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

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                                    |  |                       
|------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|                                                                    |  | State of Incorporation
|Subsidiaries  Direct / wholly-owned                                |  |                       
|Community Bank                                                      |  | Alabama               
|Community (AL) Capital Trust I                                      |  | Delaware              
|Community Funding Company                                           |  | Alabama               
|                                                                    | 
|Subsidiaries  Indirect / wholly-owned by Community Bank            |  |                       
|Community Appraisals, Inc                                           |  | Alabama               
|1stCommunity Credit Company                                         |  | Alabama               
|Community Insurance Corp                                            |  | Alabama               
|                                                                    | 
|Subsidiaries  Indirect / wholly-owned by Community Insurance Corp. |  |                       
|Southern Select Insurance, Inc.                                     |  | Alabama
# C_2022002EN.01003902.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/39

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 29 October 2021 — Abenante and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-527/21 R)

(Interim relief - Regulation (EU) 2021/953 - EU Digital COVID Certificate - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 2/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Stefania Abenante (Ferrara, Italy) and the 423 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: M. Sandri, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, J. Rodrigues and P. López-Carceller, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and S. Scarpa Ferraglio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of Article 3(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
# C_2022359EN.01001401.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/14

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Efeteio Athinon — Greece) — VP, CX, RG, TR and Others v Elliniko Dimosio

(Case C-133/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social Policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector - National legislation establishing a difference in treatment as regards remuneration between workers employed under fixed-term contracts for the supply of services and those employed under contracts of indefinite duration - No justification - Concept of ‘objective reasons’)

(2022/C 359/17)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Efeteio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: VP, CX, RG, TR and Others

Respondent: Elliniko Dimosio

Operative part of the order

Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a fixed-term worker, whose contracts is classified as a contract for the supply of services, is not entitled to receive remuneration equivalent to that paid to a permanent worker on the ground that that worker carried out his or her work under a fixed-term contract in the knowledge that that contract sought to meet permanent and long-lasting needs of his or her employer.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# AGENCY:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice of charter renewal.

# SUMMARY:

This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of October 6, 1972, that the Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women (ACBCYW), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through June 17, 2020.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Temeika L. Fairley, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, 5770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop K52, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone (770) 488-4518, Fax (770) 488-4760. Email:                         *acbcyw@cdc.gov.*

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Elaine Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2018-14756 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
[No. 483-2.

Division Two.

September 20, 1971.]

#### *In re*Obi *et al.,*Richard Obi, *Appellant,*v. Clallam County, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clallam County, No. J. 1725, Joseph H. Johnston, J., entered October 19, 1970. *Dismissed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
# C_2021182EN.01002702.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 15 January 2021 — TM v EJ

(Case C-28/21)

(2021/C 182/39)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TM

Defendant: EJ

Question referred

Must the phrase ‘each Member State shall take all appropriate measures’ in Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability (1) in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11) be interpreted as meaning that, under the legislation of the Member States, insurance undertakings should be made fully liable under insurance against civil liability, including for such consequences as lost profits on the part of the victim?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.

---
# C_2021471EN.01004901.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Daw v EUIPO (Muresko)

(Case T-32/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - EU word mark Muresko - Earlier national word marks Muresko - Claim for seniority of earlier national after registration of the EU trade mark marks - Articles 39 and 40 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Registration of earlier national marks having expired on the day of the claim)

(2021/C 471/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 (Case R 1686/2020-4), concerning a claim for seniority of identical earlier national marks for the EU word mark Muresko No 15465719.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Daw SE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Daw SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 99.13




CONSENT OF PACIFICO CORPUZ





March 31, 2011





Brigus Gold Corp.


United States Securities and Exchange Commission





Re: Brigus Gold Corp.





Ladies and Gentlemen:





I hereby consent to (i) the use of my name in connection with the following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consent relates: (A) the technical report entitled “Black Fox Project National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report” dated January 6, 2011 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2010 and (C) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2010, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from the Report in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889 and 333-162558), as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.





Sincerely,





/s/ Pacifico CorpuzName: Pacifico Corpuz
S. 1205

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

An Act

To amend the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 to define fluid milk processors

to exclude de minimis processors, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fluid Milk Promotion Amendments Act of 1993’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF FLUID MILK PROCESSOR.

(a) FLUID MILK PROCESSOR.—Paragraph (4) of section 1999C

of the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6402(4)) is

amended to read as follows:

‘‘(4) FLUID MILK PROCESSOR.—The term ‘fluid milk processor’ means any person who processes and markets commercially more than 500,000 pounds of fluid milk products in

consumer-type packages per month.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1999J(e) of such Act

(7 U.S.C. 6409(e)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘4504(g))’’ the

following: ‘‘, and that are fluid milk processors,’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 26, 2020

No. 04-19-00890-CR

In re Benjamin Escobedo

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Relator filed an “Amended and Supplement [sic] Notice of Appeal Against Writ of Error, 

Illegal Sentence, and Illegal Indictment or Information to Reinstate Appeal,” in which he appears 

to assert this court erred by denying his petition for writ of mandamus. Ordinarily, an appeal is 

not filed in an original proceeding;

2

therefore, we construe relator’s motion as a motion for 

rehearing. After considering relator’s arguments, we deny relator’s “Amended and Supplement 

[sic] Notice of Appeal Against Writ of Error, Illegal Sentence, and Illegal Indictment or 

Information to Reinstate Appeal.”

It is so ORDERED on February 26, 2020.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2016CR4634, styled The State of Texas v. Benjamin Escobedo, pending in 

the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell presiding.

2

 The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure set forth the procedures under which relator may file a motion for leave 

to file a petition for writ of mandamus along with a petition for writ of mandamus, or a postconviction application 

for writ of habeas corpus with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52; 72.1; 73. 
 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Curtis HUNT, Relator, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 71-1383.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 7, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus dismissed.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 18-50497

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Luis Robert Vasquez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:17-CR-258-1

Before Graves, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Luis Robert Vasquez has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Vasquez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 25, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-50497 Document: 00515875414 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2021
No. 18-50497

2

counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 18-50497 Document: 00515875414 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2021
#### THE STATE *vs.*THOMAS NEWPORT.

The confession of a principal is not evidence against an accessory.

Indicted for feloniously,receiving stolen goods, knowing, &c., to . wit, a quantity of wool.

One Washington Brown had been indicted, tried and convicted on his own confession of stealing the wool, but sentence h$id not passed. His confessions were now offered in evidence against Newport.

Rogers.

—The confession of a principal is not evidence as against an accessory. The very case has been decided by all the judges in England, on an indictment for receiving stolen goods. *(Ros. Evid.*49, 50.)

*The Court*

rejected the evidence.

Verdict, not guilty.

[Note.—In the case of the State *vs.*James Webb in Kent, Oyer and Terminer, June term, 1828, the same point was ruled. *Quere.*Could not Brown have been examined? A person is not convicted so as to render him infamous until *judgment. Greenl. Ev.*444.]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6937

RAHEEM AKBAR SHABAZZ FLOYD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EDWARD J. MCMAHON, Sheriff; M. J. MOSALL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:15-ct-03309-FL)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raheem Akbar Shabazz Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Raheem Akbar Shabazz Floyd seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2012) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) for 

failing to allege a constitutional violation. This court may 

exercise jurisdiction over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 

(2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan 

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Floyd seeks to 

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local 

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to 

the district court with instructions to allow Floyd to file an 

amended complaint. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 

807 F.3d 619, 623-24, 630 (4th Cir. 2015). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

 August 4, 2017

d0801

Order 

Clerk

August 4, 2017

156148

In re CALDWELL/BARRINGTON, Minors. SC: 156148

COA: 335173

Macomb CC Family Division:

2012-000186-NA

2012-000187-NA

2012-000188-NA

2012-000189-NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 Quarterly Report of ViroPharma Incorporated (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Vincent J. Milano                
|Vincent J. Milano                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|July 29, 2009                        
|                                     
|/s/ Charles A. Rowland, Jr.          
|Charles A. Rowland, Jr.              
|Chief Financial Officer              
|July 29, 2009
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ROBIN RYAN , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 18

- 0404 PRPC

Petition for Review fro m the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012

- 009543

- 001 The Honorable Peter A. Thompson , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Adena J. Astrowsky Counsel for Respondent Attorneys for Freedom Law Firm , Chandler By Marc J. Victor C ounsel for Petitioner FILED 9-11-2018STATE v. RYAN Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Judge James P. Been e delivered the decision of the Cour t.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Christopher Robin Ryan seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Ru le of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s first petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief , and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review but deny relief.