alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21
                              
                       ROUNDY'S, INC.
                        Subsidiaries
                              
Roundy's, Inc. has twelve wholly-owned first-tier
subsidiaries, each a
Wisconsin corporation (except as otherwise noted) doing
business under their corporate names.  These subsidiaries
are:

Badger Assurance, Ltd.(1)     Kee Wholesale, Inc.
CD of Wisconsin, Inc.         Midland Grocery of Michigan,
Inc.(6)
Holt Public Storage, Inc.     Old Time, Inc.
I.T.A., Inc.                  Ropak, Inc.
Jondex Corp.                  Scot Lad Foods, Inc.
Kee Trans, Inc.               WFC Foods, Inc.(2)

Six Wisconsin corporations doing business under their
corporate names are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Ropak, Inc.
These corporations are:

Insurance Planners, Inc.      Shop-Rite, Inc.
Pick 'n Save Warehouse Foods, Inc. Villard Avenue Shop-Rite,
Inc.
Sheboygan Land Corporation    Rindt Enterprises, Inc.

Four corporations doing business under their corporate names
are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Scot Lad Foods, Inc.  These
corporations are:

Bonnie Baking Co., Inc.(3)    Cardinal Foods, Inc. (5)
Spring Lake Merchandise, Inc.(4)   Scot Lad-Lima, Inc.(4)

Two corporations doing business under their corporate names
are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Cardinal Foods, Inc.  These
corporations are:

Wilson's Cardinal             Gardner Food Galleries, Inc.
(4)
Supermarket, Inc.(4)

One corporation doing business under its corporate name is a
subsidiary of Shop-Rite, Inc. and is partially owned by
Cardinal Foods, Inc.  The corporation is:

The Midland Grocery Company(4)


_____________

(1) A Bermuda corporation.    (4) An Ohio corporation.
(2) An Illinois corporation.  (5) A Delaware corporation.
(3) An Indiana corporation.   (6) A Michigan corporation.
First Department,

June, 1962

(June 5, 1962)

#### The People of the State of New York v. Rex Lampkins.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person and motion for an enlargement of time granted to the extent and on the terms and conditions contained in the order of this court filed herein. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

February 2, 2021

b0125 

# Order

Clerk February 2, 2021

161248

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161248

COA: 352341

Macomb CC: 2017

- 000598

- FH

JOHN JOSEPH MURPHY, III,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

By order of October 30, 2020, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the

application for leave to appeal the March 6, 2020 order of the Court of Appeals. On order

of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented

should be reviewed by this Court.
#### In the Matter of John H. De Castanos, an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

March 22, 1979

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Michael Alan Schwartz*of counsel *(Nicholas C. Cooper,*attorney), for petitioner.

No one appearing on behalf of respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in this Department in 1942. On or about October 13, 1978, respondent was convicted in the United States District Court, Southern District, New York, by plea of guilty, of the felony of conspiracy to transport and sell stolen securities (US Code, tit 18, *641§ 371), a Federal felony (US Code, tit 18, § 1), and sentenced thereon to probation for two years, resulting in his automatic disbarment (Judiciary Law, §90, subd 4; *Matter of Chu,*42 NY2d 490; *Matter of Thies,*45 NY2d 865). The Departmental Disciplinary Committee moves accordingly to strike his name from the roll of attorneys. The application is granted.

Respondent’s name should be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Sullivan, Markewich and Bloom, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York.
#### § 114.2 Applicability.

This part applies to any military or civilian victims or witnesses of alleged offenses under the UCMJ. This part also applies to OSD, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in this part as the “DoD Components”).
#### § 196.305 Preference in admission.

A recipient to which §§ 196.300 through 196.310 apply shall not give preference to applicants for admission, on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or other school or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preference has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of §§ 196.300 through 196.310.
§ 37.645 Must I require periodic audits, as well as award-specific audits, of for-profit participants? You need to consider requirements for both periodic audits and award-specific audits (as defined in § 37.1325 and § 37.1235, respectively). The way that your expenditure-based TIA addresses the two types of audits will vary, depending upon the type of for-profit participant. ( a ) For for-profit participants that are audited by the DCAA or other Federal auditors, as described in §§ 37.650(b) and 37.655, you need not add specific requirements for periodic audits because the Federal audits should be sufficient to address whatever may be needed. Your inclusion in the TIA of the standard access-to-records provision for those for-profit participants, as discussed in § 37.915(a), gives the necessary access in the event that you or administrative agreements officers later need to request audits to address award-specific issues that arise.
( b ) For each other for-profit participant, you: ( 1 ) Should require that the participant have an independent auditor (*i.e.,* the DCAA or an independent public accountant) conduct periodic audits of its systems if it expends $750,000 or more per year in TIAs and other Federal assistance awards. A prime reason for including this requirement is that the Federal Government, for an expenditure-based award, necessarily relies on amounts reported by the participant's systems when it sets payment amounts or adjusts performance outcomes. The periodic audit provides some assurance that the reported amounts are reliable.
( 2 ) Must ensure that the award provides an independent auditor the access needed for award-specific audits, to be performed at the request of the cognizant administrative agreements officer if issues arise that require audit support. However, consistent with the government-wide policies on single audits that apply to nonprofit participants (see § 37.665), you should rely on periodic audits to the maximum extent possible to resolve any award-specific issues.
[68 FR 47160, Aug. 7, 2003, as amended at 85 FR 51246, Aug. 19, 2020]
Exhibit 99

                    WINTHROP PARTNERS 80 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                                DECEMBER 31, 2004

Supplementary Information Required Pursuant to Section 9.4 of the Partnership
Agreement (Unaudited)

      1.    Statement of Cash Available for Distribution:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                          Three Months
                                                                          Year Ended         Ended
                                                                          December 31,    December 31,
                                                                              2004            2004
                                                                          ------------    ------------
<S>                                                                       <C>             <C>
            Net income                                                    $ 1,833,000     $ 1,559,000
                 Add: Depreciation and amortization charged to income
                         not affecting cash available for distribution        141,000          77,000
                           Net proceeds from sale of property               3,514,000       3,514,000
                           Cash from reserves                                 243,000          83,000

                 Less: Gain on sale of property                            (1,621,000)     (1,621,000)
                                                                          -----------     -----------

                       Cash Available for Distribution                    $ 4,110,000     $ 3,612,000
                                                                          ===========     ===========

                       Distributions allocated to General Partners        $        --     $        --
                                                                          ===========     ===========

                       Distributions allocated to Limited Partners        $ 4,110,000     $ 3,612,000
                                                                          ===========     ===========
</TABLE>

      2.    Fees and other compensation paid or accrued by the Partnership to
            the General Partners, or their affiliates, during the three months
            ended December 31, 2004:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
            Entity Receiving                    Form of
             Compensation                     Compensation                        Amount
            ------------------   -------------------------------------------    ----------
<S>                              <C>                                            <C>
            Winthrop
            Management LLC       Property Management Fees                       $    1,000

            General Partners     Interest in Cash Available for Distribution    $       --

            Affiliates of the
            General Partner      Interest in Cash Available for Distribution    $  817,000
</TABLE>


                                       35
§ 57.4 Policy. It is DoD policy that: ( a ) Infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families who (but for the children's age) would be entitled to enroll in a DoDEA school in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 921-932 or 10 U.S.C. 2164 shall be provided EIS.
( b ) The DoD shall engage in child-find activities for all children age birth to 21, inclusive, who are entitled by 20 U.S.C. 921-932 or 10 U.S.C. 2164 to enroll or are enrolled in a DoDEA school.
( c ) Children with disabilities who meet the enrollment eligibility criteria of 20 U.S.C. 921-932 or 10 U.S.C. 2164 shall be provided a FAPE in the least restrictive environment, including if appropriate to the needs of the individual child, placement in a residential program for children with disabilities in accordance with the child's IEP and at no cost to the parents.
( d ) The Military Departments and DoDEA shall cooperate in the delivery of related services prescribed by section 1401(26) of the IDEA and this part as may be required to assist eligible children with disabilities to benefit from special education.
( e ) Children with disabilities who are eligible to enroll in a DoDEA school in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 921-932 or 10 U.S.C. 2164 shall not be entitled to provision of a FAPE by DoDEA, or to the procedural safeguards prescribed by this part in accordance with the IDEA, if: ( 1 ) The sponsor is assigned to an overseas area where a DoDEA school is available within the commuting area of the sponsor's overseas assignment, but the sponsor does not elect to enroll the child in a DoDEA school for reasons other than DoDEA's alleged failure to provide a FAPE; or
( 2 ) The sponsor is assigned in the United States or in a U.S. territory, commonwealth, or possession and the sponsor's child meets the eligibility requirements for enrollment in a DoDEA school, but the sponsor does not elect to enroll the child in a DoDEA school for reasons other than DoDEA's alleged failure to provide a FAPE.
§ 245.1 Purpose. This part: ( a ) Is authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, Executive Order 12656 (“Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities”, November 18, 1988), as amended.
( b ) Defines the jointly developed and agreed upon responsibilities of the Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration (DOT/FAA), Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security Administration (DHS/TSA), and Department of Defense (DoD) authorities for the security control of civil and military air traffic. It implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for implementation and performance of the ESCAT Plan. The Emergency Security Control of Air Traffic (ESCAT) is an emergency preparedness plan that prescribes the joint action to be taken by appropriate elements of the DoD, the DOT and the DHS in the interests of national security to control air traffic under emergency conditions.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Spry, Appellant.

Proceedings held and matter remitted to Genesee County Court for determination of the fact question involved, in accordance with memorandum. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order of Genesee County Court denying his application for a writ of error *coram nobis*after a hearing. One of the issues of fact raised upon the hearing, and upon which substantial proof was taken, was whether section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been complied with in the manner of assignment of counsel to the defendant. The County Judge in his order did not pass upon this question although the following is contained in his memorandum decision: “ Substantially the same circumstances were found to exist as obtained in *People*v. *Heusinger*(5 A D 2d 758), in which the method of appointing counsel by the *880Genesee County Court was upheld and permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied, and certiorari was also denied (78 Sup. Ct. 1002). Such being the case, petitioner and this court are bound by such decisions, and the petition alleging the defect above mentioned is therefore denied.” A reading of the record of the hearing indicates that while there is much similarity between *People*v. *Heusinger (supra)*and the instant fact situation, there is a very important distinction between the two cases which requires a determination of the question of fact presented upon the hearing as to compliance with section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In *People*v. *Heusinger (supra)*the defendant accepted counsel assigned to him by the method used in Genesee County at that time and thereafter entered a plea of guilty through his assigned counsel. In the ease at bar the defendant categorically stated upon the hearing that—“I told Sheriff Brown I did not want assigned counsel; that I would write to Florida to get somebody to be counsel ”. Defendant further stated that he had not been properly instructed as to his right to counsel, that the assignment of an attorney was over his objection and without his consent and that he was represented upon his trial by counsel not of his own choosing. The People introduced testimony of the District Attorney and the Sheriff to contradict the claim of the defendant but, except for the above statement contained in the memorandum decision of the court, there was no fact determination or finding by the County Court on this question and the order denying the writ makes no mention of this issue. Under these circumstances the matter must be remitted to Genesee County Judge Philip J. Weiss for determination of this question of fact. The proceedings are held pending the filing of a supplemental order determining, this question. (Appeal from order of Genesee County Court denying defendant’s application for writ of error *coram nobis*to set aside a judgment of conviction dated December 17, 1954.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### Buckley Petroleum Products, Inc., and All Other Creditors Similarly Situated, et al., Appellants, v. Abe Goldman, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term denying plaintiffs’ motion to strike out answer *874of defendant Abe Goldman and for partial summary judgment under rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice against defendant Abe Goldman.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 
**- 1609** 

ESTHER KINOBE MPUNGU NAKAGIRI ,
Petitioner ,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. , Attorney General,
Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : February 27, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer L. Ligh t body, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrea N. Gevas, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C. , for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Esther Kinobe Mpungu Nakagiri, a native and citizen of
Uganda, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her ap peal from the
immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen. We have
thoroughly reviewed the record, including the relevant orders,
Nakagiri’s affidavit, and the various supporting exhibits, and

conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretio n. See INS
v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323

– 24 (1992); Mosere v. Mukasey , 552
F.3d 397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009); Barry v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 741,
747 (4th Cir. 2006); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) (2014).
Further, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision not

to sua sponte reopen Nakagiri’s removal proceedings. Mosere ,
552 F.3d at 400

– 01. Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Nakagiri
(B.I.A. May 22, 2014). We dispense with oral argument be cause
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
1 

### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOT A

2023 ND 2 04

In the Matter of Reciprocal Discipline of Timothy P. Hill, a Member of the Bar of the State of North Dakota

No. 20230296

Recommendation for Reciprocal Discipline.

REPRIMAND ORDERED

. Per Curiam.
[¶1] On August 28, 2023, the Disciplinary Board notified the Supreme Court under N.D.R. Lawyer Discpl. 4.4(D) that it was recommending the reciprocal discipline of Timothy P. Hill. The record reflects that the State of Minnesota filed an order suspending Hill for 12 months for failing to place flat fees into a trust account when Hill did not have a fee agreement compliant under Minnesota law. [¶2] Disciplinary Counsel served Hill notice under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 4.4(B) that a certified copy of the order of the Minnesota Supreme Court was received. The notice informed Hill that he had 30 days to file any claim that imposition of the identical discipline in North Dakota would be unwarranted and the reasons for the claim. Hill responded asserting that identical discipline should not be imposed in North Dakota, arguing the misconduct warrants substantially different discipline in this state. On August 9, 2023, the Disciplinary Board and Hill entered into a “Stipulation of Consent to Discipline.” The Disciplinary Board, Disciplinary Counsel, and Hill agreed that2 based on the differences in North Dakota ’ s practice, rule language , and the factors considered for the purposes of imposing sanctions, the misconduct at issue would warrant substantially different discipline within this state. [¶3] With regard to handling a flat fee agreement, t he practice in North Dakota at the time of the underlying representations differed from Min nesota. Rule 1. 5 , N.D.R. Prof. Conduct was amended , effective July 1, 2023 , to reflect practice of flat fee agreements and this Court’s decision in Disciplinary Board v. Hoffman , 2013 ND 137 , 834 N.W.2d 636 regarding this issue. The Court

agrees that not all conduct considered misconduct in Minnesota would be misconduct in North Dakota. Additionally, the Court agrees that the misconduct at issue would warrant substantially different discipline in North Dakota. [¶4] The Court considered the matter, and [¶5] ORDERED that Timothy P. Hill is REPRIMANDED. [¶6] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of QuixoteCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the datehereof (the “Report”), each of the officers of the Company certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of thedates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
| Date:  | May 13, 2004 |   | /s/ Leslie J.  Jezuit                        |   |
|--------|-------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |              |   | Leslie J. Jezuit, *Chief  Executive Officer* |   |
| Date:  | May 13, 2004 |   | /s/ Daniel P. Gorey                          |   |
|   |              |   | Daniel P. Gorey, *Chief Financial Officer*   |   |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of theReport or as a separate disclosure.

1

----
MEMORANDUM

TO: Executive Officer

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me, I redelegate to you, and to anyone serving for you in an 

acting capacity, the authority to administer and utilize the gift funds described in the 

attached Memorandum of Agreement between the Atlantic Philanthropies, The California 

Endowment, Open Society Institute, the Schott Foundation, the Edward W. Hazen 

Foundation, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. These gift funds will be used for planning 

and managing all logistical support for a National Leadership Summit on School Discipline 

and School Climate, which include attendee travel, attendee lodging, hotel meeting venue, 

audio/visual arrangements, printing, and signage.

II. RESERVATIONS

The authority under this delegation may only be used to make all logistical arrangements 

and obligate gift funds to pay for expenses related to carrying out the National Leadership 

Summit on School Discipline. 

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated. 

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification of the Department's Principal Delegations 

Control Officer. 

___________-s-_______________ 

 Arne Duncan

_Tracy Sasser, 8/7/2014

 OGC Clearance/Date

Certified Date; August 13, 2014

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Bruce Monblatt

Control Number: EA/ES1/93