alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 8.1

Significant Subsidiaries



|                                      |  |                       |  |                   |     |  
|------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------- | --- | -
|Name of entity                        |  | Place ofincorporation |  | Ownershipinterest |    
|1. MakeMyTrip Inc.                    |  | Delaware,USA          |  |                   | 100 | %
|2. MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited |  | India                 |  |                   | 100 | %
|3. Luxury Tours & Travel Pte Ltd      |  | Singapore             |  |                   | 100 | %
|4. MakeMyTrip FZ-LLC                  |  | UnitedArabEmirates    |  |                   | 100 | %
|5. Luxury Tours (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.  |  | Malaysia              |  |                   | 100 | %
|6. Techblend Inc.                     |  | BritishVirginIslands  |  |                   | 100 | %
|7. Hotel Travel Limited               |  | Malaysia              |  |                   | 100 | %
|8. HTN Co., Ltd.                      |  | Thailand              |  |                   | 100 | %
|9. ITC Bangkok Co., Ltd.              |  | Thailand              |  |                   | 51  | %
|10. Easy to Book Holding B.V.         |  | Netherlands           |  |                   | 100 | %
|11. Easy to Book Service B.V.         |  | Netherlands           |  |                   | 100 | %
No. 57398.

protest 191180-K (Philadelphia).

#### Chas. Kurz Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in this case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
AFS-11-116-E February 24, 2011 Exemption No. 8841B Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26745

Mr. David L. Jones Corporate Aviation Education Director

Aviation Institute of Maintenance

4455 South Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA 23452

Dear Mr. Jones:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8841, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated Decem ber 26, 2010 you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Technical Educational Services, Inc., d.b.a. Aviation Institute of Maintenance (Aviation Institute) (operating under Air Agency Certificate U6ET095K) for an extension of Exemption No. 8841, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Aviation Institute to administer the aviation mechanic general written test to students immediately following their successful completion of the general curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons regarding public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register . The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aviation Institute.2



### Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8841, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.



### The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8841, as amended, to February 28, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8841 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8841.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards Service
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

OTTO BERK, et al.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:10-CV-1082

Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge King

ERNIE MOORE, DIRECTOR, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

On December 30, 2011, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended

that the motion for interim injunctive relief filed on December 21, 2011,

Doc. No. 107, be denied. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 111. 

Although the parties were advised of their right to object to that

recommendation and of the consequences of their failure to do so, there

has been no objection to the Report and Recommendation.

The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 111, is ADOPTED AND

AFFIRMED. The motion for a temporary restraining order, Doc. No. 107,

is DENIED.

The Court notes that the December 30, 2011 motion for a temporary

restraining order, Doc. No. 112, remains pending.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost

Gregory L. Frost

United States District Judge

Case: 2:10-cv-01082-GLF-NMK Doc #: 119 Filed: 01/20/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
#### Byan K. Stevens, Resp’t, *v.*The New York Elevated Railroad Co. *et al.,*App’lts.

*(New York Superior Court, General Term,*

*Filed January 6, 1890.)*

Railboads—Injury to beal pbopebty by elevated.

An action against an elevated railroad to recover for diminution of rental value by reason of the operation of the road, may be maintained by the owner of premises in front of which the road runs irrespective of the question whether he owns the fee of the street.

Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff.

*Samuel B. Rodgers,*for app’lts; *G. L. Van Nest,*for resp’t.

Ingraham, J.

The decision of the general term of this court, in the *Abendroth Case,*54 Super. Ct., 420; 7 N. Y. State Rep., 43, is binding upon this court, and determines adversely to the defendant the question as to the right of the plaintiff to maintain this action and to the relief granted by the judgment, for it is there stated by Truax, J., that it was immaterial for the purposes of that case whether the plaintiff had or had not any interest in the fee of Pearl street in front of and adjacent to his premises, and in that opinion the chief judge concurred.

The other objections taken by counsel for the defendant have been examined, but we do not think that any error was committed that required a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment appealed from is,' therefore, affirmed, with costs.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., concurs.
Post Of fice Box 12548, Austin, Texas 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www.texasattor neygeneral.gov 

March 13, 2015 

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle Via File & ServeXpress

Clerk of the Court 

Third Court of Appeals 

209 West 14th Street, Room 101 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Re: Case No. 03-14-00239-CV; Dr. Amber Brooks, D.C. v. Texas Medical Board, 

et al., Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

Pursuant to the Court’s request, this is to confirm my intent to argue on behalf 

of Appellees before this court on April 22, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. 

 Please advise if we may be of further assistance in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Ted A. Ross

Ted A. Ross 

Assistant Attorney General 

cc: Andre D’Souza, Counsel for Appellant (Via Facsimile E-Service) 

ACCEPTED

03-14-00239-CV

4490189

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

3/13/2015 11:51:41 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/13/2015 11:51:41 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
No. 51780.

#### Protest 96629-K of M. Lehmann, Inc. (New York).

*215Opinion, by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Scotch whisky aged in wooden containers at least 4 years prior to the date of entry or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption; that at the time of withdrawal for consumption the age certificate required by article 459, Customs Regulations of 1937, was not available;;and that there now has been filed with the collector a certificate issued by a competent officer of the Government of Great Britain establishing to the satisfaction of the collector that the Scotch whisky in question was in fact aged in wooden containers not less than 4 years prior to exportation to the United States. The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:11-cr-128-13

Jeana L. Marcum 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 273) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, and she is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: September 20, 2011 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cr-00128-JLG-TPK Doc #: 314 Filed: 09/20/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 41887.

#### Protest 139382-G of Salem Shawiry (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain items consist of laces similar to those involved in *Amrein*v. *United States*(T. D. 49551). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 87 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain any alien who 

is unlawfully present in the United States and is arrested for certain 

criminal offenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

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

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain 

any alien who is unlawfully present in the United States 

and is arrested for certain criminal offenses. 

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 ‘‘Grant’s Law’’. 

5 SEC. 2. MANDATORY DETENTION FOR CERTAIN ALIENS AR6 RESTED FOR THE COMMISSION OF CERTAIN 

7 OFFENSES. 

8 Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 

9 Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 87 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

2 (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘or’’ 

3 at the end; 

4 (B) in subparagraph (D), by adding ‘‘or’’ 

5 at the end; and 

6 (C) by inserting after subparagraph (D) 

7 the following: 

8 ‘‘(E) is— 

9 ‘‘(i) determined by the Secretary of 

10 Homeland Security to be unlawfully 

11 present in the United States; and 

12 ‘‘(ii) arrested for any offense de13 scribed in subparagraphs (A) through (D) 

14 the conviction of which would render the 

15 alien inadmissible under section 212(a) or 

16 deportable under section 237(a),’’; and 

17 (2) in paragraph (2)— 

18 (A) by striking ‘‘The Attorney General’’ 

19 and inserting the following: 

20 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

21 subparagraph (B), the Secretary of Homeland 

22 Security’’; 

23 (B) by striking ‘‘the Attorney General’’ 

24 each place such term appears and inserting 

25 ‘‘the Secretary’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 87 IH

1 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(B) ARRESTED BUT NOT CONVICTED

3 ALIENS.—The Secretary of Homeland Security 

4 may release any alien held pursuant to para5 graph (1)(E) to the appropriate authority for 

6 any proceedings subsequent to the arrest. The 

7 Secretary shall resume custody of the alien dur8 ing any period pending the final disposition of 

9 any such proceedings that the alien is not in 

10 the custody of such appropriate authority. If 

11 the alien is not convicted of the offense for 

12 which the alien was arrested, the Secretary 

13 shall continue to detain the alien until removal 

14 proceedings are completed.’’. 

15 SEC. 3. EXPEDITED INITIATION OF REMOVAL PRO16 CEEDINGS. 

17 Section 239(d) of the Immigration and Nationality 

18 Act (8 U.S.C. 1229(d)) is amended by adding at the end 

19 the following: 

20 ‘‘(3) In the case of any alien held pursuant to 

21 section 236(c)(1)(E), the Secretary of Homeland Se22 curity shall complete removal proceedings by not 

23 later than 90 days after such alien is detained.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
NO. 14-15-00643-CV

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

CHRISTUS HEALTH GULF COAST

D/B/A CHRISTUS ST. JOHN HOSPITAL,

Defendant-Appellant

V.

ALISON DAVIDSON, ET AL

Plaintiffs-Appellees

Appealed from the District Court of Harris County, Texas

127th Judicial District

Honorable R.K. Sandill, Judge Presiding

APPELLANT’S DESIGNATION OF COUNSEL

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, CHRISTUS HEALTH GULF COAST D[B/A CHRISTUS

ST. JOHN HOSPITAL and designates LaVerne Chang as lead counsel on appeal.

On July 23, 2015 a Motion for Substitute of Counsel was filed in the

127th Court of Harris County, Texas and granted on July 30, 2015.

ACCEPTED

2014-20812

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

8/11/2015 5:23:37 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
2. CHRISTUS HEALTH GULF COAST D/B/A CHRISTUS ST. JOHN

HOSPITAL, under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.1(c), designates LaVerne

Chang as lead counsel for this appeal.

3. The necessary information for LaVeme Chang is as follows:

LaVerne Chang

State Bar No. 00783819

Cardwell & Chang, P.LL.C.

511 Lovett Blvd.

Houston, Texas 77006

Telephone: (713) 222-6025

Facsimile: (713) 222-0938

4. For these reasons, CHRISTUS HEALTH GULF COAST D/B/A

CHRISTUS ST. JOHN HOSPITAL asks the Court to instruct the clerk to change

the record to reflect that LaVeme Chang is lead counsel for CHRISTUS HEALTH

GULF COAST D/B/A CHRISTUS ST. JOHN HOSPITAL in this case on appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

By:

Email: chang@cardwellchang.com

511 Lovett Blvd.

Houston, Texas 77006

Telephone: (713) 222-6025

Facsimile: (713) 222-0938

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

CHRISTUS HEALTH GULF COAST

D/B/A CHRISTUS ST. JOHN HOSPITAL

Cardwell &

LaVeme Chang

S.B. No. 00783819
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that on this the 11th day of August, 2015, a true and

correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was forwarded to the following

counsel of record via E-File and Fax:

E.A. “Trey” Apffel, III Matthew B. E. Hughes

Apffel Law Firm Boston & Hughes, PC

1406-C West Main 8584 Katy Freeway, Suite 310

League City, Texas 77573 Houston, Texas 77024

Facsimile: (281) 332-7887 Facsimile: (713) 965-0883

trey@apffellaw.com mhughes @ bostonhughes.com

tern @ apffellaw.com

LAVERNE CHANG
No. 53102.

#### W. M. Stone & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 997047-G (Norfolk).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the peat moss is of the same character as that passed upon in *Peat Import Corp.*v. *United Stales*(4 Cust. Ct. 181, C. D. 319) the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, David A. Karp, President and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

 

1                  I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of Falcon Financial Investment Trust;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: May 17, 2004 | /s/ David A. Karp                     |   |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|               | David A. Karp                         |
|               | President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
No. 54105.

#### Carson, Pirie, Scott & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 948784-G/87774 and 948786-G/87773 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 53676.

protest 138281-K (New York).

#### Sam Forwand Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It appeared that the goods were lost for several months and when the Canadian purchaser was notified of the arrival of the shipment he refused to accept it. The skins were never released from the Canadian customs and were returned in the original packages to the shipper in the United States. The collector refused to classify the merchandise as American goods returned for the reason that the plaintiff had failed to file a certificate of outward manifest, as required by section 10.1, Customs Regulations of 1943. After the protest was forwarded to the court, the collector filed an additional memorandum stating, that the importer had filed the certificate of outward manifest and that the merchandise was therefore entitled to free entry as American goods returned. At the trial Government counsel offered in evidence the original memorandum of the collector and the additional memorandum, recommending “that allowances be made to the plaintiff in accordance with those memoranda.” On the record presented the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8761 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide that non-Federal 

revenue generated through certain distance education programs may be 

counted purposes of the non-Federal revenue requirements applicable 

to proprietary institutions of higher education (commonly known as the 

‘‘90/10 rule’’). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2024 

Mr. OWENS (for himself and Mr. BEAN of Florida) 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 provide 

that non-Federal revenue generated through certain distance education programs may be counted purposes of 

the non-Federal revenue requirements applicable to proprietary institutions of higher education (commonly 

known as the ‘‘90/10 rule’’). 

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 ‘‘Ensuring Distance 

5 Education Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8761 IH

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF REVENUE FROM CERTAIN DIS2 TANCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR PUR3 POSES OF THE 90/10 RULE. 

4 Section 487(d)(1)(B)(iii) of the Higher Education 

5 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(d)(1)(B)(iii)) is amended by 

6 inserting ‘‘(which may include funds paid for a program 

7 offered in whole or in part through distance education re8 gardless of the location from which such program is car9 ried out)’’ after ‘‘under this title’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8667 

AN ACT 

To rename the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Cadillac, Michigan, as 

the ‘‘Duane E. Dewey VA Clinic’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 8667 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DUANE E. DEWEY VA CLINIC. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The outpatient clinic of the De3 partment of Veterans Affairs located at 1905 North 

4 Mitchell Street in Cadillac, Michigan, shall, after the date 

5 of the enactment of this Act, be known and designated 

6 as the ‘‘Duane E. Dewey Department of Veterans Affairs 

7 Clinic’’ or the ‘‘Duane E. Dewey VA Clinic’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law, regula9 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the community-based outpatient clinic referred 

11 to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference 

12 to the Duane E. Dewey VA Clinic. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 16, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8667 

AN ACT 

To rename the community-based outpatient clinic 

Clinic’’. illac, Michigan, as the ‘‘Duane E. Dewey VA of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Cad-
#### Peter Macarthur, Jr., *Respondent, v.*Perry Loucks, *Appel*lant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs to abide event. Opinion by Macomber, J.
<PAGE>

                                                               EXHIBIT (10)(a)

         STEPHEN E. ROTH
    DIRECT LINE: (202) 383-0158
    Internet: sroth@sablaw.com



                                                  April 26, 2001



Board of Directors
GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company
6610 West Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23230

          Re   GE Life & Annuity Separate Account 4
               ------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

          We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption
"Legal Matters" in the Statement of Additional Information filed as part of
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 filed
by GE Life & Annuity Separate Account 4 for certain flexible premium variable
deferred annuity contracts (File No. 333-47732). In giving this consent, we do
not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under
Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.

                              Very truly yours,

                              SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP



                              By: /s/ STEPHEN E. ROTH
                                  --------------------
                                  Stephen E. Roth