alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT (21)
SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
Registrant owns 100% of the outstanding stock of each of
the following corporations:
			NAME		STATE OF
INCORPORATION
	------------------------------	---------
-------------
	Great Oaks Insurance Company	Ohio
	Harleysville-Atlantic Insurance
		Company			Georgia
	Harleysville Insurance Company
		of New Jersey		New
Jersey

	Huron Insurance Company
	Pennsylvania
	Lake States Insurance Company
	Michigan
	Mid-America Insurance Company
	Pennsylvania
	Minnesota Fire and Casualty
		Company
	Minnesota
	New York Casualty Insurance
		Company
	New York
	Worcester Insurance Company
	Massachusetts
<PAGE>
|  |  |  |  |  |
|--|--|--|--|--|
|  |  |  |  |

  Tennessee

> - Chattanooga
- Dyersburg
- Humbolt
- Memphis
- Cleveland

----
Exhibit 32.1

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

     In connection with the Transitional Report of ZIM Corporation, a Canadian
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the ten months ended March 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Michael Cowpland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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

/s/ Michael Cowpland
--------------------
Michael Cowpland
Chief Executive Officer
June 18, 2004
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Chief Financial Officer****Pursuant to****Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended **June 30, 2005**(the “Report”) of **Patriot Capital Funding, Inc.**(the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, **William E. Alvarez, Jr.,**the Chief Financial Officerof the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of theRegistrant.     /s/ William E. Alvarez, Jr.     Name: William E. Alvarez, Jr.
**a**

**.**

**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTY\1** 



### HononxblO.Con8ud

?lor~noe CountyAttormy UP8hurcaunty Ollwr, Texas Dear Slrx OpinionMO. O-6737

The Cammis8lons~~

vho aaspose **8iOdOM COUFt**  **Of up8hur**  

### cOIUIty, **TUco8,** 

### hV0 been reqti-stkl

by an attorney,vho 18 8uppoa0dto be **Mpl-OOWting** 

### the roepeotlvo**defendants in**  

### each of th. -808, t0 per him, **the** 

### attorney, th0 mount 

### 0r $72.50. Said rttornOyh8 not filed l 

### written requestvlth the Coaml8slonerm

Court for the plyRent of such 8~8 of money to Mm, nor tnve nny of the xw8peatlvodOioXx¶Onts requestedor filed l 

### written requestvlth the C-18- sionersCourt of Upohur County,Texas, for a reiund Of theirmoney.Honorable Cmard Vance, page 2

"Is the Cwmmleelsnere Court of Upshur County, Texas, llable f8rithe $72.50. lndlvldually, or ln their of'flclal

capacity, by reaeon of the acts of the Justice of the Peace In placing ln the'County Trersury of Up8hUr County, Texas, the said sum of $72.501 Or vould Upshur County be liable?" Under the hCt8 Stated, ve do not perceive any theory, **and** 

### none has been advanced,upon vhlch recovery may be had against either the County or the County Commleelonsre.

UJRti/JCP

.
#### In re Jared K. ELLISON, Member of the Bar.

No. 05-8003.

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Sept. 21, 2007.

Before KASOLD, HAGEL, and MOORMAN, Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On February 4, 2005, the Maryland Court of Appeals disbarred the respondent from the practice of law. *See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ellison,*384 Md. 688, 867 A.2d 259 (2005). On April 21, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also disbarred the respondent. Pursuant to Rule 4(c) of the Court’s Rules of Admission and Practice (the Rules), the respondent should have ad*465vised the Court of these disbarment actions not later than 10 days after each occurrence. *See*U.S. Vet.App. R. Adm. *&*Prao. 4(c). He did not do this.

On April 29, 2005, the respondent was temporarily suspended from practice before the Court pending proceedings under the Rules. *See*U.S. VetApp. R. Adm. *&*Prao. 7(d)(1)(B). On the same date, the matter was referred to a panel. The Court has attempted on five occasions to notify the respondent that he has been temporarily suspended and that the matter was referred to panel; however, all such notices have been returned as either unclaimed or marked return to sender.

Because the respondent has not kept the Court informed of his address as required by Rule 4(c)(2), on August 21, 2007, the Court issued a show cause order to the respondent’s address on file with the Court; this order was returned on August 23rd marked “not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward.”

Accordingly, in the absence of reasons not to proceed with disbarment and pursuant to Rule 7(d)(3)(B), it is

ORDERED that Jared K. Ellison is disbarred from the practice of law before this Court.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for thepurposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United StatesCode, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, in his capacity as an officer of Bidz.com, Inc. (“Bidz.com”), that,to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Bidz.com on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in suchreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operation of Bidz.com.

 

 
| Date:  | August 18,  2005 | By     |   | /s/ David  Zinberg       |   |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |                  |   |   | David Zinberg            |
|   |                  |   |   | Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |                  |   |   |                     |
| Date:  | August 18,  2005 | By     |   | /s/ Lawrence  Kong       |   |
|   |                  |   |   | Lawrence Kong            |
|   |                  |   |   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 10.1
                                                                    ------------
                                  EXTENSION OF
                              CONSULTING AGREEMENT


Whereas, Donald W. Sapaugh & Hunter M. A Carr ("Consultants") entered into a
Consulting Agreement ("Agreement") with ATSI Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on the 14th day of October, 2003, and such Extension shall become
effective as of the 1st day of November, 2004; and

Whereas, due to circumstances beyond the control of the Consultants or the
Company, the parties desire to extend, and amend the Agreement as is more fully
described below:

Extension:
3.1 The Company hereby engages the services of the Consultants, as independent
contractors for an additional period of six (6) months from the effective date
of the Agreement.

Amendment:
4.1 The Company shall pay the Consultants as a fee for their services under this
Agreement (the "Consulting Fee") warrants to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of
the Company's common stock at the predetermined price per share of $.50/share.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Extension of the
Agreement to be duly executed, as of the day and year first above written.

The Company                             The Warrant Agents:

ATSI Communications, Inc.               Donald W. Sapaugh and Hunter M. A Carr


By: /s/Arthur L. Smith        By: /s/ Donald W. Sapaugh and /s/ Hunter M.A. Carr
    ------------------            ----------------------------------------------
Arthur L. Smith                 Donald W. Sapaugh
Title: President and CEO        Hunter M. A Carr


<PAGE>
#### § 1775.68 Exception authority.

The Administrator may, in individual cases, make an exception to any requirement or provision of this part which is not inconsistent with the authorizing statute or other applicable law and is determined to be in the Government's interest.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

═══════════════════════

Misc. Docket No. 18-9104 ═══════════════════════

__________________________________________________

DENIAL OF REQUEST TO 

TRANSFER CASE FROM THE

SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

___________________________________________________

The Supreme Court denies the request to transfer the following case from the Seventh 

Court of Appeals District, Amarillo, Texas:

Case No. 07-16-00418-CV

Ronald Spriggs and Levi Spriggs v. Albenita Gonzales

ORDERED in Chambers,

With the Seal thereof affixed at the City of Austin,

this 2nd day of August, 2018.

_______________________________________

BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
#### American National Bank of Mt. Carmel, Illinois, plaintiff in error, v. Robert Woolard and Mary M. Woolard, defendants in error.

Opinion filed October 31, 1929.

Rehearing denied December 10, 1929.

Kolb & White, for plaintiff in error. C. H. Schafer and T. H. Creighton, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Newhall

delivered the opinion of the court.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-09-00173-CR

______________________________

JAMIE L. WHITE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-0500

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jamie L. White has filed a motion signed by himself and counsel seeking to dismiss his

appeal. Pursuant to Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, his motion is granted. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2.

We dismiss the appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: October 6, 2009

Date Decided: October 7, 2009

Do Not Publish
###### Editorial Note on Part 1944

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1944.421 Refunding of an existing grantee.

Grantees wishing to continue with self-help efforts after the end of the current grant plus any extensions should file Form SF-424, in accordance with § 1944.410(e). It is recommended that it be filed at least 6 months before the end of the current grant period. Funds from the existing grant may be used to meet the conditions of a new grant to serve the same or redefined geographic area. If the grantee is targeting a different geographic area, a new preapplication must be submitted in accordance with § 1944.410 and the grantee may apply for a predevelopment grant in accordance with § 1944.410(d). In addition to meeting the conditions of an applicant as defined in § 1944.411 of this subpart, the grantee must also have received or will receive an acceptable rating on its current grant unless an exception is granted by the State Director. The State Director may grant an exception to the rating if it is determined that the reasons causing the previous unacceptable rating have been removed or will be removed with the approval of this grant.
§ 1724.6 Insurance requirements. ( a ) Borrowers shall ensure that all architects and engineers working under contract with the borrower have insurance coverage as required by part 1788 of this chapter.
( b ) Borrowers shall also ensure that all architects and engineers working under contract with the borrower have insurance coverage for Errors and Omissions (Professional Liability Insurance) in an amount at least as large as the amount of the architectural or engineering services contract but not less than $500,000.
#### In the Matter of Edward S., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

Orders, Family Court, New York County, entered on January 4, 1979, adjudicating respondent a juvenile delinquent on the ground that he committed acts, which, if done by an adult, would constitute criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and escape in the third degree, and placing him with the Division for Youth, Title III, for a period of 18 months commencing on November 22, 1978, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce placement to a period of 12 months, and, as so modified, the orders are affirmed, without costs (see. Family Ct Act, § 756, subd [b], as amd, eff Sept. 1, 1978). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Bloom, Markewich, Silverman and Ross,'JJ.
#### ZILLER, Appellant, v. KRAUSE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June 1, 1906.)

Action by George E. Ziller against Bertha Krause and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Ross *et al. vs*Braydon.

Pet. & Sum.

A plea, to an. action upon a note, alleging in general terms, that it was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, is good, without stating the particulars of the fraud — which had,in fact, better be omitted.

¡Messrs. Sanders and Depevv for Plaintiffs: Mr. Richardson for Defendant.]

From the Circuit Court por Franklin County.

*May*3.

Judge Nicholas

delivered the Opinion of a majority of the Court

Judge Underwood dissenting.

The only point requiring special notice is as to the sufficiency of plea number two.

It says that the note sued on, was obtained from the defendants, by the plaintiff, by fraud, covin and misrepresentation.

It was ruled in *Sharp*vs. *White,*1 *J. J. Mar.*106, that a general allegation, that the covenant sued on was procured by fraud, constitutes a good plea in bar. We see no good reason for retracting that opinion. It not only accords with high authority, but is sustained by the principles and analogies of pleading.

In the fifth edition of Chitty’s work on Pleading, page 570, he says, that, “ a general plea that a deed was ‘ obtained by the plaintiff by fraud and misrepresentation,’ is good, for fraud usually consists of a multiplicity of circumstances, and therefore it might be inconvenient to require them to he particularly set forth.” At page 613, he says, that to a plea of release the plaintiff may reply, “ that it was obtained by fraud ; and it is, in general, unnecessary and injudicious to state the particulars of the fraud,”

The same principle is distinctly recognised and established in Tresham’s case, 9 *Co.*110, *a.*We know of no authoritative adjudication to the contrary, since that case, and the profession must pardon us for not now innovating a rule which would require a precision and particularity not deemed necessary at that comparatively early period in the history of pleading.

The judgment must, therefore, be reversed, (Judge Underwood dissenting,) and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer to pleas number two, five and six, and for further proceedings.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1957 

To amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to accept voluntary 

services from veterans and veterans service organizations at national 

cemeteries. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2013 

Mr. PERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to authorize 

the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to accept voluntary services from veterans and 

veterans service organizations at national cemeteries. 

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 ‘‘Volunteer Veterans 

5 for Cemetery Service Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1957 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT VOLUNTARY SERVICES. 

2 (a) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.—Section 1588(a) of 

3 title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

4 end the following new paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(10) Voluntary services performed by a vet6 eran or a veterans service organization at a cemetery 

7 under the control of the Secretary to support the 

8 personnel of such cemetery, including by a veteran 

9 sharing with visitors to the cemetery the story of the 

10 military service of the veteran.’’. 

11 (b) DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.—Section 

12 2404(e) of title 38, United States Code, is amended— 

13 (1) by striking ‘‘In carrying out’’ and inserting 

14 ‘‘(1) In carrying out’’; and 

15 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(2)(A) In carrying out the Secretary’s responsibil17 ities under this chapter, the Secretary may accept vol18 untary services performed by a veteran or a veterans serv19 ice organization at a national cemetery to support the per20 sonnel of such cemetery, including by a veteran sharing 

21 with visitors to the cemetery the story of the military serv22 ice of the veteran. 

23 ‘‘(B) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations to 

24 carry out subparagraph (A), including to ensure the propVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:51 May 16, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1957.IH H1957

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1957 IH

1 er qualifications, supervision, and role of a volunteer under 

2 such subparagraph.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 1955

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1955.142-1955.143 [Reserved]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

OLUBAYA MUDADA MENSAH RANGER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 311 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
Sunvalley Solar Inc.


398 Lemon Creek Suite A, Walnut,
CA 91789


Tel: (909)598-0618Fax: (909)598-6633


 


 


 


Date: 01/24/2013


 


Private Loan Agreement


 


 


Due to the rapid business development,
the Company needs funds for operation and inventory purchase. The Board of Directors authorize James Zhang (CEO/Chairman) on behalf
of the Company, to sign a short term loan agreement with Hangbo Yu (Shareholder/General Manager). The loan amount is $90,000. The
start day will be the day that $90,000 is transferred to the Company's account. The annual interest for this short-term loan is
$6.50% and the term of this loan should be less than a year.


 


 


 


Borrower:


 


/s/ James Zhang


James Zhang


CEO


Sunvalley Solar Inc.


 


 


 


Lender:


 


/s/ Hangbo Yu


Hangbo Yu
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2020 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require certain institutions 

of higher education to provide notice of tuition levels for students. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 16, 2013 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT (for himself and Mr. ROSKAM) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

certain institutions of higher education to provide notice 

of tuition levels for students. 

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 ‘‘Truth in Tuition Act 

5 of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NOTICE OF TUITION LEVELS. 

7 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 487(a) of the Higher 

8 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended 

9 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2020 IH

1 ‘‘(30)(A) The institution will provide to each 

2 student admitted to an undergraduate or graduate 

3 program— 

4 ‘‘(i) a multi-year tuition and fee schedule; 

5 or 

6 ‘‘(ii) a single-year tuition and fee schedule, 

7 and a nonbinding, multi-year estimate of net 

8 costs after all financial aid is awarded, assum9 ing constant family and student income, assets, 

10 and relevant circumstances. 

11 ‘‘(B) Multi-year schedules and estimates re12 quired by subparagraph (A)— 

13 ‘‘(i) may include a percentage or dollar in14 crease or decrease of any size the institution de15 termines to be appropriate from one year to the 

16 next; and 

17 ‘‘(ii) shall indicate, on a year-by-year basis, 

18 costs for the normal duration of such student’s 

19 undergraduate or graduate program. 

20 ‘‘(C) Institutions that elect a single-year tuition 

21 and fee schedule under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall 

22 include with each multi-year estimate provided under 

23 such subparagraph the average deviation, in percent24 age terms, between previous year estimates and ac25 tual net costs for students at their institution. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2020 IH

1 ‘‘(D) The Secretary shall waive the require2 ments of subparagraph (A) if the institution dem3 onstrates to the Secretary that the requirements of 

4 subparagraph (A) are not practicable because of the 

5 occurrence of one or more events causing the institu6 tion severe economic distress, dramatic reduction of 

7 State or Federal aid, or any other circumstance de8 termined to be appropriate by the Secretary.’’. 

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

10 subsection (a) shall be effective on the date that is 120 

11 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### WOLFARTH, Respondent, v. HILLIARD, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 17, 1906.)

Action by Philip C. Wolfarth against George Hilliard.

PER CTJRIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs,

HOOKER and MILLER, JJ., dissent.
98-1582.

#### State ex rel. Estate of Goodard v. Dix.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. On motion to dismiss of Children’s Hospital Medical Center, motion to dismiss of Mary Ann Dix and Marcia J. Mengel, motion to dismiss of Richard A. Niehaus and Ralph Winkler, and motion for hearing and sanctions pursuant to R.C. 2323.51. Motions to dismiss *1445sustained and cause dismissed; motion for hearing and sanctions denied.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., concur.

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent in part and would grant an alternative writ as to Mary Ann Dix, Chief Deputy Clerk.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents in part and would grant an alternative writ as to Marcia J, Mengel, Clerk, and Mary Ann Dix, Chief Deputy Clerk.