alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF QUOVADX, INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       SUBSIDIARY                          STATE OR JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.              Rogue Wave Software, Inc.                          a Delaware corporation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.                  CareScience, Inc.                            a Pennsylvania corporation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.              Outlaw Technologies, Inc.                          a Colorado corporation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.                   Quovadx Limited                       a company formed in the United Kingdom

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.             Healthcare.com Corporation                          a Georgia corporation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.                Confer Software, Inc.                           a California corporation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.               Integrated Media, Inc.                            a New York corporation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.              United/HealthScope, Inc.                           a Delaware corporation
              d/b/a Advica Health Resources
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.1

                            CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS, INC.

                                 1999 BONUS PLAN

For 1999 the Board of Directors approved the 1999 Bonus Plan. The 1998 Bonus
Plan provides for a Bonus Pool to be formed when earnings per share ("EPS")
increases over a defined target. The Bonus Pool is then apportioned among four
(4) groups of employees; corporate officers; vice presidents, middle management
and front line employees. Each group has a targeted bonus percentage assigned
which is adjusted, depending on the percentage increase or decrease over the
targeted EPS growth. Other than for Messrs. Aguilera, Dowd, Reilly, Reinhold and
Smith, who's bonuses are determined solely on the basis of financial performance
of the Company, all participants will have a percentage of their bonuses
determined by individual performance. No Bonus Pool will be formed unless 1999
EPS attains a specified level. The specified minimum target for EPS was not
attained for the fiscal year 1999 and therefore no bonuses were paid. No
discretionary bonuses were paid for the fiscal year 1999.
NAC Aeronautics Committee Internal Agenda
	

Thursday-Friday, March 27-28, 2014
	

NASA Headquarters
	

300 E Street, SW
	

Washington, DC
	

Room 6E40
	

Thursday, March 27 (Sessions are public except as noted)
	

9:00 am to 9:10 am Welcome and announcements
�

9:10 am to 9:30 am Work Plan and Schedule Discussion
�

9:30 am to 10:00 am FY15 Budget
�

10:00 am to 12:00 pm ARMD Program Reorganization
�

12:00 pm to 1:00 pm Lunch (non-public)
�

1:00 pm to 3:00 pm Transformative Aeronautics Concepts Program 

3:00 pm to 4:00 pm Fundamental Aeronautics Program 

Foundational Technologies 

4:00 pm to 4:45 pm Committee Deliberations
�

4:45pm to 5:00 pm Public Comment Period
�

5:00 PM Adjourn
�
Friday, March 28 (Sessions are public except as noted)
	

9:00 am to 9:10 am Welcome and announcements
�

9:10 am to 10:15 am University Engagement
�

10:15 am to 11:30 pm System-Wide Safety Assurance Thrust 

Overview
�

11:30 am to 12:00 pm Committee Deliberations
�

12:00pm to 12:15 pm Public Comment Period
�

12:15 PM Adjourn
�
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #14140 and #14141]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Kentucky (FEMA-4196-DR), dated 09/30/2014. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides. *Incident Period:*
                         08/18/2014 through 08/23/2014.
 DATES: *Effective Date:*
                         09/30/2014. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/01/2014. *Economic Injury (Eidl) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/30/2015.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/30/2014, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Floyd, Johnson, Knott, Pike. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.625
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14140B and for economic injury is 14141B. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2014-23976 Filed 10-6-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
DISMISS; Opinion Filed October 20, 2016.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-16-00121-CV

DELTA FLEX PARTNERS, LLC AND DELTA HEALTHCARE PLACEMENT, LLC 

D/B/A DELTA HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, Appellants

V.

CHRISTIAN DODGE D/B/A PRN HOME HEALTH AND HOSPICE SERVICES A/K/A 

PRN HOME HEALTH CARE A/K/A PRN HOME HEALTH AND HOSPICE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-04917

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Lang-Miers, and Myers

Opinion by Justice Lang

The Court has before it appellant’s October 13, 2016 motion to dismiss the appeal in 

which appellant states the parties have agreed to a dismissal. We grant the motion and dismiss 

the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a).

160121F.P05

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DELTA FLEX PARTNERS, LLC AND 

DELTA HEALTHCARE PLACEMENT, 

LLC D/B/A DELTA HEALTHCARE 

PROVIDERS, Appellants

No. 05-16-00121-CV V.

CHRISTIAN DODGE D/B/A PRN HOME 

HEALTH AND HOSPICE SERVICES 

A/K/A PRN HOME HEALTH CARE 

A/K/A PRN HOME HEALTH AND 

HOSPICE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-04917.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices 

Lang-Miers and Myers participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that, based on the agreement of the parties, each party bear its own costs 

of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 20th day of October, 2016.
#### Eileen O'Connor et al., Respondents, v Marc C. Kuzmicki et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[788 NYS2d 414]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Marc C. Kuzmicki and Roman Kuzmicki appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated April 19, 2004, which denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the claim for punitive damages insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the claim for punitive damages insofar as asserted against the defendant Roman Kuzmicki and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff Eileen O’Connor (hereinafter O’Connor), was injured in a multi-car accident on Utopia Parkway in Queens. The plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the accident occurred because the defendant drivers were engaged in a “drag race” immediately before the collisions. The complaint, among other things, asserted a claim for punitive damages based upon the alleged violation of Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1182 which prohibits speed races. The appellants, inter alia, moved for summary judgment dismissing that claim.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that there was an issue of fact regarding the allegation of drag racing. Under the circumstances of this case, if drag racing is proven to be a proximate cause of the accident, that would support a claim for punitive damages *(see generally Sharapata v Town of Islip,*56 NY2d 332 [1982]). Therefore, the appellant Marc C. Kuzmicki, the driver of the vehicle which struck the car owned and operated by O’Connor, was not entitled to summary judgment *499dismissing the claim for punitive damages insofar as asserted against him *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). However, the appellant Roman Kuzmicki, the owner of the vehicle, can only be vicariously liable and thus cannot be liable for punitive damages *(see Poulard v Papamihlopoulos,*254 AD2d 266 [1998]). Accordingly, that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the claim for punitive damages insofar as asserted against Roman Kuzmicki should have been granted. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### Jamaica Recycling Corp., Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[786 NYS2d 739]

Appeal from order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered January 12, 2004, unanimously dismissed, without costs, in light of the order and judgment *316(one paper), same court and. Justice, dated November 23, 2004. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
NAC Tracking Number 2010-04-05 (EC-Ol) 


Technology Development Collaboration 


NASA Advisory Council Recommendation: 


NASA should seek opportunities to collaborate on technology development with the Space 


leaders at the Department ofDefense (DoD), the Air Force, and other agencies. In particular, the 


Administrator should briefthe DoD "Partnership Council" [Secretary ofthe Air Force; 


Commander ofAir Force Space Command; Commander ofStrategic Command; and Director of 


the National Reconnaissance Office] on NASA's technology needs for space exploration and 


discuss opportunities to co-invest in complementary technology developments that can satisfy 


the common goals ofreliable, affordable access to and thru space. 


NASA Response: 


NASA concurs with this recommendation. 


Consistent with the guidance ofthe National Space Policy, Presidential Policy Directive-4, 


NASA's senior leadership regularly coordinates with senior leaders ofthe national security space 


community to understand mutual requirements and capabilities and to explore opportunities for 


partnership. At a forthcoming Space Industrial Base Council meeting, the Associate 


Administrator will address general opportunities for technology collaboration .. He additionally 


participates in meetings with the Deputy Under Secretary ofthe Air Force for Space Programs 


and the Principal Deputy Director ofthe National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) to discuss 


modernization issues affecting evolved expendable launch vehicles, propulsion, and 21st century 


range operations where collaboration may prove beneficial. 


Related discussions are also conducted at regular meetings at the Principals' level with the 


Secretary ofthe Air Force, the NASA Administrator, and the Director ofthe NRO. The last 


such meeting was on January 14, 2011, and included a review of exploration capabilities and 


opportunities for technology-related collaboration. The NASA Administrator also participates in 


other venues, including the Space Working Dinner with the Vice Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of 


Staff, where such partnership opportunities and technology investments are further explored. 


Enclosure
#### STATE v. BETHEL

No. 421P01

Case below: 142 N.C. App. 213

Petition by defendant Pro Se (Walker) for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 October 2001.
#### The State, on the Relation of Anderson, Treasurer, &c., *v.*Leonard and Others.

Thursday, *July*18.

If, in a suit by the state on a collector’s bond, the relator’s name be inserted in the body of the writ, an indorsement of his name on the writ is unnecessary.

A motion to dismiss a suit for want of an indorsement of the relator’s name on the writ, must be made on the defendant’s first appearance to the suit.

ERROR to the *Clay*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

— This was an action of debt on a collector’s bond, brought by the state on the relation of Anderson, treasurer, &c. The declaration was demurred to and the demurrer sustained. The judgment was reversed by this Court, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. When the cause was called in the Circuit Court after it had been remanded, the defendants moved to dismiss it for the want of an indorsement on the writ of the name of the relator, and the motion was sustained.

This judgment of dismissal is erroneous. The name of the relator, as shown by a bill of exceptions, was inserted in the body of the writ; and when that is the case, an indorsement of his name on the writ is unnecessary. *The*State, *ex rel., &c.*v. *Anderson et*al., decided at this term. Besides, the motion to dismiss for want of the indorsement on the writ, were it otherwise tenable, came too late. It should have been made on the first appearance of the defendants to the suit. The object of the statute, in requiring the writ to show the name of the relator, is to render him liable for costs should he fail in the suit. R. S. 1838, p. 448. In the analogous case of moving to dismiss a suit, either at law or in chancery, for want of security for costs when the plaintiff is *224a non-resident, the motion must be made at the first opportunity after the non-residence is discovered, as the defendant ought not to wait until expense has been necessarily incurred. *Duncan*v. Stint, *5*Barn. & Ald. *702.*—Long v. *Majes*tre, 1 Johns. Ch. R. 202.

*J. M.*Hanna, for the plaintiff.

*A. Kinney*and *S. B.*Gooldns, for the defendants.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 25, 2015

t1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2015

151618

MICHELE COMPAU and TODD COMPAU, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 151618

COA: 320615 

Iosco CC: 12-007121-NO

PIONEER RESOURCE COMPANY, LLC,

WALTER A KILBOURN, d/b/a WHITTEMORE

INN, and WHITTEMORE INN RACE CLUB,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals and we REINSTATE the February 19, 2014 order of the Iosco Circuit Court that 

granted the defendants’ motion for summary disposition. The plaintiffs’ injuries arose 

when plaintiff Michele Compau tripped over a railroad tie on the defendants’ property. 

When a plaintiff’s injury arises from an allegedly dangerous condition on the land, the 

action sounds in premises liability rather than ordinary negligence, even when the 

plaintiff alleges that the premises possessor created the condition giving rise to the 

plaintiff's injury. Buhalis v Trinity Continuing Care Servs, 296 Mich App 685, 692 

(2012). The railroad tie was an allegedly dangerous condition on the land, but it was open 

and obvious. Thus, the plaintiffs’ recovery is barred by the open and obvious danger 

doctrine. Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512, 516-519, 522 (2001). Because 

plaintiff Michele Compau testified that she had seen the railroad tie when she arrived to 

watch the lawn mower races, the plaintiffs have failed to present evidence to support that 

the lawn mower races were so distracting as to preclude application of the open and 

obvious danger doctrine. See Kennedy v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, 274 Mich App 

710, 717-718 (2007).

BERNSTEIN, J., would deny leave to appeal.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27868]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than November 19, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice 
President, Applications and Enforcement), 101 Market Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-1579:
    1. Henry Liebman, Gail Katz, and Sodo Builders, all of Seattle, 
Washington, acting as a group in concert; to retain voting shares of 
Regal Financial Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting 
shares of Regal Financial Bank, both of Seattle, Washington.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 1, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-27868 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, Ronald C. Renaud, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge:




(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:
March 9, 2010


/s/
      Ronald C. Renaud, Jr.Ronald
      C. Renaud, Jr.Chief
      Financial Officer




A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Idenix
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.4.20
 
       
    
    Your position will be SVP, Global Operations, reporting to the EVP, Research
Operations.
    
    Your start date will be mutually determined but should be no later than
December 1, 2009.
    
    Your starting salary will be $230,000 per year, earned and payable on a
bi-weekly basis of approximately $8,846.15, prior to any payroll deductions.
    
    Your performance and salary will be reviewed annually. You will be eligible
to be considered for a salary increase in the Companys regular annual review cycle. To
the extent merit increases are granted, eligibility will be based on your individual
performance.
    
    As SVP, Global Operation,for each fiscal year ending on June 30, you are
eligible to receive a target annual bonus of 30% of your base salary, pro-rated in this
2010 fiscal year based on your start date. For FY10 you will be entitled to a minimum
guaranteed bonus of $35,000 pro-rata based on the date of your employment. The
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors retains discretionary authority over all
bonus awards. It also establishes metrics and objectives for bonus awards annually. For
fiscal 2010 your bonus eligibility is covered by the Corporate Bonus Plan, and the
Corporate Bonus Plan makes awards contingent upon the Companys achievement of pre-set
adjusted EBITDA targets. Declared bonuses are paid within 75 days after the end of the
fiscal year.
    
    Subject to approval by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors,
you will have the option to purchase 40,000 shares of Harris Interactive Inc. common stock
under the terms and conditions more fully described in the enclosed sample stock option
agreement. The option price will be the fair market price of our stock on the grant date.
The companys regular quarterly grants are made at the close of trading on the later of
(i) the 15th day of the second month of the fiscal quarter and (ii) one week
after the Companys quarterly earnings release. If the day falls on a non business day,
the fair market price will be the next business day.
    
    Should the Company terminate your employment for any reason other than for
cause, you will receive six months in severance payments. While on Severance you will
be entitled to continued participation in the Companys Health & Welfare Plans in which
you are enrolled.
    
    You are eligible for 20 days of vacation, which accrue at 6.153 hours per pay
period.




---



##### 



/s/ Todd Myers
    
    
    
    11/9/09Todd Myers
    
    
    
    Date