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

---

Exhibit 8

# SUBSIDIARIES OF
RADVISION LTD.

RADVISION Ltd. has the following wholly-owned subsidiaries:

|1. | RADVISION Inc. (incorporated in New Jersey, the United States of America)
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | RADVISION
B.V. (incorporated in the Netherlands)
|-- | ------------------------------------------------

|3. | RADVISION
(HK) Ltd. (incorporated in Hong Kong)
|-- | -----------------------------------------------

|4. | RADVISION
(UK) Ltd. (incorporated in the United Kingdom)
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------

|5. | RADVISION
Communication Development (Beijing) Co. Ltd. (incorporated in China)
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|6. | RADVISION
Japan KK (incorporated in Japan)
|-- | ------------------------------------------

|7. | RADVISION
France S.A.R.L (incorporated in France)
|-- | -------------------------------------------------

|8. | RADVISION
GmbH (incorporated in Germany)
|-- | ----------------------------------------

|9. | RADVISION
Government Services, Inc (incorporated in Delaware, the United States           of
America, as a
wholly-owned subsidiary of RADVISION Inc.)
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
II 

Calendar No. 137 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1173 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Emergency 

Medical Services for Children program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2019 

Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Ms. BALDWIN, 

Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. BROWN, and Ms. SMITH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

JULY 9, 2019 

Reported by Mr. ALEXANDER, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 

Emergency Medical Services for Children program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Medical 

5 Services for Children Program Reauthorization Act of 

6 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1173 RS

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL 

2 SERVICES FOR CHILDREN PROGRAM. 

3 Section 1910(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 300w–9(d)) is amended by inserting before the pe5 riod the following: ‘‘, and $22,334,000 for each of fiscal 

6 years 2020 through 2024’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 137 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1173 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reaudren program. thorize the Emergency Medical Services for ChilJULY 9, 2019 

Reported without amendment 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
1 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

Jonathan SANTORO and Katherine 

SANTORO, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNIQUE VACATIONS, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

 

 

 Civ. No. 10-3281 

 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J. 

 On January 21, 2015, Plaintiffs Jonathan and Katherine Santoro (“Plaintiffs”) submitted a 

Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order of January 14, 2014. (Doc. No. 77). 

Defendants Unique Vacations, Inc., and Sandals Resorts International, Ltd. (“Defendants”) 

oppose this motion. (Doc. 78). The Court has decided the motion based on the written 

submissions of the parties and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1(b). For 

the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied. 

Motions for reconsideration should only be granted “to correct manifest errors of law or 

fact or to present newly discovered evidence,” and where (1) the controlling law has changed; (2) 

new evidence has surfaced; or (3) there is a need to correct a “clear error of law or prevent 

manifest injustice.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Max’s 

Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 667 (3d Cir. 1999)). The basis of Plaintiffs’ motion is 

the decision by a Court in the Eastern District of New York, which recently allowed the plaintiffs 

in a factually similar situation, involving some of the same defendants and the same attorneys, to 

Case 3:10-cv-03281-AET-TJB Document 79 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1043
2 

amend their complaint to correct the name of a misnamed party. See Perez v. Sandals Resorts, 

Int’l, Ltd., No. 11-cv-914, 2015 WL 94223 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2015). While the Perez case is 

undoubtedly factually similar to this case, the legal issues presented there are not identical to 

those presented in this case; most notably, Perez does not involve New Jersey’s fictitious party 

rule, N.J.R. 4:26-4, which was the foundation of the Court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion to 

Amend. Accordingly, the Perez decision cannot be said to have changed the controlling law, 

presented new evidence, or to have brought to light a clear error of law, and so Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Reconsideration will be denied. An appropriate order will follow. 

 /s/ Anne E. Thompson 

 ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J. 

Case 3:10-cv-03281-AET-TJB Document 79 Filed 01/28/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1044
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

GEORGE RAMIREZ, ET AL. : 

 

 : Civil Action No. 11-1150 (SDW)

 

 Plaintiff (s)

 :

 vs 

 : ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THE CITY OF NEWARK, ET AL. :

 

 Defendant(s) :

It has been reported to the Court that the above-captioned matter has been settled, 

It is on this 21 day of March, 2016 ST

 

ORDERED that this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice and without costs,

subject to the right of the parties upon good cause shown within 90 days, to reopen the action if the

settlement is not consummated. The terms of the settlement agreement are incorporated herein by

reference and the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement to enforce its terms.

 /s/ Susan D. Wigenton 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW Document 127 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1366
#### Mac L. SHERWOOD et al., Plaintiffs, v. Robert BRADFORD et al., Defendants.

No. 65-930.

United States District Court, C. D. California.

June 7, 1971.

*406Fadem & Kanner, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs.

Joseph A. Montoya, Richard L. Franck, Robert L. Meyer and Anthony J. Ruffolo, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS AND FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

HALL, District Judge.

The facts concerning the history of this litigation are amply set forth in Mr. Kanner’s Affidavit filed January 20, 1971, and no purpose would be served in repeating them here.

I have read plaintiffs’ brief and the authorities cited therein with great interest. I do not think there is any doubt that the efforts of plaintiffs’ counsel produced the restriction in People ex rel. Dept. of Public Works v. Superior Court of Merced County, 68 Cal.2d 206, 65 Cal. Rptr. 342, 436 P.2d 342, on the untrammeled powers claimed by the California Highway Commission under California Streets & Highways Code, Sec. 104.1.

But the plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of the within case, which dismissal leaves the factual questions raised in the Complaint to be determined in the California *nisi prius*Court. As a result of the opinion in People ex rel. Dept. of Public Works v. Superior Court of Merced County, *supra,*the plaintiffs’ counsel obtained the right to litigate those issues in the State court, which had previously denied plaintiffs that right. This case enabled this Court to keep the rights of plaintiffs more or less in status quo until the highest court in California could clarify the applicable California statutes and constitutional provisions. But, try as I might, I cannot convince myself that the plaintiffs herein prevailed in *this action*by *dismissing it.*

Local Rule 15(c) of this Court was drawn after many Judges hereof had considered it, and under its terms, and by logic, the plaintiffs are not the “prevailing party” under the stipulation of dismissal in *this*case. But this Order is not intended to be an indication that *no*situation could arise which would entitle the plaintiffs to recover costs and attorneys’ fees.

The court is mindful of the many cases settled in this Court where defendants pay large sums of money on condition the action will be dismissed, so that defendants may thus avoid costs.

For the foregoing reasons plaintiffs’ motion is denied.
Exhibit 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our reports dated March 14, 1997 accompanying the financial
statements and the financial schedule of Ultra Pac, Inc. included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 1997. We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of
Ultra Pac, Inc. on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-03479, 333-03481, 333- 03483,
333-03485 and 333-03487, each effective May 10, 1996; and File No. 333-18415,
effective December 20, 1996).



/s/ DIVINE, SCHERZER & BRODY, LTD.

St. Paul, Minnesota
March 14, 1997
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Brad E. Schwartz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Monarch Financial Holdings, 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 we 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 quarterly 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 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies 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.



|                     |  |                                                   
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 8, 2006 |  | /s/ Brad E. Schwartz.                             
|                     |  | Brad E. Schwartz                                  
|                     |  | Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer



24
| Exhibit 32.1 |
|--------------|

| (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |   |
|                     |                                                                                                                                                  |
|                     | Dated this 15th   day of November, 2010                                                                                                     |   |
|                     |                                                                                                                                                  |

|    | “Robert M. Baker”                              |   |
|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|         | Robert M. Baker                                       |
|         | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer   |
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10818 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JEFF CARLTON NOEBEL , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14

- CR

- 450

- 1

Before REAVLEY , ELROD , and HAYNES , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jeff Carlton Noebel
has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Noebel h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 20 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10818 Document: 00513472140 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2016No. 15

- 10818

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw
is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-10818 Document: 00513472140 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2016
#### Eddie BRILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Tyra TYLER, Major, W C Dub Brassell Detention Center; (originally sued as Tyra Tylor); David Williams, Deputy, W C Dub Brassell Detention Center; (originally sued only as Williams); Marvin Roberts, Deputy, W C Dub Brassell Detention Center; (originally sued as Roberts); Ed Adams, Captain, W C Dub Brassell Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-2551.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 28, 2018.

Filed: Feb. 28, 2013.

Eddie Briley, Grady, AR, pro se.

Clyde Burt Newell, Nicholas Rudolph Windle, Bachelor & Newell, Hot Springs, AR, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Eddie Briley appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action following a pretrial evidentiary hearing. Upon de novo review, *see Sisk v. Picture People, Inc.,*669 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir.2012), and having followed the standard that applies when a pretrial hearing is held in the face of a jury-trial demand, *see Johnson v. Bi-State Justice Ctr.,*12 F.3d 133, 135-36 (8th Cir.1993), we conclude that dismissal was warranted, *see Story v. Norwood,*659 F.3d 680, 686-87 (8th Cir.2011) (factors in determining whether use of force is excessive).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable D.P. Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
No. 259 A1 7 TENTH DISTRICT

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

****************

)

)

) Wake County

)

)

)

****************

ORDER

Appellant has failed to demonstrate grounds for appellate review under

N.C.G.S. 7A

- 27(a)(3) (2017). The appeal in this matter is therefore dismissed.

By order of the Court in Conference, this the 1 st day of March

, 2018

.

s/Morgan, J.

For the Court

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this

the 2nd day of March

, 201 8

.

s/Amy L. Funderburk

AMY L. FUNDERBURK

Clerk of the Supreme Court IN RE SOUTHEASTERN EYE CENTER

– PENDING MATTERS

_____________________________ ___________

IN RE SOUTHEASTERN EYE CENTER

– JUDGMENTS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1296 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1296

To prohibit oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf off the 
                         coast of New England.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 2, 2019

 Mr. Whitehouse (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Collins, Ms. Hassan, 
   Mr. King, Mr. Markey, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Shaheen, and Ms. 
    Warren) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf off the 
                         coast of New England.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``New England Coastal Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL 
              SHELF OFF THE COAST OF NEW ENGLAND.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(q) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
section or any other law, the Secretary may not issue a lease for the 
exploration for, or development or production of, oil or natural gas in 
any area of the outer Continental Shelf off the coast of the State of 
Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, or Connecticut.''.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION

I, Gilles Addison, hereby certifies that:

     (1)  I have reviewed this annually report on Form 10-KSB of GSI
          Technologies USA 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; and

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

     (4)  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
          and procedures for the issuer and have:

          1.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
               material information relating to the issuer is made known to me,
               particularly during the period in which the periodic reports are
               being prepared;
          2.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer's disclosure controls
               and procedures as of October 31, 2002; and
          3.   Presented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness
               of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
               as of the Evaluation Date;

     (5)  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the issuer's
          auditors and the audit committee of the board of directors (or persons
          fulfilling the equivalent function):

          1.   All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
               internal controls which could adversely affect the issuer's
               ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
               and have identified for the issuer's auditors any material
               weaknesses in internal controls; and
          2.   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
               other employees who have a significant role in the issuer's
               internal controls; and

     (6)  I have indicated in the report whether or not there were significant
          changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
          significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our
          most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard
          to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: October 10, 2003


By: /s/ Gilles Addison
-----------------------------
Gilles Addison
President and CEO



<PAGE>
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 15, 2014

No. 04-13-00064-CR

Donald AEKINS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 403rd District Court, Travis County, Texas

Trial Court No. D-1-DC-12-904056

Brenda Kennedy, Judge Presiding

ORDE R

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The Appellant’s Motion to Suspend Rule 9.3(b) is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 15th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court