher Mills Inc.
1 APPEAL NO. 01

- 14

- 00054 -CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

ALPHONSON MALONE § APPELLANT

§

VS. §

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT L AW # 8

OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT NO. 1899612

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE APPELLANT'S M OTION FOR A RE HEARING

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:

NOW COMES, ALPHONSON MALONE

, Appellant in the above styled and

numbered cause, by and through h is attorney of record, GARY TABAKMAN , files

this Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s M otion for a Re h earing of

30 Days in the above entitled and numbered cause. In support of this Motion,

Appellant will show as follows:

I.

T he Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas rendered Opinion in this ACCEPTED

01-14-00054-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/19/2015 3:44:58 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2 cause on February 10, 2015. Per T ex. R. App. P. 49.1, Appellant may file a motion

for rehearing within fifteen days o f the court ’ s judgment or order.

II

.

In the past 20 days, counsel for Appellant has been away from practice due to

the birth of a child and has returned to work on February 19, 2015

.

I II

.

Due to the above in for mation, Counsel has not had adequate time to r eview

the Opinion and prepare a Motion for Re h earing

.

I V.

Appellant is requesting a twenty ( 3 0 ) day extension t o file a Motion for

Re h earing

.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant Malone prays that

the deadline for filing of Appellant’s M otion for Rehearing be extended for twenty

( 3 0 ) days.3 Respectfully submitted,

/S/ Gary Tabakman

BY: GARY TABAKMAN

Attorney for Appellant

712 Main St. Ste 2400

Houston, TX 77002

(713) 228

- 8500

(713) 228

- 0034 (Fax)

State Bar No. 24076065

Gary@BSDLawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Rule 9 of the Texas Rules Appellate Procedure, the undersigned counsel

of record certifi es that the motion contains 2 94 words.

/S/ Gary Tabakman

GARY TABAKMAN

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Motion

for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s M otion for Rehearing was served via e

- mail

delivery through eFile.TXCourts.gov to the Assistant District Attorney, Harris County

District Attorney’s Office

, on February 19, 2015

.

/S/ Gary Tabakman

GARY TABAKMAN4 NO. 01

- 14

- 00054

- CR

ALPHONSON MALONE, § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appellant §

VS. § IN HOUSTON , TEXAS

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, § 1 st JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Appellee

ORDER

On this the _____ day of _______________, 201 5 , came on to be heard the

Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File M otion for Rehearing and the Court

is of the opinion that this Mot ion should be:

GRANTED, and the deadline for filing the Appellant's brief in No.

01

- 14

- 00054

- CR is extended to _______________ _____, 20 1 5

.

DENIED, to which action of the Court the Appellant objects.

SIGNED this the _____ day of _______________, 20 1 5

.

__________________________________ JUSTICE PRESIDING
#### Terry D. GRAHAM, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-2818.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 31, 2011.

Terry D. Graham, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition seeking belated appeal of the judgment and sentence rendered on February 22, 2011, in Okaloosa County Circuit Court case numbers 2009-CF-2403 and 2010-CF-918, is granted. Upon issuance of mandate, a copy of this opinion shall be furnished to the clerk of the lower tribunal for treatment as a notice of appeal. If petitioner qualifies for the appointment of counsel at public expense, the lower tribunal is directed to appoint counsel to represent him in the belated appeal authorized by this opinion.

VAN NORTWICK, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Lee Roy WARREN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0404.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Warren, Lee Roy; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 02F0432; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-271-KH.

Denied.
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance










Exhibit 10.1




Summary of Fiscal 2009 Management Incentive Plan for Tandy Brands Accessories, Inc.




On December 19, 2008, the Board of Directors of Tandy Brands Accessories, Inc. (the “Company”), upon
recommendation of the Company’s Compensation Committee, approved the Company’s fiscal 2009 management incentive plan,
pursuant to which cash bonuses for the Company’s executive officers will be determined for fiscal 2009. Under the
management incentive plan, target payout opportunities are expressed as a percentage of base salary, with threshold,
target and maximum payout opportunities expressed as a percentage of the target award (actual payouts may generally
range anywhere between the threshold and maximum percentages). No cash bonuses will be paid if threshold performance
is not achieved. For fiscal 2009, the Board approved the target bonus for the Company’s Chief Executive Officer at 75%
of base salary and the target bonus for the Company’s other executive officers at 50% of base salary. Bonus amounts
will vary depending on the Company’s performance against target goals. If the Company achieves (a) the threshold
level, the participant would be eligible for 50% of the target bonus, (b) the target level, the participant would be
eligible for 100% of the target bonus, and (c) the maximum level, the participant would be eligible for 200% of the
target bonus. The actual bonus paid may be varied up to 20% higher or lower based on a subjective assessment of the
individual’s performance and contribution to achieving the Company’s goals.



Payout opportunities are based 25% on planned net revenue and 75% on profit before tax and are set at performance
levels that, in the judgment of the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors, will facilitate the Company’s
overall growth and performance. In addition, the Board may, in its discretion, adjust the target measures to exclude
one-time, non-operating items that may occur during the performance period. All executive officer payouts are subject
to Board approval.


 


5
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor ProtectionAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Pehong Chen, the ChiefExecutive Officer of BroadVision, Inc. (the “Company”), and Philip Oreste, theChief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the bestof his knowledge:

 

**1.            **TheCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2002, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the “PeriodicReport”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

**2.            **Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the periodcovered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for theperiod covered by the Periodic Report.

 

 

Dated:   November 14, 2002

 

 
| /s/  Pehong Chen         |   | /s/  Philip L. Oreste    |
|--------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
| Pehong  Chen             |   | Philip  L. Oreste        |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1997 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,530
<SECURITIES>                                     1,978
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,842
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     44,559
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          32,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,888
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,580
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,454<F1>
<BONDS>                                            534
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           201
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,580
<SALES>                                          4,742
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,830
<CGS>                                            2,842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,390
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (567)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 349
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,658
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,346
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,312
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,312
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY UTILIZES AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET PRESENTATION. THIS FORMAT
WAS FOLLOWED BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE VIDEOCASSETTE RENTAL INVENTORY
REPRESENTS ASSETS USED BY THE COMPANY TO GENERATE CURRENT OPERATING INCOME, AND
MANAGEMENT BELIEVES THAT TO CLASSIFY ALL OF THESE COSTS AS NONCURRENT WOULD BE
MISLEADING TO THE READERS OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT
INDICATE THE LEVEL OF ASSETS EXPECTED TO BE CONVERTED INTO CASH IN THE NEXT
YEAR AS A RESULT OF THE RENTALS OF THE VIDEOCASSETTES.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**ANTHONY JOHNSON,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 549 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 22nd day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 89 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1995, AT 10 A.M.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come 
before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under 
the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 72.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 2:20 p.m., adjourned until 
Monday, June 5, 1995, at 10 a.m. 

```
#### Leonel CRESPO and Milada Alvarez Crespo, Appellants, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC, Appellee.

No. 3D09-3228.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 22, 2010.

John H. Ruiz, Miami, for appellants.

Butler & Hosch, Thomasina F. Moore, and Dennis W. Moore, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, SHEPHERD, and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See*15 U.S.C. § 1603(3) (2008); *Thompson v. Bank of N.Y.,*862 So.2d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
#### Methodist Hospital of Indiana, Inc. *v.*Skelton

[No. 19,550.

Filed October 26, 1960.]

*Rocap, Rocap & Reese*and *David B. Caldwell,*both of Indianapolis, for appellant.

*Robert W. Neal,*of Brazil, and *Fred L. Steinhauer,*of Indianapolis, for appellee.

*218JBierly, C. J.

The Judge of the Marion Superior Court, Room 5, on June 29, 1960 overruled appellant’s motion for a new trial in said cause. On September 16, 1960, following an unsuccessful attempt to make settlement of the cause of action, appellant filed a Praecipe for the entire record in this cause in said Superior Court, Room 5, with the Clerk of said court, looking to an appeal of said cause.

On September 27, 1960, appellant filed a Petition for Extension of Time To File Transcript of the Record, which Petition was resisted by appellee’s Objections to Appellant’s Petition for Extension of Time To File Transcript and Assignment of Errors, and in addition thereto, incorporated a Motion To Dismiss Appeal, with an appended memorandum filed September 30, 1960. Timely proof of service of notice was shown in each case. Appellant filed no answer to appellee’s Motion To Dismiss.

Prior to any action by this court on appellant’s Petition for Extension of Time To File Transcript and Assignment of Errors, Objections thereto, filed by appellee, and on appellee’s Motion To Dismiss cause of action, the appellant, on October 17, 1960, filed a written “Dismissal of Appeal.” Notice of this action was served upon the attorney for appellee on same date.

Appellee’s having filed no reply to Appellant’s Dismissal of Appeal, and, having heretofore filed a Motion To Dismiss Appeal, apparently offers no objections to appellant’s dismissal of action.

And it appearing to the court that appellee is in agreement with the appellant to the effect that this cause be dismissed, the court now finds that appellant’s Motion for Dismissal of action should be sustained.

*219And the court now dismisses said cause of action with costs, if any, taxed against appellant.

.Note. — Reported in 169 N. E. 2d 619.
Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David M. Bronson, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ David M. BronsonDavid M. Bronson 
Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer

August 9, 2004
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 18 - 00249 - CR RAND ALL CAMPBELL, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 181st District Court Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 28,441 - B, Honorable John B. Board, Presiding



### August 16 , 2018 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and P ARKER , JJ. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Randall Campbell was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in an amount less than one gram , 1 sentenced to fifteen months’ confinement , and assessed a $ 1 ,000 fine. T he trial court’s certification of appellant’s right of appeal reflects that appellant’s case is a plea - bargain case with no right of appeal and that appellant waived the right of appeal . See T EX . R. A PP . P.

1 T EX . H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . § 481.115 (b) (West 2017 ) (a state jail felony).2

25.2(a)(2), (d). Notwithstanding the certification, a ppellant filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging his conviction 2 and later filed a Motion to Quash Indictment . We are required by a ppellate r ule 25.2(d) to dismiss an appeal “ if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. ” T EX . R. A PP . P . 25.2(d) . By letter dated July 31 , 2018 , we notified appellant of the consequences of the certification and invited him to file an amended certification showing a right of appeal or demonstrate other grounds for continuing the appeal on or before August 13 . Appellant filed a respo nse but did not file an amended certification reflecting a right of appeal or establish grounds for continuing th e appeal. Accordingly , the appeal is dismissed and appellant’s Motion to Quash Indictment is moot . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 25.2(d) . Judy C. Parker Justice Do not publish.

2 Appellant filed his notice of appeal with the Potter County d istrict c lerk on June 6, 2018. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(c), 9.2(b) (mailbox rule). The notice did not i dentify a trial court or trial court cause number . T he district clerk forwarded a copy of the notice to this Court for filing , along with a copy of appellant’s judgment of conviction in trial court cause number 74,127 - D in the 320th District Court for Potter County . On July 23, 2018, appellant filed a letter with th e Court clarifying his inte nt to appeal his criminal conviction in trial court cause number 28 , 441 - B in the 181st District Court for Randall County. The Court construed this filing as an amended notice of appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(f); Few v. State , 230 S.W.3d 184, 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

                               Eggleston Smith, PC
                  Certified Public Accountants and Consultants
                              603 Pilot House Drive
                                    Suite 400
                          Newport News, Virginia 23606



Board of Directors
Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc.


    We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of our report dated January 31, 2000, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. as of December 31, 1999,
1998, and for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1999.

                                           EGGLESTON SMITH P.C.







Newport News, Virginia
March 27, 2000
Department of the United States Air Force LogoBiography
                  United States Air ForceBrig. Gen. Alkire, Darr Hayes
            Brigadier General DARR HAYES ALKIREBrigadier General Darr Hayes Alkire was born in Fay, Nev. He graduated from high school at Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1913, and attended the University of Utah for two years.
Appointed a flying cadet March 10, 1924, General Alkire entered Primary Flying School at Brooks Field, Texas, graduated from Advanced Flying School at Kelly Field, Texas, March 14, 1925, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Reserve. Receiving his regular commission as a second lieutenant of Air Corps June 30, 1926, he was assigned with the Sixth Pursuit Squadron at Wheeler Field, Hawaii. In April 1930 he became a flying instructor at the Flying School at March Field, Calif., and in October 1931 moved in that capacity to the Flying School at Randolph Field, Texas.
Assuming command of the 96th Bomb Squadron at Langley Field, Va., in June 1937, in January 1942 General Alkire assumed command of the Second Bomb Group there, and that November he was appointed commanding officer of the 100th Bomb Group at Kearney, Neb. Moving to Biggs Field, Texas in May 1943 he was air inspector of the 16th Bomb Wing, and the following month was moved chief of staff of the First Bomber Command there.
Going to the Mediterranean Theater of Operations that November, General Alkire assumed command of the 449th Bomb Group. Shot down and captured Jan. 31, 1944, he was released from prisoner-of-war camp in April 1945, and returned to the United States. That September he was named deputy for supply of the Sacramento Air Technical Service Command at McClellan Field, Calif. He went to Tokyo, Japan as deputy chief of staff for materiel of the Far East Air Forces in July 1948.
Four years later General Alkire was appointed commanding general of the Newark Transportation Control Depot, N.J. On Dec. 1, 1954 he assumed command of the 3101st U.S. Air Force Logistic Control Group at Brooklyn Army Base, N.Y., with additional duty as commanding general of the Newark Transportation Control Depot.
His decorations include the Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal with oak leaf cluster. He is rated a command pilot.**EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION**
He was promoted to first lieutenant (permanent) Aug. 1, 1932; to captain (permanent) June 30, 1946; to major (temporary) Feb. 3, 1948; to lieutenant colonel (temporary) Jan. 1942Department of the Air Force Logo
760 A.2d 848

#### In the Matter of Christopher G. MARTUCCI.

No. 617 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 5, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2000, Christopher G. Martucci having been disbarred by consent from the practice *342of law in the State of New Jersey by Order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey dated July 12, 2000; the said Christopher G. Martucci having waived the issuance of notice and an order under Rule 216(a), Pa.R.D.E., directing him to inform this Court of any claim he has that the imposition of the identical or comparable discipline in this Commonwealth would be unwarranted and the reasons therefor, it is

ORDERED that Christopher G. Martucci is disbarred from the practice of law in this Commonwealth, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.