alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 21

                        Subsidiaries of the Registrant



                                          State or Other                     
                                          Jurisdiction of      Percentage    
Parent                                    Incorporation        Ownership     
------                                    -------------        ---------     
                                                                             
Community Financial Corp.                     Illinois                       
                                                                             
                                                                             
Subsidiary (1)                                                               
                                                                             
Community Bank & Trust, N.A.                United States         100%       
                                                                             
American Bancshares, Inc.                     Illinois            100%       
                                                                             
The Egyptian State Bank                       Illinois            100%       
                                                                             
Saline County State Bank                      Illinois            100%       
                                                                             
MidAmerica Bank of St. Clair County           Illinois            100%        
 
CFC Acquisition Corp.                         Illinois            100%

Subsidiary of American Bancshares, Inc.
---------------------------------------

American Bank of Illinois in Highland         Illinois            100%  


---------------           
(1)  The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in
     the consolidated financial statements contained in the Annual Report to
     Stockholders attached hereto as an exhibit.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of First Hartford Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I StuartI. Greenwald, Treasurer, 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.       Thereport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

          /s/ Stuart I. Greenwald          Stuart I. GreenwaldTreasurer & Chief Financial Officer

Date: September 19, 2006
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3015224-APR-201309:09 AM
#### Lucien T. ARNOLD and wife, Jean F. Arnold, Appellants, v. GULF COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

No. M-245.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 22, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
HD GHG Phase 1 2013 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2013/hdghg2013/hdghg2013.htm 1 of 4 6/17/2015 2:51 PMHD GHG Phase 1 2013 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2013/hdghg2013/hdghg2013.htm 2 of 4 6/17/2015 2:51 PMHD GHG Phase 1 2013 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2013/hdghg2013/hdghg2013.htm 3 of 4 6/17/2015 2:51 PMHD GHG Phase 1 2013 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2013/hdghg2013/hdghg2013.htm 4 of 4 6/17/2015 2:51 PM
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THE COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND
               CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                    NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                    100
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                           2,937
<ALLOWANCES>                               20
<INVENTORY>                             3,418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        6,795
<PP&E>                                  5,700
<DEPRECIATION>                          4,204
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          8,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   4,387
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                   15
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                              3,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            8,634
<SALES>                                15,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       15,517
<CGS>                                  13,085
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          14,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           382
<INCOME-TAX>                              157
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              225
<EPS-BASIC>                             .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .15



</TABLE>
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Jeffrey P. Orleans, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley AcT of 2002, that:

                  1. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Orleans Homebuilders,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the
Company.



Date:    May 12, 2005



                                                    Jeffrey P. Orleans
                                                    ------------------
                                                    Jeffrey P. Orleans
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

Summary of 2014 Performance Bonus Program 

The following is a summary description of the terms and conditions with respect to the potential cash performance bonuses for the
Company’s “named executive officers” (as defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission) (the “NEOs”) as determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors. 
 All Company non-sales-commissioned employees, including the NEOs, are eligible for performance bonuses under the 2014 Bonus
Program. The bonus payout for each eligible employee is determined based on the employee’s eligible salary multiplied by his or her bonus % multiplied by a corporate achievement factor and an individual performance factor, with the corporate
achievement factor ranging from 0% to 200%, and with the individual performance factor ranging from 0% to 100% (with exceptions above 100%) and determined by the evaluation of each individual employee performance. 

Corporate goals are further weighted 50% on revenue and 50% on non-GAAP operating income. The corporate achievement factors for revenue and
non-GAAP operating income are independently determined based upon pre-established threshold, target and maximum goals. 
 The 2014 Bonus
Program is designed to reward, through the payment of annual cash bonuses, the Company’s employees (including executive officers) for the Company’s performance in meeting certain key corporate objectives for 2014 and, if applicable, each
individual’s performance and contribution in meeting the Company’s corporate objectives for the year. The actual cash bonus awarded in any year, if any, may be more or less than each employee’s annual bonus target, and shall be
subject to approval by the Compensation Committee or the Board of Directors. For the Company’s executive officers, the target bonuses, and whether or not a bonus is paid in any year, is within the discretion of the Compensation Committee.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8090 

To amend title VI of the Social Security Act to provide a limitation on 

the recoupment of Coronavirus Relief Fund amounts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 22, 2020 

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

on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title VI of the Social Security Act to provide 

a limitation on the recoupment of Coronavirus Relief 

Fund amounts. 

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 ‘‘Leave Local Govern5 ment Alone Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON RECOUPMENT OF CORONAVIRUS 

7 RELIEF FUND AMOUNTS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 601(f)(2) of the Social 

9 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 801(f)(2)) is amended by adding 

10 at the end the following: ‘‘In no case is a State or unit 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8090 IH

1 of local government authorized to recover any amount pro2 vided under a payment made under this section from any 

3 unit of local government.’’. 

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

5 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to payments under 

6 section 601 of the Social Security Act made before or after 

7 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         2,931
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         998,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,107,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        619,622
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     452,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,107,348
<SALES>                                        77,657
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               81,993
<CGS>                                          43,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  43,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               17,617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             17,862
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                21,071
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            21,071
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (481)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   20,590
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THERMO ECOTEK CORPORATION'S
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                                 81,569
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          27,984
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                             8,844
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      164,149
<PP&E>                                                324,905
<DEPRECIATION>                                         65,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        259,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  60,323
<BONDS>                                               204,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                2,598
<OTHER-SE>                                            144,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          259,490
<SALES>                                               164,261
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      164,261
<CGS>                                                 106,827
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         106,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     13,926
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        38,248
<INCOME-TAX>                                           14,409
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    22,505
<DISCONTINUED>                                             40
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           22,545
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.64


</TABLE>
#### Eugene H. WATSON, Sr. v. Mrs. Ceola S. SCOTT et al. Allen D. MORGAN v. Vadna Burkett CULPEPPER et al.

No. 60879.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 11, 1977.

In re: Vadna Burkett Culpepper, Delphia Burkett Thomas, Ernest O. McCoy, Mack Allen McCoy and Marlin Margene McCoy applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Bienville. 349 So.2d 982.

Writ Denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ENACTED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the annual report on Form 10-K/A of THQ Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian J. Farrell,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

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

|        | /s/ BRIAN J.  FARRELL                                              |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Brian J. Farrell   Chief Executive Officer   January 19, 2007 |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28271-28272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12956]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service\TM\.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: June 18, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

[[Page 28272]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
June 12, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 443 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-168, CP2018-
240.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-12956 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance 

with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA14-497

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 21 October 2014

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Surry County

No. 12 CRS 53852

LINDA DAYE GEORGE

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 11 December 2013

by Judge Edwin G. Wilson, Jr., in Surry County Superior Court. 

Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 September 2014.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General 

Kimberly Grande, for the State.

Wait Law, P.L.L.C., by John L. Wait, for defendantappellant.

McCULLOUGH Judge.

Defendant Linda Daye George appeals from a judgment entered 

upon a jury verdict finding her guilty of malicious conduct by a 

prisoner. The trial court sentenced defendant to a suspended 

term of 16 to 29 months imprisonment and placed her on 

supervised probation for 36 months. Defendant gave notice of 

appeal in open court.
-2-

Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court 

erred in denying defendant’s motion to instruct the jury on the 

charge of misdemeanor assault on a law enforcement officer. 

Defendant contends she was entitled to the instruction because 

misdemeanor assault on a law enforcement officer is a lesser 

included offense of malicious conduct by a prisoner and the 

facts of her case satisfy both offenses. Defendant is 

incorrect.

It is well established that “[a] defendant ‘is entitled to 

an instruction on a lesser included offense if the evidence 

would permit a jury rationally to find him guilty of the lesser 

offense and acquit him of the greater.’” State v. Crouse, 169 

N.C. App. 382, 386, 610 S.E.2d 454, 457 (quoting State v. 

Leazer, 353 N.C. 234, 237, 539 S.E.2d 922, 924 (2000)), disc.

review denied, 359 N.C. 637, 616 S.E.2d 923 (2005). However, 

North Carolina courts use “‘a definitional test for determining 

whether a crime is in fact a lesser offense that merges with the 

greater offense.’” Id. (quoting State v. Kemmerlin, 356 N.C. 

446, 475, 573 S.E.2d 870, 890 (2002)). Using the definitional 

test, this Court has held that “misdemeanor assault on a 

government official is not a lesser included offense of felony 

malicious conduct by a prisoner.” Id. Accordingly, the trial 
-3-

court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to instruct the 

jury on the charge of misdemeanor assault on a law enforcement 

officer as a lesser included offense to malicious conduct by a 

prisoner.

No error.

Judges CALABRIA and GEER concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133385 & (16) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices v SC: 133385 

 COA: 275674

 Marquette CC: 87-020482-FH 

BENNIE GRAVES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 7, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion for 

miscellaneous relief is DENIED. 

s0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-3629 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-011--AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

SB modification 12.0 $1,020.0

0

801 $1,821.00 778 $1,416,738.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,416,738

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: