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

List of Subsidiaries

The following is a complete list of the direct and indirect subsidiaries of Cloud Peak Energy Inc., a Delaware corporation,
including their respective states of incorporation, as of March 9, 2010:

Name

Jurisdiction

OwnershipAntelope Coal LLC

Delaware


100
%Caballo Rojo Holdings LLC

Delaware


100
%Caballo Rojo LLC

Delaware


100
%Cloud Peak Energy Resources LLC

Delaware


51.7
%Cloud Peak Energy Finance Corp.

Delaware


100
%Cloud Peak Energy Services Company

Delaware


100
%Cordero Mining Holdings LLC

Delaware


100
%Cordero Mining LLC

Delaware


100
%Decker Coal Company

Montana


50
%Kennecott Coal Sales LLC

Oregon


100
%Montana Royalty Company Ltd.

Unincorporated


50
%NERCO Coal LLC

Delaware


100
%NERCO Coal Sales LLC

Tennessee


100
%NERCO LLC

Delaware


100
%Northern Coal Transportation LLC

Oregon


100
%Prospect Land and Development LLC

Oregon


100
%Resource Development LLC

Washington


100
%Sequatchie Valley Coal Corporation

Tennessee


100
%Spring Creek Coal LLC

Delaware


100
%Venture Fuels Partnership

Colorado


50
%Western Minerals LLC

Oregon


100
%Wyoming Quality Healthcare Coalition, LLC

Delaware


33.3
%


---



QuickLinks
No. 66097.

#### Hercules Div., Amer. Mach. & Fdry. Co., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/13902, etc. (Seattle).

*322Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard, & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. P66/382.

No. P66/383.

#### Sun Coast Merchandise Corp. et al. *v.*United States, protests 61/18717, etc. (Los Angeles). Transamerican Import & Export, Inc. *v.*United States, protest 63/14059-13661 (Chicago).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of radio earphones similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Motorola, Inc., and International Expediters, Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 303, Abstract 69019), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 60305.

protests 215534-K, etc. (New York).

#### Grossman & Weissman, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hand-embroidered articles, not wearing apparel, in part of machine-made lace, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59733, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
February 4, 2011 

US EPA 

Mr. Mark Dow 

RE: Pesticide Petition Nos. 6E4728 and 9E6010 

Surfadone LP-100, CAS# 2687-94-7 

Surfadone LP-300, CAS# 2687-96-9 

Dear Mr. Dow: 

As per our phone conversation on January 18, 2011, International Specialty Products is 

requesting the formal withdrawal of our tolerance exemption petitions for Surfadone LP100 and Surfadone LP-300, Pesticide Petition Nos. 6E4728 and 9E6010. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at 973-628-3958 or dcrotty@ispcorp.com. 

Sincerely, 

Denise Crotty 

Manager, Regulatory Affairs 

International Specialty Products
BOARO OF GOVERNORS

OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, 0. C. 2055)

AQDRESS CFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD

July 28, 2017

Mr. Jerad Evans
18507 102nd Street
Bristol, Wisconsin 53104

Dear Mr. Evans:

The General Counsel, acting pursuant to delegated authority, and after
consultation with the Director of the Division of Supervision and Regulation, has approved your
request pursuant to section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act! to become an institution-
affiliated party of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”),
Bloomington, Illinois, a savings and loan holding company (“SLHC”). This approval is limited
to your being an institution-affiliated party of State Farm, including by working for an
independently owned agency that sells State Farm insurance products and products for State
Farm’s wholly owned subsidiary, State Farm Bank, f.s.b. (“State Farm Bank”), Bloomington,
Illinois. If you seek to work for another SLHC or bank holding company (“BHC”), or an
independently owned agency that sells products for another SLHC or BHC, you must obtain the
Board’s approval to do so.

This action is based on all the facts of record and representations made by you to
the Board in connection with your request. Any change in the facts presented could result in a
different conclusion and should be reported immediately to Board staff. These representations
constitute conditions imposed in writing in connection with the findings and decision herein and,
as such, may be enforced in proceedings under applicable law. Additionally, if you are
convicted of, or enter into a pretrial diversion program for, a crime involving dishonesty, breach
of trust, or money laundering in the future, you must again seek approval to work for any SLHC,
BHC, or independently owned agency that sells products for an SLHC or BHC, including any
agency that sells States Farm and State Farm Bank products.

Sincerely,
Mout MG belts

Margaret McCloskey Shanks
Deputy Secretary of the Board

"12 U.S.C. § 1829.
<PAGE>

               DESCRIPTION OF EXECUTIVE FINANCIAL PLANNING PROGRAM


                  Wells Fargo & Company provides certain senior level officers
with a personal financial planning benefit to aid them in their financial,
estate and tax planning. Under this program, the Company will pay the annual
cost of the AYCO financial planning program or will reimburse expenses up to
$10,000 per calendar year for covered financial planning and/or tax preparation
fees.
* 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

August 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20645

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RONNIE WAYNE JACKSON

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-260-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ronnie Wayne Jackson has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jackson has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
No. 05-20645

2

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 25, 2013*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.6 Distribution of Gross Domestic Product 1** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Before the Second Division,

May 6, 1964

No. 68509.

protests 59/10585, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### G. Joannou Cycle Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, !j.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of horns similar in all material respects to those the *336subject of G. *Joannou Cycle Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 172, C.D. 2253), tbe claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 22, 2016 107108 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK, 

Respondent, 

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PIERRE BOND, 

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: November 18, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton

(Kelly L. Egan of counsel), for appellant.

Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Marquetta Christy

of counsel), for respondent.

__________

McCarthy, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence

County (Richards, J.), rendered July 14, 2014, convicting

defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sexual

act in the first degree. 

Defendant pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of criminal

sexual act in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. 

Defendant's subsequent oral motion to withdraw his plea was

denied and County Court sentenced him, in accordance with the

plea agreement, to a prison term of 21 years followed by 20 years

of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals. 
-2- 107108 

Initially, defendant challenges his plea as not knowingly,

voluntarily and intelligently entered. To the extent that

defendant preserved the issues in his motion to withdraw his

guilty plea (see People v Burns, 133 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2015], lv

denied 27 NY3d 1149 [2016]), the record belies his contention

that County Court coerced him into pleading guilty or that any

alleged errors by defense counsel rendered his plea involuntary. 

We note that, to the extent that defendant's challenges to the

ineffective assistance of counsel involve matters outside the

record, they are more appropriately addressed in a CPL article

440 motion (see People v Perkins, 140 AD3d 1401, 1403 [2016]). 

Furthermore, defendant's challenge to the sentence imposed as

harsh and excessive is precluded by the waiver of the right to

appeal. The record reflects that despite defendant's illiterate

cognitive impairment, the waiver was appropriately explained to

defendant, who then knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently

waived that right (see People v Andrews, 78 AD3d 1229, 1233

[2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 827 [2011]).

Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
PUBLIC LAW 106–453—NOV. 7, 2000 114 STAT. 1951

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4853:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Oct. 12, considered and passed House.

Oct. 24, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–453

106th Congress

An Act

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1568

South Green Road in South Euclid, Ohio, as the ‘‘Arnold C. D’Amico Station’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

1568 South Green Road in South Euclid, Ohio, and known as

the South Euclid Station, shall be known and designated as the

‘‘Arnold C. D’Amico Station’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Arnold

C. D’Amico Station’’.

Approved November 7, 2000.

Nov. 7, 2000

[H.R. 4853]
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 81

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the political and economic

importance of the Denver Summit of Eight and commending the State

of Colorado for its outstanding efforts toward ensuring the success of

this historic event.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 30, 1997

Mr. CAMPBELL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the political

and economic importance of the Denver Summit of Eight

and commending the State of Colorado for its outstanding efforts toward ensuring the success of this historic

event.

Whereas this is the first Economic Summit to be held in the

United States since the 1990 Economic Summit was held

in Houston, Texas;

Whereas on May 29, 1996, the State of Colorado was announced as the host of the Group of Seven Economic

Summit, to be held on June 20 through 22, 1997;

Whereas the Economic Summit is an annual meeting that

brings together the leaders of the world’s 7 most eco-
2

•SRES 81 IS

nomically successful democracies: Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and the United

States;

Whereas this is the first Economic Summit to include the

transitioning economy of Russia, which has resulted in a

new reference to the Economic Summit as the Denver

Summit of Eight;

Whereas the central location of Denver among the summit

members, with Europe to the east, Japan to the west,

and central Canada to the north, enables the residents of

Colorado to serve as a central pillar supporting the international bridge of friendship and prosperity;

Whereas the selection of the State of Colorado and the Denver metropolitan region as the host of the Summit of

Eight reflects the region’s growing economic importance

in the international community;

Whereas Colorado has distinguished itself as an ideal site for

the Summit of Eight because of its leading industries of

telecommunications, aerospace, biotechnology, high technology, health care, education, agriculture, recreation,

and tourism;

Whereas Colorado’s dedicated law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and other public

servants are able and committed to provide vital support

to the Summit of Eight; and

Whereas the Summit of Eight promises to be 1 of the more

significant summits of recent years, with results that will

benefit the larger world community, including progress

toward relieving international debt, supporting the economic development of Russia and the Ukraine, paving the

way to increased efficiencies in international commercial
3

•SRES 81 IS

transactions by reducing the regulatory barriers to electronic banking, and minimizing destabilizing factors in

the world’s financial markets: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) expresses its appreciation to the citizens of

3 Colorado and the Denver metropolitan region for

4 hosting the Summit of Eight; and

5 (2) accords recognition of the hospitality to be

6 provided by the people of Colorado and the Denver

7 metropolitan region.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

NAME                                                  STATE OF INCORPORATION
----                                                  ----------------------
<S>                                                          <C>
Gena Laboratories, Inc.                                      Texas

JDS Manufacturing Co., Inc.                                  California

U.K. ABBA Products, Inc.                                     California

Styling (UK) Limited                                         England

European Touch Co., Incorporated                             Wisconsin

European Touch, Ltd. II                                      Wisconsin

Beauty Products Inc.                                         Wisconsin

Cosmetics International Inc.                                 Wisconsin

Ft. Pitt Acquisition, Inc.                                   Pennsylvania
</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CHARLES G. FELTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5818RBL

ORDER RENOTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The court, having reviewed the record does hereby find and ORDER:

1. Pending before the court are two dispositive motions: (i) Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment (Doc. 56), filed on or about July 17, 2006, and (ii) Defendants motion for summary judgment

(Doc. 59), filed on July 31, 2006. The court notes Defendants’ motion and supporting pleadings did not

advise the pro se plaintiff as required by the Ninth Circuit. While the court’s order directing service noted

the requirements, out of an abundance of caution and in order to make it perfectly clear to Plaintiff what is

required Plaintiffs shall note:

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they seek to

have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no genuine issue of

material fact -- that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact that would affect the result

of your case, the party who asked for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law, which will end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary

judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot

simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

declarations, deposition, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as

provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant’s declarations and

Case 3:05-cv-05818-RBL Document 66 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not

submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment , if appropriate, may be

entered against you. If summary judgment is granted, your case will be dismissed and there

will be no trial.

Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 962-963 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Defendants' motion for

summary judgment, along with Plaintiff’s dispositive motion is renoted for consideration on

October 13, 2006. Plaintiffs opposition brief, along with the required declarations or other sworn

statements, shall be filed not later than Tuesday, October 10, 2006. 

2. The clerk is further directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiffs and to counsel for

defendants. 

DATED this 18th day of September, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05818-RBL Document 66 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 2
|    |                                                                                        |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Brookdale Senior Living Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|                      |
|----------------------|
|                      |  |  |
| Date: April 23, 2018 |   | /s/ Lucinda M. Baier |
|                 |   | Lucinda M. Baier |
|                 |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Kevin Wallace, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 94]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John S. Moore, J.), entered January 21, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment at the conclusion of the People’s opening statement, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the indictment is reinstated.

It is clear that no matter what the ground for dismissal, an order granting a motion to dismiss an indictment finally determines the People’s case unless reversed on appeal *(People v Coppa,*45 NY2d 244, 249). The order of dismissal at issue herein was entered on the record and is therefore appealable *(see, People v Silva,*122 AD2d 750; *cf., Talcott Factors v Larfred, Inc.,*115 AD2d 397, *Iv dismissed*67 NY2d 604).

In both a jury and non-jury trial, "a trial court may not dismiss after opening unless it shall appear from the statement that the charge cannot be sustained under any view of the evidence and it may dismiss then only after the prosecutor has been given an opportunity to correct any deficiency” *(Matter of Timothy L.,*71 NY2d 835, 837-838). It has been held that even the failure to mention one of the elements of the crime charged is not fatal *(see, People v Brown,*104 AD2d 696). In this case we find no basis upon which to conclude from the prosecutor’s opening statement that the charges against the defendant could not have been sustained under any view of the evidence. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

WILLIAM A. KOCH, 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN &

SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-1989RSL

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on a motion filed by the defendant, BNSF Railway

Company (“BNSF”), for leave to file its motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. #29). The Court

set the deadline to file dispositive motions for October 5, 2006. Defendant’s counsel has

explained that he filed the motion one day late because he was out of the office from September

24, 2006 through October 4, 2006 due to a medical emergency.

The Court’s Minute Order Setting Trial & Related Dates stated that the Court would alter

the deadlines “only upon good cause shown.” The issue is a close call because of defendant’s

pattern of delays and missed deadlines in this case. Furthermore, although defendant filed its

motion for summary judgment on October 6, it subsequently filed an “Amended Motion” on

Case 2:05-cv-01989-RSL Document 38 Filed 10/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Court did not renote the motion because the November 3, 2006 noting date

remained correct.

2

 The Court expresses no opinion on the merits of BNSF’s dispositive motion, which it

has not yet reviewed.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE - 2

October 11, 2006, six days after the deadline.1 Although personal emergencies are inevitable,

timely communication with the Court and co-counsel is key to allowing the efficient and orderly

consideration of pending matters. Nevertheless, the Court grants the motion based on counsel’s

illness, the fact that the delay was short, and its preference for avoiding unnecessary trials.2

Because the Court recently sanctioned BNSF in connection with plaintiff’s motion to compel,

the Court will not sanction BNSF for the additional delay. However, the Court expects defense

counsel and their firm to be aware of the delays in this case and to comply strictly with all

remaining deadlines in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for leave to file its motion for summary

judgment (Dkt. #29) is GRANTED.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01989-RSL Document 38 Filed 10/17/06 Page 2 of 2