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

Subsidiaries



|                                                 |  |                              
|------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                             |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|McCormick & Schmick Acquisition Corp. II         |  | Delaware                     
|McCormick & Schmick Acquisition Corp.            |  | Delaware                     
|McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp.             |  | Delaware                     
|McCormick & Schmicks Seafood Restaurants, Inc.  |  | Delaware                     
|McCormick & Schmick Maryland Liquor, Inc.        |  | Maryland                     
|McCormick & Schmick Acquisition I Texas, Inc.    |  | Texas                        
|McCormick & Schmick Acquisition II Texas, Inc.   |  | Delaware                     
|McCormick & Schmick Acquisition Texas, LP        |  | Texas                        
|McCormick & Schmick Acquisition III Texas, Inc.  |  | Texas                        
|McCormick & Schmicks Hackensack, LLC            |  | Delaware                     
|McCormick & Schmicks Atlanta II, LLC            |  | Delaware                     
|McCormick & Schmick Orlando, LLC                 |  | Delaware                     
|McCormick & Schmick Dallas, LP                   |  | Texas                        
|McCormick & Schmick Dallas Liquor, Inc.          |  | Texas                        
|McCormick & Schmick Austin, LP                   |  | Texas                        
|McCormick & Schmick Austin Liquor, Inc.          |  | Texas                        
|McCormick & Schmick Promotions, LLC              |  | Virginia                     
|McCormick & Schmick Austin Domain, LP            |  | Texas                        
|McCormick & Schmick Austin Domain Liquor, Inc.   |  | Texas                        
|The Boathouse Restaurants of Canada, Inc.        |  | British Columbia, Canada     
|McCormick & Schmick Seafood Markets, Inc.        |  | Virginia                     
|McCormick & Schmick Texas, Inc.                  |  | Texas                        
|McCormick & Schmick Annapolis Liquor, Inc        |  | Maryland                     
|McCormick & Schmick National Harbor Liquor, Inc. |  | Maryland
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

--------------------------------------------------------------------x

VIPSHOP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

- against - Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cummings

Case No. 20-cv-02557

TRANSPACIFIC TRADE CENTER LLC and

KETTY PON (also known as KITTY PON),

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

NOW COMES Kristie M. Blase, counsel for Plaintiff VIPShop International Holdings

Limited (“Plaintiff”), and moves to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff pursuant to LR 83.17 and 

states as follows in support thereof:

1. I originally filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Plaintiff

in the above-captioned action on May 29, 2020. (See Dkt. #13.) The Court granted my motion to 

appear pro hac vice on June 1, 2020. (See Dkt. #14.)

2. Plaintiff is also represented in the above-captioned action by Jeffrey M. Schieber 

and James Donehoo Wilson of the law firm Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, who appeared on 

behalf of Plaintiff on April 27, 2020, and June 19, 2020, respectively. (See Dkt. #2 and #16.) 

3. Messrs. Schieber and Wilson are members of the Bar of this Court. Plaintiff 

continues to be represented by Messrs. Schieber and Wilson in the above-captioned action at this 

time. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02557 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/17/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:156
4. There are no pending motions and there is no trial date currently set in this 

matter.

WHEREFORE, Kristie M. Blase respectfully requests that the Court enter an order 

permitting her to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff and grant such other relief as this 

Court deems just and proper.

Dated: November 17, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Kristie M. Blase

Kristie M. Blase

CKR Law LLP 

200 Park Avenue #1700

New York, New York 10017

T: 212.259.7300

E: kblase@ckrlaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02557 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/17/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:157
---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Mark J. Morabito, Chief Executive Officer of
Crosshair Exploration & Mining Corp. (the Company), hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1)        the annual report on
Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended April 30, 2007, as amended by Form
20-F/A (Amendment No. 1) (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of 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.

/s/ Mark J.
Morabito
By:   Mark J. Morabito
         Chief Executive Officer

Date: June 25, 2008

---
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 7 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 7 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 7 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 3
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 31, 2023

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00321-CR

JAVIER LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-DCR-075126

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 18, 2023, a jury found appellant guilty of continuous sexual abuse 

of a child. On April 19, 2023, after the trial on guilt or innocence, appellant and the 

State entered into an agreement that appellant’s punishment would be assessed at 

30 years’ confinement in of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Institutional 

Division in exchange for appellant’s waiver of his right to appeal the 

guilt/innocence and punishment stages of trial. The trial court accepted the 

punishment agreement and assessed punishment at 30 years’ confinement in of the 
2

Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Institutional Division. On the same date, 

appellant signed the trial court’s certification of his right to appeal, which stated

“the Defendant has waived ALL right of appeal as to both the guilt/innocence and 

punishment portions of his trial.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

The record supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 

S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Appellant’s waiver reflects that he 

entered into an agreement with the State after a jury found him guilty. Appellant 

waived the right of appeal knowing with certainty the punishment that would be 

assessed. See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) 

(holding waiver of right to appeal is valid if appellant knows with certainty the 

punishment that will be assessed). 

On July 26, 2023, this court notified appellant that we lacked jurisdiction 

over the appeal and that it was subject to dismissal without further notice unless 

appellant demonstrated, within 21 days, that the court has jurisdiction. Appellant 

did not file a response. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Hassan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with Amendment No 1 to the Quarterly Report of XFormity Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), we,
Mark Haugejorde, President of the Company, and Jack Rabin, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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 result of operations
      of the Company.

/s/ Mark
Haugejorde                           Mark
Haugejorde, President and CEOMay 18, 2005

/s/ Jack
Rabin                                    Jack
Rabin, Chief Financial OfficerMay 18, 2005
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 65936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26431]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Federal Advisory Committee Act; Technological Advisory Council

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this 
notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications 
Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will hold a meeting 
on Thursday, December 4, 2014 in the Commission Meeting Room, from 1 
p.m. to 4 p.m. at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

DATES: Thursday December 4, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Johnston, Chief, 
Electromagnetic Compatibility Division, 202-418-0807; 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FCC Technological Advisory Council will 
discuss progress on its work program for 2014. The FCC will attempt to 
accommodate as many people as possible. However, admittance will be 
limited to seating availability. Meetings are also broadcast live with 
open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/live/. The public may submit written comments before the 
meeting to: Walter Johnston, the FCC's Designated Federal Officer for 
Technological Advisory Council by email: [email protected] or 
U.S. Postal Service Mail (Walter Johnston, Federal Communications 
Commission, Room 7-A224, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554). 
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable 
accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. 
Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to 
[email protected] or by calling the Office of Engineering and Technology 
at 202-418-2470 (voice), (202) 418-1944 (fax). Such requests should 
include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In 
addition, please include your contact information. Please allow at 
least five days advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, 
but may be impossible to fill.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26431 Filed 11-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 120 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 120

 Designating minority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 17, 1997

 Mr. Pallone submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating minority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and that they are 
hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the House of 
Representatives:
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Mr. Holden and Mr. 
Lampson.
    Committee on Science: Mrs. Tauscher.
    Committee on International Relations: Mr. Davis of Florida.
    Committee on National Security: Mr. Rodriguez.
    Committee on Resources: Mr. Doggett.
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight: Mr. Ford.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 13

- 00544

- CR IN RE Shawn BEAN Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 4, 2013
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On August 12 , 2013, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions pending in his criminal proceeding. T his
court issued an opinion on August 21 , 2013 denying relator’s mandamus petition on the basis that a criminal defendant is not entitled to hy brid representation, meaning the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se motions when relator is represented by appointed counsel

. 2 On August 26, 2013, relator filed a supplemental petition for writ of mandamus in this court complaining of the district clerk’s failure to respond or take action with

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 188088, styled The State of Texas v. Shawn Bean , pending in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela presiding. 2 In re Shawn Bean , No

. 04

- 13

- 00544

- CR, 2013 WL 4501334 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Aug. 21 , 2013, orig. proceeding).04

- 13

- 00544

- CR respect to relator’ s filing of an affidavit of indigency . Fo r the following reasons, we dismiss relator’s supplemental petition for writ of mandamus due to a lack of juri sdiction

. In the supplemental petition for writ of mandamus, relator requests an order directing the district clerk to “dispose of ” relator’s pauper’s oath. However, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. By statute, this court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enfo rce our appellate jurisdiction. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221 (a) , (b) ( West 2004)



### . In this instance, w e conclude the requested writ is not necessa ry to enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
THIRD AMENDMENT
TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
      (a)
    
    CHANGE OF CONTROL shall mean the occurrence of any of the following events: (i) any
person, entity or affiliated group, excluding the Company or any employee benefit plan of
the Company, acquiring more than 50% of the then outstanding shares of voting stock of the
Company, (ii) the consummation of any merger or consolidation of the Company into another
company, such that the holders of the shares of the voting stock of the Company
immediately before such merger or consolidation own less than 50% of the voting power of
the securities of the surviving company or the parent of the surviving company, (iii) the
adoption of a plan for complete liquidation of the Company or for the sale or disposition
of all or substantially all of the Companys assets, such that after the transaction, the
holders of the shares of the voting stock of the Company immediately prior to the
transaction own less than 50% of the voting securities of the acquiror or the parent of
the acquiror, or (iv) during any period of two (2) consecutive years, individuals who at
the beginning of such period constituted the Board (including for this purpose any new
director whose election or nomination for election by the Companys stockholders was
approved by a vote of at least a majority of the directors then still in office who were
directors at the beginning of such period) cease for any reason to constitute at least a
majority of the Board.




---



##### 








---



##### 



REIT:
MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST, INC.By:
    /s/ R. Steven HamnerName:
    R. Steven HamnerTitle:
    Executive Vice-President & CFOOPERATING PARTNERSHIP:
MPT OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
By:   Medical Properties Trust, LLC
Its:   General Partner
By:   Medical Properties Trust, Inc.
Its:   Sole MemberBy:
    /s/ R. Steven HamnerName:
    R. Steven HamnerTitle:
    Executive Vice-President & CFOEXECUTIVE:/s/ Michael G. StewartMichael G. Stewart
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20092

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARMANDO PADILLA-ALVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(01-CR-599)

 

October 10, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Armando Padilla-Alvarez appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea to one count of illegally re-entering the United

States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He presents several

arguments on appeal, all of which stem from the district court’s

decision to depart upward from the guideline sentencing range. 
1 See United States v. Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1310 (5th Cir. 1993).

2 See United States v. Lambert, 984 F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993) (en

banc).

3 Laury, 985 F.2d at 1310 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

4 See United States v. Hawkins, 87 F.3d 722, 728 (5th Cir. 1996).

2

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and conclude that the district court did not commit clear

error in determining that Padilla’s criminal history category

underrepresented the seriousness of his past criminal conduct, and

we perceive no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision

to depart upward on that basis.1 The district court adequately, if

implicitly, stated its reasons for rejecting intermediate offense

levels when it departed upward.2 A district court’s finding

“[t]hat a defendant’s criminal history category does not adequately

reflect the seriousness of a defendant’s past criminal conduct is

a factor not taken into account by the Guidelines and is a

permissible justification for upward departure.”3 Finally, under

the circumstances presented to the district court, the extent of

the upward departure was reasonable.4

 AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

C.S. V. L.C.

PETITION OF: LACKAWANNA 

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

:

:

:

:

:

No. 389 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.S., A MINOR

PETITION OF: LACKAWANNA COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

:

:

:

:

:

No. 390 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Astronauts, Scientists Bring Wonder of Space Station to Bay Area","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"PyzgGCYE4g\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-astronauts-scientists-bring-wonder-of-space-station-to-bay-area\/\">NASA Astronauts, Scientists Bring Wonder of Space Station to Bay Area<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-astronauts-scientists-bring-wonder-of-space-station-to-bay-area\/embed\/#?secret=PyzgGCYE4g\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Astronauts, Scientists Bring Wonder of Space Station to Bay Area” — NASA\" data-secret=\"PyzgGCYE4g\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/dsimage.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":560}
July 12, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DUNG QUOC NGUYEN, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00292-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court 

orders the judgment AFFIRMED. We further order this decision certified below for 

observance.