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

MATTSON TECHNOLOGY, INC.
                                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



Mattson International, Inc. 
                  Mattson Technology Holdings, LLC 
                  Mattson Wet Products, Inc. 
                  STEAG CVD Systems Ltd. 
                  Mattson Technology Japan K.K. 
                  Mattson International Korea Co. 
                  Mattson Technology Singapore Pte. Ltd. 
                  Mattson International, Inc. Taiwan Branch * 
                  Mattson Technology Holding GmbH 
                  Mattson International GmbH 
                  Mattson Thermal Products GmbH 
                  Mattson International France Sarl 
                  Mattson Technology Srl (in liquidation)
                  Mattson Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 
                  Mattson Technology Cayman Holdings, Ltd. 
                  Mattson Technology Canada, Inc. 
                  Mattson Technology Israel Ltd.





*Note: this is not a subsidiary, but a branch registration



---
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 31.1


Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14 or 15d-14 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934

I, Christian J.F. Rochet, certify that:

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

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 period covered by the 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 function):

(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.

Dated:   March 30, 2004                          /s/ Christian J.F. Rochet
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 Christian J.F. Rochet
                                                 Chief Executive Officer


                                       87
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

October 25, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00734

- CR

Mark Rudolph DOMRES
, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CR7177 Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Based on the clerk’s record filed in this appeal, it appears appellant is seeking to appeal the trial court’s dismissal of the charges filed against him. An order dismissing charges is not an order appealable by a defendant. See Bohannan v. State , No. 02

- 1 1

- 00105

- CR, 2011 WL 2119688, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth May 26, 2011, no pet.). It is therefore ORDERED that within ten (10) days of this order appellant show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All other app ellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 25th day of October, 2019

.

___________________________________ LUZ ESTRADA
, Chief Deputy Clerk
#### Gregory Kuras, Appellant, v Cornell University et al., Respondents.

[987 NYS2d 132]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered January 30, 2014, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

*489Plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through his testimony that, while attempting to descend from the third to the second rung of an unsecured wooden A-frame ladder, the ladder (which had worn legs and no rubber tips) suddenly slipped and collapsed, causing him to fall and sustain injuries *(see Goreczny v 16 Ct. St. Owner LLC,*110 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2013]; *Fanning v Rockefeller Univ.,*106 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2013]).

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. There is no support for defendants’ argument that the record contains inconsistent accounts as to how the accident occurred *(see e.g. Marrero v 2075 Holding Co. LLC,*106 AD3d 408 [1st Dept 2013]). There is no evidence that plaintiff fell simply because he lost his balance *(see e.g. Carchipulla v 6661 Broadway Partners, LLC,*95 AD3d 573 [1st Dept 2012]), and regardless of whether a lift and another ladder were available at the job site, “there was no showing that plaintiff was expected, or instructed, to use those [devices] and for no good reason chose not to do so” *(Dwyer v Central Park Studios, Inc.,*98 AD3d 882, 884 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Friedman, Gische and Clark, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 21**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT           State of    Name of Subsidiary Incorporation  Percent Owned 1) GlasCraft, Inc. Indiana  100%2) Cohesant Materials Inc. f/n/aRaven Lining Systems, Inc. Oklahoma  100%3) American Chemical Company Missouri  100%4) CIPARServices Inc. (1) Delaware  100%5) CIPAR Inc. Delaware  100%6) CuraFlo of British Columbia Ltd. British Columbia  100%7) Cohesant InfrastructureProtection and Renewal of CanadaLtd. Canada  100%
(1)  A wholly owned subsidiary of CIPAR Inc.
Exhibit 10.37


 





ADDENDUM
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DATED

June 7, 2011

BY AND BETWEEN

MILLENNIUM HEALTHCARE, INC.

(the "Company")

and

DOMINICK SARTORIO

(the "Employee")


 


This Addendum ("Addendum"), made
and entered into this 4th day of January, 2013 (the "Effective Date"), shall modify and, to the extent inconsistent with,
amend that Employment Agreement between MILLENNIUM HEALTHCARE INC. (the "Company") and DOMINICK SARTORIO (the "Employee")
(the "Agreement"). Except as expressly set forth in the Addendum, all capitalized terms shall have the meanings assigned
to them in the Preprinted Employment Agreement. The Preprinted Employment Agreement, as modified and amended by this Addendum and
all riders and exhibits attached hereto, shall be referred to as the "Agreement".


 


The Company and Employee agree to the following
changes and/or additions to the Agreement:


 


In consideration of
the services to be rendered by the Employee to the Company and in consideration of the Employee's other covenants, the Company
shall pay the Employee a cash compensation base salary at the rate of $250,000.00 per annum commencing January 1, 2013.


 


All other provisions and conditions of the
original Employment Agreement remain the same except as adjusted herein.


 


In witness thereof, the parties have executed
this employment agreement addendum on the day and year first above written.


 


	By:	 	 	By:	/s/ Dominick Sartorio
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Officer / Director	 	 	Dominick Sartorio
#### George D. LA BLANCHE, III, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PRAIRIE VIEW A & M UNIVERSITY; KPVU Radio; Cheryl Granger Brooks; Jeffrey Kelley; Fred Washington, Vice President Auxiliary Services; Albert Gee, Assistant Vice President Human Resources; Radhika Ayyar, Director Employee Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-20602

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 28, 2011.

George D. La Blanche, III, Prairie View, TX, pro se.

Jason Thaddeus Contreras, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

*363PER CURIAM: *

George D. La Blanche, III, moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Insofar as La Blanche wishes to appeal the order dismissing his suit, we lack jurisdiction to consider the correctness of this judgment due to his failure to timely notice an appeal from it. *See Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). However, he did timely notice his appeal from the magistrate judge’s denial of his postjudgment motion, which is best classed as arising under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). *See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc.,*784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir.1986) (en banc). We thus consider whether La Blanche has shown that he should be permitted to proceed IFP in this appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. The appellee has filed a motion for summary affirmance and to stay the briefing deadlines.

La Blanche asserts that he is impoverished and that the magistrate judge was biased. Additionally, he avers that the magistrate judge had jurisdiction over his suit, that he did not raise a Title VII claim, and that he raises a valid retaliation claim. These allegations are insufficient to show that La Blanche will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. *See Carson v. Polley,*689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982). Consequently, all outstanding motions are DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Entheos Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on the Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harmel Rayat, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.

|                      | ENTHEOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
|--------------------- | --------------------------
|                     
|Date: August 13, 2008 | By:                       
|                      |                           
|                      |                           

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, David E. Kennedy, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March31, 2005 of Susquehanna Media Co.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’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 thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.       Date: May 13, 2005   /s/David E. Kennedy          David E. Kennedy     President and CEO
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48078-48079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22298]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice 2017-6010]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as a part 
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 
invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the 
proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995.
    The collection provides EXIM staff with the information necessary 
to monitor the borrower's payments for exported goods covered under its 
short and medium-term export credit insurance policies. It also alerts 
EXIM staff of defaults, so they can manage the portfolio in an informed 
manner.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 15, 2017 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on 
www.regulations.gov or by mail to Mia Johnson, Export-Import Bank of 
the

[[Page 48079]]

United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.
    Form can be viewed at https://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/pub/pending/eib92-27.pdf.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-27 Report of Overdue Accounts Under 
Short-Term Policies.
    OMB Number: 3048-0027.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: The collection provides EXIM staff with the 
information necessary to monitor the borrower's payments for exported 
goods covered under its short- and medium term export credit insurance 
policies. It also alerts Ex-Im Bank staff of defaults, so they can 
manage the portfolio in an informed manner.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S. goods and services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 745.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 186.25 hours.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: Monthly.
    Government Expenses:
    Reviewing Time per Year: 186.25 hours.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
    Average Cost per Year: $7,915.62.
    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $9,498.75.

Bassam Doughman,
IT Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2017-22298 Filed 10-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7324

DAVID M. CHAPMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLESTON COUNTY;

CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; MAGWOOD,

Deputy Sheriff; HENRY MCMASTER,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-03-2511-8-18B)

Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 17, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David M. Chapman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

David M. Chapman, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the

district court are debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chapman has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH P. BECKER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-55527

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00576-JM-PCL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Jeffrey T. Miller, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 8, 2011

Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Although the sentencing judge violated clearly established federal law by

imposing an upper term sentence based on Becker’s “lengthy record,” see

Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 288–93 (2007), the error was harmless

because we have no “grave doubt” that a jury would’ve also found Becker’s record

FILED

FEB 16 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
page 2

“lengthy” given his numerous prior convictions, see Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624,

648 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3044 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3044

To impose an 18-month moratorium on the Home Valuation Code of Conduct.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2009

    Mr. Childers (for himself and Mr. Gary G. Miller of California) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To impose an 18-month moratorium on the Home Valuation Code of Conduct.

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

SECTION 1. MORATORIUM ON THE HOME VALUATION CODE OF CONDUCT.

    During the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Home Valuation Code of Conduct announced by the 
Federal Housing Finance Agency on December 23, 2008, shall have no 
force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 29325-4-III.

Division Three.

October 2, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Emory E. Reeves, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 09-1-03868-7, Annette S. Píese, J., entered August 26, 2010. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Kulik, J.,

concurred in by Sweeney and Brown, JJ.