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

SUBSIDIARIES OF POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Name of Subsidiary

State or jurisdiction of
Incorporation or OrganizationPolypore Hong Kong, Limited

Hong KongCelgard Acquisition Corporation.

Cayman IslandsCelgard Korea, Inc.

South KoreaCelgard, LLC

DelawareDaramic Austria GmbH.

AustriaDaramic Tianjin PE Separator Co., Ltd.

ChinaDaramic (Thailand) Limited

ThailandDaramic Acquisition Corporation.

DelawareDaramic Asia, Inc.

DelawareDaramic Holding, LLC

DelawareDaramic Holding S.A.S.

FranceDaramic International, Inc.

DelawareDaramic S.A.S.

FranceDaramic Separadores de Baterias Ltda.

BrazilDaramic, LLC

DelawareDaramic Xiangfan Battery Separator Co., Ltd.

ChinaMembrana GmbH

GermanyMicroporous Holding, LLC

DelawareMicroporous Products, LLC.

DelawareMP Assets Corporation

DelawarePolypore Acquisition GmbH

GermanyPolypore B.V.

NetherlandsPolypore C.V.

NetherlandsPolypore K.K

JapanPolypore (Shanghai) Membrane Products Co. Ltd.

ChinaDaramic Battery Separator India Private Limited

IndiaSeparatorenerzeugung GmbH

AustriaSeparatorenerzeugung Holding GmbH

Austria


---



QuickLinks
Priority Action Report

Crime Scene Investigation

Crime Scene and Death Investigation

Dr. Marilyn Miller

February 22, 2016
Subcommittee Leadership

Position Name Organization Term Email

Chair Dr. Marilyn Miller VCU/Dept. 

Forensic Science

3 yrs mtmiller@vcu.edu

Vice Chair TBD

Executive 

Secretary

TBD

2
Subcommittee Members

# Name Organization Term Email

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 3
Discipline Description

The Crime Scene Investigation 

Subcommittee will focus on the standards 

and guidelines related to the investigation 

of crime scenes including the search for, 

the documentation of and the presentation 

of evidence associated the crime scene.

4
Summary of Standards/Guidelines 

Priority Actions

Priority Working Title of Document

5

To Be Determined
Research Gaps Identified

• Essential

• To be determined

6
Priority Action Report

Crime Scene Investigation

Crime Scene and Death Investigation

Dr. Marilyn Miller

February 22, 2016
8
** **

**EXHIBIT 35.2**

** **

ANNUAL MASTER SERVICER’S CERTIFICATE

 

GE DEALER FLOORPLAN MASTER NOTE TRUST

 

March 29, 2016

 

The undersigned, aduly authorized officer of GE Capital US Holdings, Inc. (“GE Capital US”), as the master servicer (the “MasterServicer”), pursuant to the Second Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement dated as of July 11, 2014 (as may be furtheramended and supplemented from time to time, the “Agreement”), between GECC and GE Dealer Floorplan Master NoteTrust (“Trust”), does hereby certify that:

 

1.         GE Capital US performed duties asMaster Servicer from 1:00 a.m. (New York time) on December 2, 2015 to December 31, 2015.

 

2.         A review of the activities of MasterServicer during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (the “reporting period”), and of its performance under theAgreement, has been made under my supervision.

 

3.         To the best of my knowledge, basedon such review, Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout thereporting period.

 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has duly executed this certificate the date first above written.
1

1034209\307340288.v1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ZACHARY J. BOYD,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD., 

Defendant.

Case No. 1:20-cv-04719

Honorable Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

JOINT STATUS REPORT PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s November 9, 2020 Order [Dkt. 13], the Parties this Joint Status 

Report. 

1. Current Status of Discovery:

Plaintiff: Plaintiff issued discovery requests to Defendant and Defendant responded on

December 15, 2020. Plaintiff intends on taking Defendant’s deposition shortly after 

analyzing Defendant’s discovery responses and document production. Additionally, 

Plaintiff has issued a subpoena to his wireless telephone carrier.

Defendant: Defendant issued discovery requests to Plaintiff on January 12, 2021 and 

Plaintiff’s responses are due on February 11, 2021. Defendant will depose Plaintiff after 

analyzing Plaintiff’s discovery responses, Plaintiff’s telephone carrier’s response to 

Plaintiff’s subpoena and any follow-up written discovery. 

2. Status of Settlement Discussions:

Plaintiff: Plaintiff and Defendant have exchanged demands. However, the Parties are far 

apart at this time and will reevaluate settlement after written discovery. Plaintiff believes 

that a settlement conference will not be productive until written discovery is completed.

Defendant: Defendant has made offers to resolve the case and provided explanation and 

documents to support it’s settlement position. Defendant believes that once Plaintiff 

responds to Defendant’s discovery requests and the parties receive Plaintiff’s telephone 

carrier’s response to Plaintiff’s subpoena, the parties would be in a better position to 

reevaluate settlement. Defendant does not believe that a settlement conference will be 

fruitful at this time.

Case: 1:20-cv-04719 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/15/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:68
2

1034209\307340288.v1

3. Request for Telephone Status Hearing:

Plaintiff: Plaintiff does not request a telephone status hearing at this time. 

Defendant: Defendant does not request a telephone status hearing at this time.

DATED: January 15, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Victor T. Metroff

Victor T. Metroff

Mohammed O. Badwan

SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.

2500 South Highland Avenue

Suite 200

Lombard, Illinois 60148

+1 630-581-5450

+1 630-575-8180

mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com

vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff 

/s/ Lindsey A.L. Conley

David M. Schultz 

Lindsey A.L. Conley

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500 

Chicago, IL 60606

Phone: 312-704-3000

Fax: 312-704-3001

dschultz@hinshawlaw.com

lconley@hinshawlaw.com

lcon

Counsel for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-04719 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/15/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:69
Exhibit
23.1






Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




The Board
of Directors


Macquarie
Infrastructure Company LLC:




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-144016) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-138010) on Form
S-3 of Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC of our reports dated February 25,
2010 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Macquarie Infrastructure
Company LLC as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, consolidated statements of members’ equity and
comprehensive income (loss), and consolidated statements of cash flows for the
years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007 and the related financial
statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal controls over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2009 which reports appear in the December 31, 2009
annual report on Form 10-K of Macquarie Infrastructure Company
LLC.  Our report refers to the adoption of ASC 810-10
Consolidation(formerly
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 160, Noncontrolling Interests in
Consolidated Financial Statements, an amendment of ARB No. 51)in
2009.









/s/ KPMG
LLP




Dallas,
Texas


February 25,
2010
10191.

#### Burgan *et al. v.*The State.

Bloodwortii, J.

A petition headed “State of Georgia, Whitfield County,” directed “To the Superior Court of said county,” and regularly filed in the office of the clerk of that court, which containeTd the following paragraph: “The above-described car is the property of Tom Burgan, of Catoosa county, Georgia, and was being used by *him,*and by others with his knowledge and consent, ~jn the transporting of intoxicating liquors over and through the public highways of said county, in violation of law,” was properly amended by inserting after the word “county,” in the latter part of the paragraph, the words “of Whitfield.” *Perry*v. *Mulligan,*58 *Ga.*479 (3); *Hall*v. *Mobley,*13 *Ga.*318; *Cowart*v. *Young,*74 *Ga.*694 (3) ; *Murphy*v. *Peabody,*63 *Ga.*522. In the last *810named case Judge Bleckley said in the opinion (p. 524), “The rule of amendment is as hroad as the doctrine of universal salvation.”

Decided June 13, 1919.

Condemnation of vehicle conveying liquor; from Whitfield superior court—Judge Tarver. October 8, 1918.

*M. L. Harris, W. E. Mann, W. Gordon Mann,*for plaintiffs in error.

*J. M. Lang, solicitor-general,*contra.

2. The constitutional question sought to be made by the demurrer of Tom Burgan, not having been argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiffs in error, will be treated as abandoned.

3. After the petition was amended as shown above, it was proper for the court to strike a demurrer previously filed by Tom Burgan, alleging that the jurisdiction of the case “is in the superior court of Catoosa county, Georgia, the allegation of the petition being that said car was seized while being used in transporting intoxicating liquors over the highways of Catoosa county.”

*(a)*The special plea to the jurisdiction was also property stricken, after the petition was so amended.

4. The court did not err in striking the intervention of D. IT. Burgan.

5. The statement -in the brief of counsel for the plaintiffs in error, “We think this court will agree with u's that the evidence fails to make out a case, and that the judge should not have directed a verdict in favor of the State,” affords no assistance to the court in considering the ruling complained of, and does not amount to an argument, and' the failure to say anything further in regard to the alleged error amounts to an abandonment of this point. *Rounsaville*v. *Camp,*19 *Ga. App.*336 (4) (91 S. E. 446); *Muse*v. *Ball,*18 *Ga. App.*651 (3) (90 S. E. 222) ; *Moss*v. *Bohanon,*111 *Ga.*871 (36 S. B. 954).

6. The court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
General Information

1) I am not involved in cybersecurity workforce education or training other than being a mentor for the 

CyberPatriot VIII competition. I am a graduate of ITT with a BS in CyberSecurity Information Technology 

and hold CompTIA Network+ and Security+ certifications. I am a member of the Alamo chapter of ISSA. I 

am also an associate of ISC^2 working towards SSCP certification. I am looking to answer these 

questions from the perspective of a student with no IT experience trying to get into the workforce.

Growing and Sustaining the Nation's Cybersecurity Workforce

1) I am aware of capture the flag competitions and the SANS Institute's extremely high pricing for 

training and education. Skillport offers training as well but I am unsure of their pricing.

2) I do not understand the workforce categories. Cybersecurity seems to be a blanket term to include all 

of the categories. 

3) Yes there are appropriate cybersecurity policies in my organization. I can only assume they are being 

enforced.

4) I believe employers desire employees with the knowledge of too many systems and protocols which 

can be unrealistic. For example, I see too many job postings requiring many years of experience in IT and 

an active security clearance. Someone who has never held a security clearance, or it has expired, is not 

able to attain one. Also, an employee can be required to know Windows 7 and 10, Windows server 2008 

and 2012, many flavors of Linux, Cisco routers and switches, firewalls, IDS/IPS, VPN, and virtual 

servers/players.

5) Skillport has been an effective tool for me to learn and improve my knowledge and attain 

certifications. Ease of use and content delivered make it effective. 

6) Technology is moving too fast. A plug and play mindset. Easy to use wins every time versus employing 

security measures. Example, GPedit is not loaded on Windows home edition, which represents many 

home users. Why? Is it because many people would find it painful to configure and maintain? Even 

though it can provide a layer of security. Also, attaining a security clearance is impossible if one doesn't 

have one and does not have an employer to sponsor it. 

7) Advances in technology are increasing the need for cybersecurity. Security needs to be implemented 

into the SDLC of these devices. 

8) 

i) not sure

ii) awareness

iii) awareness

iv) lower the costs of training

v) embrace the concept of securing their devices
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
KOGER EQUITY DOES NOT FILE A CLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET, THEREFORE THESE NOT
PROVIDED. 5-02 (9), 5-02 (21)
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,293
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,192
<ALLOWANCES>                                       231
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         675,676
<DEPRECIATION>                                  98,395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 605,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        202,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           249
<OTHER-SE>                                     380,275
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   605,319
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,023
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   156
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,839
<INCOME-TAX>                                       189
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,650
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,650
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.79
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 15



May 7,  1998


Koger Equity, Inc.
3986 Boulevard Center Drive
Jacksonville, Florida 32207

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Koger Equity, Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended March
31, 1998 and 1997, as indicated in our report dated April 24, 1998; because we
did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on such financial information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1998, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-55179 of Koger
Equity, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-54617 of Koger Equity,
Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-20975 of Koger Equity, Inc. on
Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-23429 of Koger Equity, Inc. on Form S-8
and Registration Statement No. 333-37919 of Koger Equity, Inc. on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.








DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Jacksonville, Florida
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Wayne Farms LLC,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

John Doe et al,

Defendant(s).

Case No. 20 C 5191

Judge Gary Feinerman 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):

in favor of plaintiff(s)

and against defendant(s)

in the amount of $ ,

which includes pre–judgment interest. 

does not include pre–judgment interest.

Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment. 

Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).

in favor of defendant(s) 

and against plaintiff(s)

.

Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).

other: Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Wayne Farms, LLC, and against Defendant John 

Doe (a/k/a Gracie Henderson, a/k/a Frank L. Annese) in the amount of $131,000. Injunctive relief issues as 

well.

This action was (check one):

tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. 

tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was reached. 

decided by Judge Gary Feinerman on a motion.

Date: 1/6/2021 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

/s/ Jackie Deanes , Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 46 Filed: 01/06/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:482
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.02
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
We consent to the inclusion in this registration statement on Form S-1 (File
No. 333-43211) of our reports dated April 22, 1997, except for Notes 7 and 15
as to which the date is February 13, 1998, on our audit of the financial 
statements and financial statement schedule of CSK Auto Corporation for the 
year ended February 2, 1997. We also consent to the reference to our firm under
the caption "Experts".
 
COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


 


Phoenix, Arizona
March 2, 1998
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 2068

MONICA JEFFRIES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WAL

- MART STORES EAST, LP , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. George Jarrod Hazel , District Judge. ( 8:17

- cv - 02518

- GJH )

Submitted : December 19, 2019 Decided: December 23, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Monica Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Monica Jeffries appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss her complaint alleging disability discrimination a nd retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. A. §§ 12101 to 12213 ( West 2013 & Supp. 201 9 ). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court

. See Jeffries v. Wal

- Mart Stores East,
L.P. , No. 8:1 7

- cv - 0 2518

- GJH (D. Md. filed Aug. 28, 2019 & entered Aug. 29, 2019 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court a nd argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 99.1 - ANNUAL SERVICER STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

                          CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC.

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
     (Annual Statement as to Compliance for CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2004-1)

         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of CarMax Auto
Superstores, Inc., as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and
Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2004 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement")
among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2004-1, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto
Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc., as Servicer (the
"Servicer"), and as Administrator on behalf of the Issuer pursuant to Section
3.9 of the Indenture dated as of May 1, 2004 (the "Indenture") between the
Issuer and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Indenture Trustee (the
"Indenture Trustee"), does hereby certify that:

          1.   CarMax Auto  Superstores,  Inc.  is, as of the date  hereof,  the
               Servicer   under  the  Sale  and  Servicing   Agreement  and  the
               Administrator under the Administration  Agreement dated as of May
               1, 2004 among the  Issuer,  CarMax  Auto  Superstores,  Inc.,  as
               Administrator (the "Administrator"), and the Indenture Trustee.

          2.   The  undersigned  is duly  authorized to execute and deliver this
               Officer's Certificate.

          3.   This Officer's  Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.10
               of the  Sale  and  Servicing  Agreement  and  Section  3.9 of the
               Indenture.

          4.   A review of the  activities  of the  Servicer  during  the period
               beginning  on May 6, 2004 and ending on February  28, 2005 and of
               the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement
               was made under my supervision. To the best of my knowledge, based
               on such review,  the Servicer has fulfilled  all its  obligations
               under the Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout such period.

          5.   A review  of the  activities  of the  Issuer  during  the  period
               beginning  on May 6, 2004 and ending on February  28, 2005 and of
               the Issuer's  performance  under the  Indenture was made under my
               supervision.  To the best of my knowledge,  based on such review,
               the Issuer has complied with all conditions  and covenants  under
               the Indenture throughout such period.

         Capitalized terms used in this Officer's Certificate and not otherwise
defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing
Agreement.



<PAGE>



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the
Servicer and the Administrator, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate
this 27th day of May, 2005.



                                        /s/ Keith D. Browning
                                        Keith D. Browning
                                        Executive Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer