alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT21**

 

ResortQuestInternational, Inc.

Subsidiary Listing

 

ResortQuest International, Inc.

460954 B. C. Ltd.

570667 British Columbia Ltd.

Abbott and Andrews Realty, Inc.

Abbott Realty Services, Inc.

Abbott Resorts, Inc.

Accommodations Center, Inc.

Advantage Vacation Homes By Styles, Inc.

B & B on the Beach, Inc.

Base Mountain Properties, Inc.

Bluebill Properties, Inc.

Bluebill Vacation Properties, Inc.

Brindley & Brindley Realty & Development, Inc.

Coastal Real Estate Sales, Inc.

Coastal Real Estate Sales Merger Co.

Coastal Resorts International, Inc.

Coastal Resorts International Merger Co.

Coastal Resorts Management, Inc.

Coastal Resorts Realty, L. L.C.

Coates, Reid & Waldron, Inc.

Collection of Fine Properties, Inc.

CRW Property Management, Inc.

Columbine Management Company, Inc.

Cove Management Services, Inc.

Dunhill Real Estate Services, Ltd.

Exclusive Vacation Properties, Inc.

First Resort Software, Inc.

Florida Residential Rentals, Inc.

Florida Residential Rental Merger Co.

High Country Resorts, Inc.

High Country Resorts II Merger Co.

Hotel Corporation of the Pacific, Inc.

Houston & O’Leary Company

Howey Acquisition, Inc.

K-T-F Acquisition Co.

Langford Realty, Inc.

Langford Resorts, Inc.

Maui Condominium & Home Realty, Inc.

Mountain High Management, Inc.

Mountain Valley Properties, Inc.

Naples/Marco Vacation Accommodations, Inc.

Naples/Marco Vacation Accommodation Merger Co.

Peak Ski Rentals, LLC

Plantation Resort Management, Inc.

Priscilla Murphy Realty, Inc.

Priscilla Murphy Vacation Rentals, Inc.

R&R Resort Rental Properties, Inc.

REP Holdings, Ltd.

Realty Consultants, Inc.

Resort Property Management, Inc.

Ridgepine, Inc.

Ryan’s Golden Eagle Management, Inc.

S.I.I.K., Inc.

Scottsdale Resort Accommodations, Inc.

Shoreline Rentals, Inc.

Solutions, Inc.

SP Ohio, Inc.

Steamboat Premier Properties, Inc.

Styles Estates, Ltd., Inc.

Telluride Resort Accommodations, Inc.

Ten Mile Holdings, Ltd.

The Management Company, Inc.

The Maury People, Inc.

Tops’l Club of NW Florida, Inc.

The Tops’l Group, Inc.

The Tops’l Sales Group, Inc.

Trupp-Hodnett Enterprises, Inc.

Universal Vacation Acquisition Co., LLC

Whistler Chalets Holding Corp.

Whistler Chalets Ltd.

Whistler Exclusive Property Management, Ltd.

Whistler Peak Properties, Ltd.

Worthy Owner Rental Group, Inc. 

 

----
#### F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6843.

Entry No. A-4189.

Invoice dated Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, February 20, 1945.

Certified February 20, 1945.

Entered at Port Huron, Mich., February 23, 1945.

(Decided February 5, 1947)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Howard L. Harawitz,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Mollis on, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement from a finding of value made by the appraiser at the port of Port Huron on certain canned pumpkin imported from Canada. The appeal has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into by the parties:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, is as follows: Canadian, $1.10 per dozen, plus 8 per centum sales tax. It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher export value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation. * * *

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to he the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value is Canadian $1.10 per dozen, plus 8 per centum sales tax.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
# C_2012373EN.01001304.xml

| 1.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 373/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 373/13

---

Order of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-105/12) (1)

1

2012/C 373/25

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.

1

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Commander spreads cheer to the Richmond workforce 

DLA Aviation Public Affairs

                RICHMOND, VA  –              
During this time of holiday cheer, many across the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation enterprise took time to give back to their communities or enjoy time with co-workers during office holiday parties. 

 

DLA Aviation Public Affairs asked you to send us photos and the response was overwhelming. We received dozens of photos showing off creative outfits, office parties, festive office decorations and boxes and boxes of gifts to be donated to those in need in your local communities. 

 

Over the next couple of weeks, we will be running stories highlighting these photos, so sit back, enjoy and Happy Holidays!! 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA Aviation
Exhibit32.2

Certification of CFO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section1350,as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Alamosa Holdings, Inc. (the"Company") for the three months ended March31, 2004, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, KendallCowan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge:

|           |                                                                                                                     |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)  | The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and |

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

/s/ KendallCowan

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

|             |              |
|-------------|--------------|
| Name:  | KendallCowan |

|              |                        |
|--------------|------------------------|
| Title:  | Chief FinancialOfficer |

|             |             |
|-------------|-------------|
| Date:  | May 5, 2004 |

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except tothe extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filedby the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended.

----
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2011

- NM

- 078

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Appendix E 

Year-long Modeling Results 
ii 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
E-1 

Figure E-1. All emissions average January through March 2008 (ng/m3). 
E-2 

Figure E-2. All emissions average February through April 2008 (ng/m3). 
E-3 

Figure E-3. All emissions March through May 2008 (ng/m3). 
E-4 

Figure E-4. All emissions average April through June 2008 (ng/m3). 
E-5 

Figure E-5. All emissions average May through July 2008 (ng/m3). 
E-6 

Figure E-6. All emissions average June through August 2008 (ng/m3). 
E-7 

Figure E-7. All emissions average July through September 2008 (ng/m3). 
E-8 

Figure E-8. All emissions average August through October 2008 (ng/m3). 
E-9 

Figure E-9. All emissions average September through November 2008 (ng/m3). 
E-10 

Figure E-10. All emissions average October through December 2008 (ng/m3). 
E-11 

Figure E-11. All emissions average November through January 2008 (ng/m3).. 
E-12 

Figure E-12. All emissions December through February 2008 (ng/m3).
No. 40528.

#### Protests 936873-G, etc., of U. S. Jewelry Co. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

The protests were dismissed.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE FLIGHT STANDARDS AGENCY 

27 Nov 12 

MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA/ARM-100 

FROM: HQ AFFSA/A3OF 

 5901 Air Guard Dr. (AJW31AF) 

 Bldg 1001 

 Oklahoma City, OK 73125 

SUBJECT: 14 CFR Exemption 7687F Addendum (Docket No. FAA-2001-9501) 

14 CFR Exemption 7687 was granted to the United States Air Force on 3 Jan 2002 and 

exempts the USAF from the provisions of Section 91.209 (a)(1) and (b). The exemption was last 

renewed on 12 Oct 12 (7687F) and will expire 30 Nov 15. 

These new stipulations added to the Exemption 7687F make it unusable for USAF 

operations. Lights-out operations under this Exemption are used by aircraft to do practice 

intercepts, etc. with all participating aircraft operating lights-out and in nonstandard formations 

IAW procedures specified in an approved Letter of Agreement (LOA). This LOA has been 

agreed upon between the participating aircraft units and the ATC facility responsible for the 

airspace in which the operations will be conducted. 

Under the Conditions and Limitations in Exemption 7687F, paragraph 5 specifies the 

requirements for a LOA that are required when executing operations. The immediate 

termination of lights-out operations is required for formation flights that exceed “the limits of a 

standard formation” as stated in paragraph 5.b.v. Also, paragraph 7 states this Exemption is not 

valid for “formation flights when operating in a nonstandard formation”. 

The USAF respectfully requests one of the following addendums to Exemption 7687F. 

First, remove the guidance found in paragraphs 5.b.v and 7. Then add a sentence to paragraph 4 

stating: This LOA must contain procedures for operations in nonstandard formations if so 

desired by the USAF unit. 

Alternatively, modify Exemption verbiage in paragraphs 5.b.v and 7 to allow 

nonstandard formation operations as long as they are specified in the LOA. The USAF 

suggested wording for the paragraph is as follows: 5.b.v. For formation flights: exceeding the 

limits of a standard formation (as defined in the FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary) unless 

operations as such are IAW an approved LOA.; 7. This exemption is not valid for formation 

flights when operating in a nonstandard formation unless operations as such are IAW an 

approved LOA.

Please contact me with any questions at e-mail: hqaffsa.a3of@tinker.af.mil or 

(405) 582-5024. We appreciate your assistance. 

 

 ALEX E. KRAUSE, Maj, USAF 

 Chief, Flight Standards Division
# C_2013233EN.01000701.xml

| 10.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/7

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — Cytochroma Development v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T-106/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ALPHAREN - Earlier national word marks ALPHA D3 - Relative ground for refusal - Compliance by OHIM with a judgment annulling a decision of its Boards of Appeal - Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Composition of the Boards of Appeal - Article 1(d) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96)

2013/C 233/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cytochroma Development, Inc. (Saint Michael, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Smith, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2011 (Case R 1235/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Cytochroma Development, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 December 2011 (Case R 1235/2011-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 December 2011 (Case R 1235/2011-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.

1

---
No. 48229.

#### Protest 995461-G of Horace E. Gould & Sons, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulatéd that the hemp hats in question are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218). The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was therefore sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1


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

In connection  with the Annual Report of MILLENNIUM  CAPITAL  VENTURE  HOLDINGS,
INC.(the  "Company")  on Form  10-QSB for the quarter  ending  March 31, 2004 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Francis Mailhot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


By: /s/ Francis Mailhot
    --------------------------------
    Francis Mailhot, Chief Executive
    Officer


Dated: June 16, 2005
No. 6087.

#### STATE EX REL. F. J. NOULLET vs. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

Syllabus.

Mandamus will not lie to compel the City of New Orleans to budget for the unpaid claims of previous years.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “D,’ ’No. 106,623. Hon. Porter Parker, Judge.

Lyle Saxon, for plaintiff and appellant.

A. M. Buckmann, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion an'd decree of the Court, as follows:

Relator is the assignee of the claims referred to in the following ordinance adopted June 6, 1905.

> “Be it ordained by the Council of the City of New Orleans, that the comptroller be and he is hereby directed to warrant on the Treasurer, in favor of R. Gr. Memory in the sum of $1815.00, said amount being one per cent of the appraised value of the sugar sheds, and being paid him for fee as appraiser; and the Treasurer is hereby authorized to pay same out of the proceeds of Sugar Sheds B. & E.’’

The proceeds of the sugar sheds above referred to not having become available, he asks the Court “to decree that the Commission Council pass an ordinance directing the Commissioner of Public Finance to list said claims and pay the same out of the first availabde funds in hand.”

As we see the matter plaintiff is nothing more than an ordinary creditor of the city, having an acknowledged *252account; and we knoAV of no law which, makes it the ministerial duty of the city to provide for the payment of such claims.

Opinion and decree, May 18th, 1914.

On the contrary “by Act No. 5 of 1870, creditors of the City of New Orleans are denied all remedy for the enforcement of their moneyed judgments except that provided for in the Act itself.”

Benedict vs. City, 111 La., 374.

And we cannot conceive how the holder of a claim not yet reduced to judgment can be in any better position.

Acts 32 of 1902 and 128 of 1910, have no particular application. If applicable at all they seem to forbid the very thing which relator noAV seeks to' have done. For it is only the excess of revenues over the charges for the current year that may be applied to the unpaid claims of previous years (see Sec. 2).

Judgment affirmed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
127791 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 127791 COA: 256155 Muskegon CC: 98-042848-FC JEFFREY JOE SHAW, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e December 16, 2004 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 November 25, 2015

s1124

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2015

151520

SHANNON BITTERMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 151520

COA: 319663

Saginaw CC: 13-019397-CZ

CHERYL D. BOLF,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 14, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 35 days of the date of this order 

addressing only the question of how this Court should define the term “public official” 

under Section 13(1) of the Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.273(1). The parties should not 

submit mere restatements of their application papers.

The Public Corporation Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan is invited to file 

a brief amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue 

presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.