alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21

                           BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LIMITED
                     Subsidiary Listing as of March 31, 2010


Berkeley Technology Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

         Berkeley International Capital Limited (Guernsey, Channel Islands
                                                 corporation)

         Frederick Morgan & Co. Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

         London Pacific Assurance Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

                  LPAL Investments Limited (Guernsey, Channel Islands
                                                      corporation)

         London Pacific Trust Company Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands
                                                       corporation)

                  Berkeley (USA) Holdings Limited (California corporation)

                          Berkeley International Capital Corporation (California
                                                                    corporation)

                          Berkeley VC, LLC (California Limited Liability
                                                             corporation)

                  London Pacific Secretaries Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands
                                                                    corporation)


_____________


Notes:

(1)   Each indentation reflects another tier of ownership.

(2)   All subsidiaries are 100% owned and are listed above,  except that
      subsidiaries that in the aggregate are insignificant have been
      omitted.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 16 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
JONNIE MYERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, sued as Department of Human Services,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 97-5235 (D.C. No. 96-CV-684-H) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Jonnie Myers appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant on her claim of age discrimin ation, in violation of the Age1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. -2- Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. 1 We review the district court’s decision de novo, applying the same legal standards pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See Kaul v. Stephan , 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996). On appeal, Ms. Myers contends that she has raised triable questions of fact by controverting defendant’s factual statements, al leges that defendant’s evidence is flawed and unreliable, and complains that defend ant’s production of records was untimely and unhelpful. After careful review o f the record on appeal together with the parties’ briefs and the applicabl e law, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. Theref ore, for substantially the same reasons contained in the district court’s order dated September 29, 1997, the judgment of the United States District Court for th e Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Mohamed Kadry, Respondent.

Submitted October 19, 2009;

decided October 22, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 856.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,364,249
<SECURITIES>                                     2,949,184
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,340,632
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0 
<INVENTORY>                                              0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0 
<PP&E>                                           2,304,640 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,403,730) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,960,496 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0 
<BONDS>                                          1,235,972 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            8,750,000 
<PREFERRED>                                         11,400 
<COMMON>                                           454,229 
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,080,219 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,960,496 
<SALES>                                                  0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,275,730 
<CGS>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,526,730 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   100,000 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  59,305 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (410,305) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (139,504) 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (270,801) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0 
<CHANGES>                                               0 
<NET-INCOME>                                     (270,801) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.22)
         

</TABLE>
#### GENE OUTERBRIDGE, Employee v. PERDUE FARMS, INC., Employer, Self-Insured, CRAWFORD & COMPANY, Servicing Agent

No. 78A07

(Filed 12 October 2007)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 181 N.C. App. 50, 638 S.E.2d 564 (2007), remanding an opinion and award filed on 9 September 2005 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 September 2007.

*Curtis C. Coleman, III for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., by Brian M. Freedman, for defendant-appellants.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Written Statement of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarter ended March
31, 2007 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ David W. Thompson

David W. ThompsonChairman and Chief Executive OfficerApril 26, 2007
  30
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3732 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain liquid crystal device (LCD) 

flat panel displays. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 26, 2006 

Mr. PRYOR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain liquid crystal 

device (LCD) flat panel displays. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN LIQUID CRYSTAL DEVICE (LCD) FLAT 

4 PANEL DISPLAYS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.90.01 Liquid crystal device (LCD) 

flat panel displays (provided 

for in subheading 

9013.80.90) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 3732 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30103 Summary Calendar

JERRY L. ROBINETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DELGADO COMMUNITY COLLEGE; LOUISIANA COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM; UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-2545-T

- - - - - - - - - - August 31, 2001 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Jerry L. Robinett appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants. He argues that: (1) Delgado Community College’s policy for the 1994-1995 school year regarding satisfactory academic progress violated federal law; (2) he had a property right in the receipt of federal Pell Grant benefits; (3) he was not given adequate process when such benefits were denied to him; (4) the district court erred by assuming that unnamed state employees, whom Robinett sought toNo. 01-30103 -2- add to his complaint, were being sued only in their official capacities; (5) the district court erred by holding that he failed to cite sufficient evidence for his conspiracy claim; (6) his conspiracy claim was not prescribed; and (7) the district court erred by holding that his motion to supplement was dilatory or futile. Although Robinett indicated on his notice of appeal that he sought to appeal the denial of his F ED . R. C IV . P. 59(e) motion, he has abandoned such issue by failing to challenge the denial on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1993). Similarly, because he has failed to challenge the district court’s holdings that the named defendants are immune from the instant lawsuit and that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims based on incidents from the 1994-1995 school year were prescribed, he has abandoned such issues on appeal. See id. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo . See Green v. Touro Infirmary , 992 F.2d 537, 538 (5th Cir. 1993). Summary judgment is appropriate when, considering all of the admissible evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c); Little v. Liquid Air Corp. , 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). As Robinett has failed to establish that he a constitutionally-protected right in the receipt of federal Pell Grant benefits, he has failed to establish a due process claim.

See Bryan v. City of Madison, Miss. , 213 F.3d 267, 274-75 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1081 (2001). Furthermore,No. 01-30103 -3- he failed to provide sufficient evidentiary support to show the existence of a conspiracy or that such conspiracy affected his constitutional rights. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10871]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,401]

Ingersoll Rand Industrial Technologies, Incorporated, Southern 
Pines, NC; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 26, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed on behalf of workers of Ingersoll Rand Industrial 
Technologies, Southern Pines, North Carolina.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of April 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10871 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134945 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134945 

 COA: 268490 

Kent CC: 04-010944-FH 

JEROME ROMEY SUEING, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1217 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

January 8, 2008 

Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Benito Acevedo, Respondent.

Submitted September 20, 2010;

decided October 14, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.
EXHIBIT 31.2





Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 (a) of the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, David Corcoran, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of

International Barrier Technology Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure

controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that

material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated

subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,

particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and

procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the

effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of

the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control

over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent

fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an

annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to

materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial

reporting; and



5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or

operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably

likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process,

summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other

employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control

over financial reporting.



/s/ David Corcoran

David Corcoran

CFO/Director

October 14, 2008
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect To Burma

                    On May 20, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13047, certifying to the Congress under section 570(b) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208), that the Government of Burma has committed large-scale repression of the democratic opposition in Burma after September 30, 1996, thereby invoking the prohibition on new investment in Burma by United States persons contained in that section. The President also declared a national emergency to deal with the threat posed to the national security and foreign policy of the United States by the actions and policies of the Government of Burma, invoking the authority,                     *inter alia*, of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701*et seq*.                

On July 28, 2003, the President issued Executive Order 13310, taking additional steps with respect to that national emergency by putting in place an import ban required by the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 and prohibiting exports of financial services to Burma and the dealing in property in which certain designated persons have an interest. On October 18, 2007, the President issued Executive Order 13448, expanding the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13047 and taking additional steps to prohibit transactions  or dealings with certain persons, including the Burmese regime's financial supporters and their companies, as well as individuals determined to be responsible for or to have participated in human rights abuses or to have engaged in activities facilitating public corruption in Burma.

On April 30, 2008, the President issued Executive Order 13464, taking additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13047, in order to address the Government of Burma's continued repression of the democratic opposition in Burma.

                    Because the actions and policies of the Government of Burma continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, the national emergency declared on May 20, 1997, and the measures adopted on that date, July 28, 2003, October 18, 2007, and April 30, 2008, to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond May 20, 2009. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Burma. This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*                     and transmitted to the Congress.                

[FR Doc. E9-11753

Billing code 3195-W9-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11631] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of Washington, dated 01/12/2009. 

*Incident:*                         Green River/Kummer Bridge Closure.                     

*Incident Period:*                         11/14/2008 and continuing.                     

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

01/12/2009. 

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         10/13/2009.                     

# 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 Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed 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: King. 

Contiguous Counties:

Washington: Chelan, Kitsap, Kittitas, Pierce, Snohomish, Yakima.

The Interest Rate is: 4.000. 

The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 116310. 

The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Washington.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002)

Dated: January 12, 2009. 

Sandy K. Baruah, 

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. E9-1208 Filed 1-21-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60654

__________________

FRANKIE ASHBY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JIM WITT,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Mississippi

(1:95CV61-D-D)

______________________________________________

April 9, 1996

Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The dismissal of the section 1983 complaint is affirmed.

Among other things, there is no liberty or property interest in

having a Mississippi Chancery Court clerk enter an interlocutory

default as required by Mississippi rules, and, even if there were,

there is no deprivation of due process because there are adequate

procedures available (though not availed of here), including a

resort to the judge of the court in question, to remedy the clerk’s

failure to enter interlocutory default. See, e.g., Chassaniol v.

Bank of Kilmichael, 626 So.2d 127, 132 (Miss. 1963).

AFFIRMED