alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                QUIKSILVER, INC.

                     NAMES AND JURISDICTIONS OF SUBSIDIARIES


          Subsidiary Name                                      Jurisdiction
          ---------------                                      ------------
          QS Retail, Inc.                                       California
          Mervin Manufacturing, Inc.                            California
          Mt. Waimea, Inc.                                      California
          Quiksilver Wetsuits, Inc.                             California
          Hawk Designs, Inc.                                    California
          Fidra, Inc.                                           California
          Quiksilver Australia Pty Ltd                           Australia
          Quiksilver International Pty Ltd                       Australia
          Pavilion Productions Pty Ltd                           Australia
          Na Pali, S.A.                                             France
          Freestyle, S.A.                                           France
          Kokolo SARL                                               France
          Emerald Coast Europe                                      France
          Infoborn SARL                                             France
          Cariboo, Eurl                                             France
          Lanai                                             United Kingdom
          Gen X Publishing Ltd.                             United Kingdom
          Molokai Ltd.                                      United Kingdom
          Emerald Coast Limited                             United Kingdom
          Kauai GmbH                                               Germany
          Sumbawa SL                                                 Spain
          Haapiti, SRL                                               Italy
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Thursday, April 30, 2020

PLACE: This meeting will be conducted through a video conference 

involving all Commissioners. Any person wishing to listen to the 

proceedings may call the phone number listed below.

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. American Aggregates of Michigan, 

Inc., Docket No. LAKE 2018-340. (Issues include whether the

Judge erred in denying the Secretary’s motion to approve 

settlement.)

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING: 1-(866) 236-7472

Passcode: 678-100

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b

Dated: April 17, 2020

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel

Billing Code 6735-01
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 11.1

                            Continucare Corporation
                    Computation of Earnings Per Common Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      For the Year
                                                                          Ended
                                                                     June 30, 1997
                                                                     ------------- 
<S>                                                                    <C> 
Net Income.........................................................    $1,706,675
                                                                     =============

PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE

  Number of shares:
    Weighted average common shares outstanding(1)..................    10,875,785

  Add:  
    Net additional shares issuable(2)..............................        46,206
                                                                     ------------
    Weighted average shares used in the per share computation......    10,921,991
                                                                     ============
Earnings per common and common equivalent share....................         $0.16
                                                                     ============


FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

  Number of shares:
    Weighted average common shares outstanding(1)..................    10,875,785
                                                                     ------------
    Weighted average shares used in the per share computation......    10,875,785
                                                                     ============
Earnings per common and common equivalent share....................         $0.16
                                                                     ============
</TABLE>

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

(1) Includes warrants exercised during the period as of the beginning of the
    period.
(2) Assumes exercise of outstanding common stock equivalents (options) at the
    beginning of the period.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Lithium Technology Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Franz J. Kruger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: April 14, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10946

Summary Calendar 

STEPHEN M. AVDEEF, 

Plaintiff-Appellant 

v. 

GOOGLE, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:14-CV-788

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Stephen M. Avdeef appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his 

copyright infringement complaint against Google, Inc. While pro se briefs are 

afforded liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in 

order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Avdeef fails to set forth the substance of his claims in meaningful detail and 

does not address the grounds upon which the district court dismissed his 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 3, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10946 Document: 00513896444 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2017
No. 15-10946

2 

complaint. He does not mention the district court’s finding that Google was 

entitled to protection under the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium 

Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512. By failing to challenge the district court’s 

reasons for granting summary judgment in favor of Google, Avdeef has 

abandoned the claim on appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy 

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

In his complaint, Avdeef also named Google’s chief legal officer, David C. 

Drummond, as a defendant. In a final appealable order, the district court 

dismissed Avdeef’s complaint against Drummond for lack of personal 

jurisdiction. See FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). Because Avdeef failed to file a timely 

notice of appeal as to this order, we lack jurisdiction to consider any claim 

challenging the dismissal of Drummond as a defendant in the instant action. 

See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION. 

 Case: 15-10946 Document: 00513896444 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2017
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Francis BLACKCROW, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-30254.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 23, 2008.

E. Vincent Carroll, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for PlaintiffAppellee.

R. Henry Branom, Jr., Esq., Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Kenneth Francis Blackcrow appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Blackcrow contends that his sentence is unreasonably long in light of his personal circumstances, the requirement to impose a sentence not greater than necessary, and his need for rehabilitation and treatment. We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err and that, under the totality of the circumstances, Blackcrow’s within-Guidelines range sentence is substantively reasonable. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO\/No FEAR Act) - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"IigNuNan3G\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/office-of-equal-employment-opportunity-eeo\/\">Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO\/No FEAR Act)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/office-of-equal-employment-opportunity-eeo\/embed\/#?secret=IigNuNan3G\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO\/No FEAR Act)” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"IigNuNan3G\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit (3) (c)

                    CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF
                    BOSTON CELTICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II

      THIS Certificate of Limited Partnership of Boston Celtics Limited 
Partnership II (the "Partnership"), dated as of April 13, 1998, is being 
duly executed and filed by BCLP II GP, Inc., as general partner, to form a 
limited partnership under the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership 
Act.

      1.    Name.  The name of the limited partnership formed hereby is 
Boston Celtics Limited Partnership II.

      2.    Registered Office.  The address of the registered office of 
the Partnership in the State of Delaware is c/o National Corporate 
Research, Ltd., 9 East Loockerman Street, Dover, Kent County, Delaware 
19901.

      3.    Registered Agent.  The name and address of the registered 
agent for service of process on the Partnership in the State of Delaware 
is National Registered Agents, Inc., 9 East Loockerman Street, Dover, Kent 
County, Delaware 19901.

      4.    General Partner.  The name and the business address of the 
sole general partner of the Partnership is BCLP II GP, Inc., 151 Merrimac 
Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of 
Limited Partnership as of the date first-above written.

                                  BCLP II GP, Inc.

                                  /s/ Richard G. Pond
                                  By:    Richard G. Pond
                                  Its:    Chief Financial Officer
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

August 27, 2014

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                11:00 a.m., Thursday, September 11, 2014

 

         PLACE:             The RichardV. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,DC 20004 (entry from  F Street entrance)

 

       STATUS:                        Open 

 

MATTERSTO BE 

  CONSIDERED:                   TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *Secretaryof Labor v. Signal Peak Energy LLC*, Docket No. WEST 2010-1130. (Issuesinclude whether a particular accident was required to be immediately reported.)

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters,must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3)and § 2706.160(d).

 

CONTACTPERSON 

  FORMORE INFO:              Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                _____________________________

                                                EmogeneJohnson

                                                AdministrativeAssistant
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6948

CARMELO P. MARTINEZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

NORA HUNT,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (5:12-hc-02150-BO)

Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carmelo P. Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carmelo P. Martinez seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484-85 (2000). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Martinez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   United Mine Workers of America on behalf of Local 1248, District 2 v. Maple Creek Mining, Inc., Docket No. PENN 2002-23-C.               

#   United Mine Workers of America on behalf of Local 1248, District 2 v. Maple Creek Mining, Inc., Docket No. PENN 2002-23-C. 

meeting041907.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
(First Circuit — Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court

Jan. Term, 1898.)

Before Cox, Swing and Smith, JJ.

#### ANDREWS et al. v. SETTLES et al.

*The Hide Park Cement Sidewalk Act unconstitutional*— No *estoppel against property owners resisting the*assessment—

This is a suit on the part of owners of property abutting on Michigan avenue, Hyde Park, to enjoin the collection of a cement sidewalk assessment.

Swing, J.

We are of the opinion that the act of May 19, 1894. (91 O. L., p. 808), is unconstitutional! and therefore invalid for the reason that it is an act of a general nature, and does not have a uniform operation throughout the state. (Section 26, Article 2, of the constitution.) The act reads as follows:

> “An act to authorize the trustees of Columbia township, Hamilton county, Ohio, to construct sidewalks on certain roads and avenues in Columbia township.

> ■ “Section 1. Be it enacted by the general assembly of the state of Ohio, that the trustees of Columbia township, Hamilton county, Ohio, be and they are hereby authorized to construct sidewalks on both sides of Columbian avenue, from its intersection with Montecello avenue, northeastwardly to the Brotherton road, and also on both sides of the Brotherton road from Columbian avenue northeastwardly to the corporation line of the village of Madisonville, and also on both sides of Michigan and Shaw avenues from Erie avenue to the Wassan road, and also on both sides of Andrew avenue from Erie avenue to the Madison pike, or upon any or all of the same, as said trustees may determine.”

As to the second defense set up in the answer of the defendants, that the plaintiffs should be estopped by reason of their conduct, the only allegations relied on constituting an estoppel are: That the plaintiffs knew that said improvement was being made under said act; that the bonds of the township were to be issued to raise money to pay for the improvement and expenses, and that the said bonds were to be paid by a uniform assessment per front foot on the lots and lands abutting on the improvement, and that the plain*639tiffs made no objection or protest until the township had incurred a large liability.

*Coppock, Hammel & Coppock,*and *Frank M. Coppock,*for the property owners.

*J. T. DeMar,*for the Township Trustees.

There is no allegation that the plaintiffs took any active part in encouraging or bringing about the improvement, or that they knew the law was unconstitutional, or that the improvement in any way benefited the property of the plaintiffs.

' According to the decision of Tone v. Oolumbus, 89 Ohio St., 281, the allegations in this answer are not sufficient to ■make out a cause of estoppel.

The demurrer to the answer must therefore be sus|ained, and the prayer of the petition will be granted unless the defendants desire to plead further.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00123

- CV

Kiera MATHIS

, Appellant

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES

, Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CI13518

Honorable Larry Noll , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. No costs of appeal a re taxed against appellant because she is indigent.

SIGNED October 12, 2022.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice