alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                   JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
<S>      <C>                                                  <C>
1.       Versata (Europe) Limited                             United Kingdom
2.       Versata Europe BVBA                                  Belgium
3.       Versata GmbH                                         Germany
4.       Versata France                                       France
5.       Versata (BVI) Limited                                British Virgin Islands
6.       Versata (Australia) Pty.                             Australia
7.       Versata (Canada) Limited                             Canada
8.       Versata (Asia) Limited                               Hong Kong
9.       Verve Inc.                                           United States
</TABLE>
#### Lee C. BLACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-569.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 26, 2011.

Lee C. Black, Indiantown, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

WARNER, J.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court correctly found that the appellant was procedurally barred from raising his claim. Appellant raised the identical issue in a prior rule 3.800 motion that was fully litigated and denied by the trial court. *See State v. McBride,*848 So.2d 287, 288-91 (Fla.2003). A prior judgment on the merits is final with regard to all matters addressed by the trial court in that order, even if the order was never appealed to the District Court of Appeal. *Id.*at 292.

In any event, there was no error in appellant’s habitual felony offender (HFO) sentences for armed robbery and armed burglary, as the sentencing court had the authority to sentence appellant to life imprisonment as an HFO for those offenses. Armed robbery and armed burglary are first-degree felonies punishable by life, not life felonies. *See*§§ 812.13(2)(a), 810.02(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1996); *see also Franke v. State, 997*So.2d 424, 425-26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that armed robbery and armed burglary cannot be reclassified to life felonies under section 775.087(1), Florida Statutes, because the use of a weapon or firearm is an essential element of each offense). First-degree felonies punishable by a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment are subject to enhancement under the habitual offender statute. *See Burdick v. State,*594 So.2d 267, 271 (Fla.1992) (holding that a first-degree felony punishable by life was subject to an enhanced sentence pursuant to the provisions of the habitual felony offender statute, which at the time provided for sentence enhancement for first-degree felonies but not life felonies).

*831With respect to appellant’s double jeopardy claim, a claim that a judgment of conviction was entered in violation of double jeopardy protections cannot be raised in a rule 8.800(a) motion because the challenge is to the conviction and not to the sentence. *Henry v. State,*920 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); *Safrany v. State,*895 So.2d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); *Smith v. State,*886 So.2d 336, 337-38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

*Affirmed.*

POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.1
 RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT
 MAKEMUSIC, INC.
2003 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
 
      Grant of Restricted Stock Award
 Lapse of Risk of Forfeiture of Restricted Stock
 General .
 Date
    
    Number of Shares That Become Freely Tradeable
 Termination of Relationship .




---



##### 



Issuance of Shares; Rights as a Shareholder .
 Change of Control .
 Acceleration .
 2




---



##### 



Change of Control Defined .
     Limitation on Change of Control Payments .
 Miscellaneous .
 Employment
 Securities Law Compliance .
 3




---



##### 



Mergers, Recapitalizations, Stock Splits, Etc.
 Shares Reserved
 Withholding Taxes
 Nontransferability .
 2003 Equity Incentive Plan .
 Lockup Period Limitation .
 4




---



##### 



Blue Sky Limitation .
 Stock Legend .
 Scope of Agreement .
 Arbitration .
 Accounting Compliance .
 5




---



##### 



Governing Law .
 [Signature page follows]
 6




---



##### 



MAKEMUSIC, INC.By:Its:PARTICIPANTBy execution hereof, theParticipant acknowledges havingreceived a copy of the Plan.
 7
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7172 

To make technical amendments to chapter 3084 of title 54, United States 

Code, to correct references to the African American Civil Rights Network, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 27, 2018 

Mr. CLAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To make technical amendments to chapter 3084 of title 

54, United States Code, to correct references to the 

African American Civil Rights Network, 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. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO REFERENCES TO 

4 THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS NET5 WORK. 

6 (a) CHAPTER AMENDMENTS.—Chapter 3084 of title 

7 54, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘U.S. 

8 Civil Rights Network’’ each place it appears and inserting 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7172 IH

1 ‘‘African American Civil Rights Network’’ (using identical 

2 font as used in the text being replaced). 

3 (b) AMENDMENTS TO LIST OF ITEMS.—The list of 

4 items of title 54, United States Code, is amended by strik5 ing ‘‘U.S. Civil Rights Network’’ each place it appears and 

6 inserting ‘‘African American Civil Rights Network’’ (using 

7 identical font as used in the text being replaced). 

8 (c) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law (other 

9 than in this Act), regulation, document, record, map, or 

10 other paper of the United States to the ‘‘U.S. Civil Rights 

11 Network’’ shall be considered to be a reference to the ‘‘Af12 rican American Civil Rights Network’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Wheeler *v.*Wheeler.

[No. 19,967.

Filed May 22, 1963.]

*Raikos, Barton, Rochford & Thomas,*of Indianapolis, and *John Vandivier,*of Danville, for appellant.

*Morton & Tumbove,*of Indianapolis, for appellee.

Cooper, C. J.

This matter comes before us on a purported appeal from a final judgment of the Hendricks Circuit Court on a complaint for separation from bed and board and counterclaim for annulment.

*624The appellee herein has filed a motion to dismiss this attempted appeal or to affirm the judgment below averring that the transcript of record now before us was not filed within the time allowed by Rule 2-2 of the Supreme Court of Indiana.

The record reveals that on the 9th day of November, 1962, the trial court made the following entry:

> “Come parties by respective counsel. Court hears argument and being advised, overrules defendant’s motion for new trial.”

It also affirmatively appears that the transcript of record was filed with the Clerk of the Supreme and Appellate Court on the 8th day of February, 1968, this being more than ninety (90) days after the ruling on the motion for new trial.

Rule 2-2 of our Supreme Court states, among other things, that the transcript of record and the assignment of errors must be filed within ninety (90) days from the date of judgment or the ruling on the motion for a new trial, with certain exceptions. It appears that the case now before us does not come within the exceptions.

Rule 2-6 of our Supreme Court provides, among other things, that, “There shall be attached to the front of the transcript, immediately following the index, a specific assignment of the errors relied upon by the appellant in which each specification of error shall be complete and separately numbered. . . .”

We fail to find any assignment of errors in the transcript of record as provided for by Rule 2-6.

*625*624Where there is no proper assignment of errors, such defect is jurisdictional and the attempted ap*625peal will be dismissed. See authorities cited in Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton’s, Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, §§2381-2382, 1961 Pocket Supplement.

By reason of what we have heretofore stated, this attempted appeal is dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 190 N. E. 2d 425.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20947

Summary Calendar

DONNIE D. SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BAKER GLASS COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(CA H 96-565)

July 1, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Donnie D. Smith (“Smith”) appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to the appellee, contending that the

district court erred in granting summary judgment on his claim

under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C.

§ 621 et al. After having reviewed the parties’ arguments and the2

record, we conclude that the district court committed no reversible

error. Smith did not present, as required under the familiar

burden-shifting framew ork outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Green

, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 6 68 (1973),

Atkinson v. Denton Publishing Co.

, 84 F.3d 144, 148 (5th Cir.

1996), evidence that would support a reasonable inference that the

appellee-employer’s proffered reasons for Smith’s discharge were

pretext or that age actually motivated the discharge. See Hall v.

Gillman Inc. , 81 F.3d 35, 36 (5th Cir. 1996); Rhodes v. Guiberson

Oil Tools

, 75 F.3d 989, 99 3 (5th Cir. 1996). The correctness of

the decision resulting in the adverse employment action is not

relevant to the demonstration of a discriminatory motive, Jeffries

v. Harris County Community Action Ass’n , 615 F.2d 1025, 1036 (5th

Cir. 1980); Pesterfield v. Tenn. Valley Authority , 941 F.2d 437,

443 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing cases), and Smith failed to demonstrate

that age discrimination, rather than the employer-appellee’s belief

that Smith had violated company policy, was the basis of his

discharge.
855 A.2d 760

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Robert Jeffrey FINK, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2004.

Decided Aug. 18, 2004.

Donald R. Totaro, Janna Rae Steinruck, for Com. of Pa.

Lyn R. Bailey, Lancaster, James Jude Karl, for Robert Jeffrey Fink.

Before CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, BAER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2004, the order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas is reversed insofar as it declared the Registration of Sexual Offenders Act unconstitutional, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. *See Commonwealth v. Williams,*574 Pa. 487, 832 A.2d 962 (2003); *Commonwealth v. Maldonado,*576 Pa. 101, 838 A.2d 710 (2003).

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on pages F-2 and F-3 of the
Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended May 31, 1999, and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                         105,136
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,703,960
<ALLOWANCES>                                   694,497
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,297,222
<PP&E>                                       3,458,315
<DEPRECIATION>                                 268,199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,206,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,744,860
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,142,678
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,698,668)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,206,940
<SALES>                                     13,693,453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,693,453
<CGS>                                        8,136,821
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,136,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,580,406
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             508,377
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (6,532,151)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (818,292)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,713,859)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,713,859)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.42)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. 22
- 0662 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LLOYD MORTIER BARRUS,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 5, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 29 2023

12/29/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0662
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# DATE AND TIME: 

Friday, October 8, 2010; 9:30 a.m. EDT.

# PLACE: 

624 9th St., NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425.

## Meeting Agenda

This meeting is open to the public.

I. Approval of Agenda

II. Program Planning
      - Approval of Part A of Briefing Report on English-Only in the Workplace
      - Consideration of Findings and Recommendations for Briefing Report on Health Care Disparities
      - Consideration of FY 2011 Enforcement Report Topic
      - Consideration of Policy on Commissioner Statements and Rebuttals
      - Update on New Black Panther Party Enforcement Report
      - Update on Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College Admissions—Some of the discussion of this agenda item may be held in closed session
      - Update on Clearinghouse Project

III. Staff Director's Report

IV. Announcements

V. Approval of Minutes of September 24 Meeting

VI. Adjourn

# CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591. TDD: (202) 376-8116.

Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Pamela Dunston at least seven days prior to the meeting at 202-376-8105. TDD: (202) 376-8116.

Dated: September 28, 2010.

David Blackwood,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2010-24734 Filed 9-28-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00064

- CV

Richard ARCE

, Appellant

v.

Ken MCGOUGH and Jan McGough d/b/a K&M Auto Sales,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CVDV

- 16

- 0000444

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellees recove r their costs of appeal from appellant.

SIGNED September 26, 2018.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
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 the Treasury

###### Fiscal Service

# AGENCY:

Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This is Supplement No. 2 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2010 Revision, published July 1, 2010, at 75 FR 38192.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The underwriting limitation for Allegheny Casualty Company (NAIC #13285), which was listed in the Treasury Department Circular 570, published on July 1, 2010, is hereby amended to read $1,743,000.

Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Department Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2010 Revision, to reflect this change.

                    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at                     *http://www.fms.treas.gov/​c570.*

Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

Dated: September 24, 2010.

Laura Carrico,

Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division.

[FR Doc. 2010-24635 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Garry J. Welsh, certify that:

(1)   I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gevity HR, 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15 (f))
for the registrant and have:



(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):



|Dated: March 17, 2008 |  | /s/GARRY J. WELSHGarry J. Welsh Chief Financial Officer
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7114 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

to encourage States and localities to adopt policies pertaining to the 

safe relocation of prisoners during major disasters and emergencies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2018 

Ms. MENG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency to encourage States and localities 

to adopt policies pertaining to the safe relocation of 

prisoners during major disasters and emergencies. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Natural Disaster Safe 

5 Inmate Relocation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SAFE INMATE RELOCATION. 

7 The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Man8 agement Agency shall encourage States and localities that 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7114 IH

1 receive assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

2 Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et 

3 seq.) to adopt policies regarding the safe relocation of pris4 oners before, during, and after major disasters and emer5 gencies, as appropriate. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Telly HANKTON, et al.

No. 2010-KK-2791.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 491-394; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1397.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of MakeMusic, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, William R. Wolff, Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
      pursuant to §906 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.





May
      2,
      2006




/s/
                William R. Wolff
              Chief
                Executive Officer






20