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

EXHIBIT 21.1


                                       SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Registered Name                                                    Domicile      Owner        %      Status
(business is conducted under the registered names)                                          held
<S>                                                               <C>            <C>         <C>     <C>
Digital Financial Service Limited ("DFSL" hereinafter)            Hong Kong      Sancon      100     Active
Sancon Recycling Pty Ltd                                          Australia      Sancon      100     Active
Guang Cheng Int'l Trading Ltd. ("Guang Cheng" hereinafter)        Hong Kong      Sancon      100     Active
</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 May 26, 2020 b0518

Order 

Clerk

May 26, 2020

160017(22)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160017

COA: 349267

Branch CC: 84-094002-FH

ROBERT LEO OSWALD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 29, 

2019 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
#### Alfred Shotwell, etc., *v.*Fannie Quigley, etc.

Wills — Construction.

The intention of the testator was, that the devise over to his grandchildren in case of the death of their parents, should pass to them the exact estate devised to those they might represent.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

June 21, 1872.

*St. John Boyle, for appellants.*

*Barnet & Roberts, E. W. C. Humphries, Bar, Goodloe & Humphry, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

A careful consideration of the provisions of the will of Alexander Pope satisfies us that the devise over to his grandchildren in case of the death of their parents was intended to pass to them the exact estate devised to those whom they might represent.

It is conceded that the testator’s children took under the will, contingent remainders in the realty involved in this litigation.

The lawful issue of such of the children of the testator as might not survive their parent were entitled to the portion the father or mother would have been entitled to if living at the death of the life tenant. The language used does not clearly define the intention of the testator but we think the most rational and reasonable conclusion to be drawn therefrom is that he intended that the issue of such of his children as might not survive their mother, should take the place of and represent their deceased parents.

■Concurring as we do in the reasoning and conclusions of the chancellor his judgment must be affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 **Certification
        of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to**
 **Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350**
 
 
 In
        connection with the amended annual report on Form 10K-SB of Rotoblock
        Corporation (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
        on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matthias Heinze, Chief Executive Officer,
        hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
        and belief:
 
 (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 Registrant.
 
 
  Date:
        October 28,
        2007 ROTOBLOCK
        CORPORATION
 
 /s/
        Matthias Heinze
 By:
        Matthias Heinze, President,
 Chief
        Executive Officer and Director
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, President and Co-Chairman
of the Board of Directors of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that
to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the annual report on Form 10-KSB
for the year ended December 31, 2006 of the Registrant (the Report):

|                                                                                                                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1)
  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                      
|                                                                                                                                                               
|(2)
  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
  the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



| |     |                                                                                    
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Edwin C. Quattlebaum                                                           
| |     |                                                                                    
| |     | Edwin
  C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D.                                                      
| |     | Chief Executive
  Officer, President and Co-Chairman of the Board of
  Directors of
| |     | MetaMorphix,
  Inc.                                                                

Date: April 3, 2007

---
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-83,695-01

EX P ARTE NICHOLAS G. HEINTZ, Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A N ORIG INAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 15-0959-A IN THE 7 DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY

T H

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to this Court’s orig inal jurisdiction to issue writs of habea s corpus, Applicant prese nts a motion for leave to f ile an orig inal application for a writ of habea s corpus. T E X . C O N S T . art. V, § 5(c) ; T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 4.04 § 1. Among other things, Applicant alleg es that he has been restra ined for over o n e y ear , on bond, based on char g es that have not y et resulted in an indictment. Applicant contends that he filed an orig inal habea s corpus application in the District Court 1 in May 2015, but the court ha s not issued the writ or take n any other a ction.

T E X . C O N S T . art. V, § 8; T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . Art. 11.05. 12

Be fore this Court considers whether exercising jurisdiction in this case i s ap p ropriate , the District Court is invited to respond to Applicant’s claims that an orig inal writ has been pending with no action. Additionally , the re sponse shall state whether Applicant is still r estraine d, and whe ther char g es have been filed ag ainst him. I f an orig inal habea s corpus app lication is pending in Respondent’s court, the response shall specify whether th e writ has issued and include any supporting doc umentation. Applicant’s motion for leave to file an application for a writ of habea s corpus shall be held in abey ance for 30 day s from the date of this order

. The parties may submit any response during that time.

Filed: Nove mber 18, 2015 Do not publish
#### Neeley Tripplett *v.*Marshall Tripplett, etc.

Vendor and Purchaser — Parol Contracts — Partition—Rescission.

The contract was nothing more than a parol agreement for the conveyance of real estate which the courts will not and cannot enforce. The oral contract under which appellees and their vendees hold should be rescinded on equitable terms.

APPLEAL FROM FLEMING CIRCUIT COURT.

June 18, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The pleadings and exhibits show beyond question that the appellees, or some of them, are in possession of some portion at least of the lands to which appellant holds the fee simple title. They do not hold under deeds or title bonds executed by her, nor is it pretended that they or any of them have acquired title by an adverse possession of fifteen years.

Their claim is founded upon a partition made pursuant to the written agreement of December 8th, 1860, exhibited with the answer of Marshall Tripplett. An examination of this paper shows that it was contemplated by the parties that the estate of M. Tripplett, deceased, should be divided. No reference is made directly or inferentially to the lands of this appellant. The testimony of the commissioners conduces to show that she knew that they had included her lands in the division, and that she desired that they should do so. Still, she does not seem, to have given a written assent to such division. Whatever may have been her intentions at that time, she can not now be estopped from asserting her legal right by any oral agreements then made.

*705
      *W. H. Cord, for appellant.*

*Andrews, for appellees.*

The advancements to her sons, if made, were nothing more than parol contracts for the conveyance of real estate, which the courts will not and can not enforce.

Appellant’s petition should not have been dismissed. She should have been adjudged possession of her lands and the oral contracts under which her sons and their vendees hold should be rescinded upon equitable terms. The action of the county court in receiving and putting to record the report of the commissioners was unauthorized and is therefore void.

The judgment is *reversed*and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-13-00333-CV

Style: James Fonteneaux, Sr.

v Normala Goff, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of John Goff

Date motion filed*: July 1, 2013

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file reporter’s record

Party filing motion: Court reporter

Document to be filed: Reporter’s record

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: May 28, 2013

Number of previous extensions granted: 0 Current Due date: May 28, 2013

Date Requested: July 31, 2013

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: July 31, 2013

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

The court reporter has filed an information sheet informing the court that appellant paid the fee for

preparation of the reporter’s record on July 1, 2013 and requesting an extension of time to file the record

until July 31, 2013. We grant the motion and order the court reporter to file the reporter’s record no

later than July 31, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b)(3).

Judge's signature: /s/ Jane Bland

X 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: July 19, 2013
Eagle Pass Independent 

School District, Self Insured 

and Texas Department of 

Insurance Division of /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 28, 2014

No. 04-14-00123-CV

Blanca HERNANDEZ,

Appellant

v.

EAGLE PASS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Self Insured and Texas Department 

of Insurance Division of Workers' Compensation and Rod Bordelon, Jr. in his Capacity as 

Commissioner of Workers Compensation,

Appellees

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-12-28082-MCV

Honorable Cynthia L. Muniz, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Counsel for appellant in this accelerated civil appeal has filed a motion for permission to 

file documents in paper form. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.2(c) (requiring attorneys in civil cases to file 

documents electronically). We find that counsel has shown good cause to suspend the operation 

of Rule 9.2(c) as to appellant’s counsel in this case and we hereby grant the motion. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 2. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### William A. Benjamin v. Joshua Dodge.

*Justice's judgments*— Special *appeals.*

A special appeal from a justice’s judgment does not lie where there is no question of jurisdiction and the case is in condition to he re-tried on the merits.

Error to Livingston. (Newton, J.)

Jan. 12.

Jan. *17.*

Replevin. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*Albert Dodge*and *L. S. Montague*for appellant.

*Fred H. Warren*and *D. Shields*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

This is a case of an appeal general and special from the judgment of a justice of the peace in an action of replevin. The special appeal was properly overruled because there was no question of jurisdiction involved, and the case was in a situation to be retried on the merits. As to the proceedings on the general appeal we discover nothing worthy of comment.

The case was fairly submitted to the jury and there is no ground for disturbing their finding-

judgment affirmed with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 371 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 371

 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 1998

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House

    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and that he is 
hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the House of 
Representatives:
    Committee on the Judiciary: Mr. Graham of South Carolina.
                                 <all>
```
From: Juyang Weng 

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 8:48 AM

To: aiframework <aiframework@nist.gov>

Subject: The AI Risk Management should explicitly ban Post-Selections

Dear AI Framework,

I browsed your document, which seems to indicate that the AI Framework Advisory Committee is still 

unaware of the rampant misconducts in the US associated with Post-Selections in AI. 

Post-Selections in AI must be banned because it is impractical at all. 

At least, all AI projects that conduct Post-Selections must provide (1) how many networks have been 

trained and (2) the average errors over all trained networks.

I am attaching a formal letter to IEEE President Dr. Ray Liu and a paper titled "Why Deep 

Learning's Performance Data Are Misleading" submitted to arXiv yesterday.

Best regards,

-John

--

Juyang (John) Weng
#### L. S. Lansdale *v.*W. B. Beall's Heirs.

Appeals and Errors — Judgment in Conformity to Opinion — Subsequent Appeal — No New Proof — Judgment Will be Affirmed.

There was no proof taken' in this case after its return to the lower court, and as the judgment appealed from conforms to the opinion then rendered, the judgment must be affirmed.

APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT.

September 26, 1871.

*Landsdale, Winter smith & Field, for appellant.*

*Thompson, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

This is the third time this case has made its appearance in this court. The second judgment appealed from was rendered the 20th of August, 1862, and was for $600.82. That judgment was reversed by this court, and in the opinion delivered then, the amount due for the land was fixed at about one-half of the amount adjudged against appellants, and this, too, on the basis that appellants were chargeable with only a moiety of the residual 310 acres. It seems, therefore, that nothing was left open by that opinion, and as no proof has been taken since the return of the cause after that opinion was delivered and the judgment now appealed from conforms to the opinion of this court, the judgment must be affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                                 ANTIGENICS INC.

                               AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
                           1999 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

      Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Antigenics Inc. 1999 Equity Incentive
Plan (the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

      1. Section 5(a) of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety
to read as follows:

            "(a) Subject to adjustment under subsection (b), Awards may be made
      under the Plan for up to 10 million shares of Common Stock. If any Award
      in respect of shares of Common Stock expires or is terminated unexercised
      or is forfeited without the Participant having had the benefits of
      ownership (other than voting rights), the shares subject to such Award, to
      the extent of such expiration, termination or forfeiture, shall again be
      available for award under the Plan. Common Stock issued through the
      assumption or substitution of outstanding grants from an acquired company
      shall not reduce the shares available for Awards under the Plan. Shares
      issued under the Plan may consist in whole or in part of authorized but
      unissued shares or treasury shares."

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Antigenics Inc. has caused this instrument of
amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of the 26th day of
May, 2004.

                                         ANTIGENICS INC.


                                         By: /s/ Garo H. Armen
                                            ________________________________
                                            Name:  Garo H. Armen
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Margeline Thomas","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mthoma22\/","title":"Robert Gibbs","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TE5BQKY9HT\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/robert-gibbs\/\">Robert Gibbs<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/robert-gibbs\/embed\/#?secret=TE5BQKY9HT\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Robert Gibbs” — NASA\" data-secret=\"TE5BQKY9HT\" 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\/2017\/07\/20170619_3bi1224.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7653

EDWARD LEE BRAGG,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN B. METZGER, III; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District

Judge. (CA-95-74-R)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Lee Bragg, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order affirming an

order of the magistrate judge denying his motion to amend his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss

the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED