alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21
 Subsidiaries of Registrant
 State of
    
    PercentageCompany Name
    
    Incorporation
    
    OwnershipCICA Life Insurance Company of America (CICA)
    
    Colorado
    
    100% DirectCitizens National Life Insurance Company (CNLIC)
    
    Texas
    
    100% IndirectComputing Technology, Inc. (CTI)
    
    Colorado
    
    100% IndirectFuneral Homes of America, Inc. (FHA)
    
    Louisiana
    
    100% IndirectInsurance Investors, Inc. (III)
    
    Texas
    
    100% IndirectIntegrity Capital Corporation (ICC)
    
    Indiana
    
    87% Direct13% IndirectIntegrity Capital Insurance Company (ICIC)
    
    Indiana
    
    100% IndirectOzark National Life Insurance Company (ONLIC)
    
    Arkansas
    
    100% DirectSecurity Plan Life Insurance Company (SPLIC)
    
    Louisiana
    
    100% IndirectSecurity Plan Fire Insurance Company (SPFIC)
    
    Louisiana
    
    100% Indirect
No. 11204.

#### McCombs *v.*Webb.

Decided October 12, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Harrison county.

*Mr. Albert O. Barnes,*for plain*494tiff in error.

*Mr. J. H. White,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Spear and Shaucic, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          36,900
<SECURITIES>                                    51,525
<RECEIVABLES>                                  168,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               271,051
<PP&E>                                         312,005
<DEPRECIATION>                                 275,561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 310,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          695,212
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,247
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,252,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   310,584
<SALES>                                        209,361
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               209,361
<CGS>                                           88,616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  249,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,379)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,379)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,379)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1636 

To redesignate certain facilities of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 31, 2013 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To redesignate certain facilities of the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF DRYDEN FLIGHT RE4 SEARCH CENTER. 

5 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The National Aeronautics and 

6 Space Administration (NASA) Hugh L. Dryden Flight 

7 Research Center in Edwards, California, is redesignated 

8 as the ‘‘NASA Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Cen9 ter’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1636 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the flight research center referred to in sub4 section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

5 ‘‘NASA Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION OF WESTERN AERONAUTICAL 

7 TEST RANGE. 

8 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The National Aeronautics and 

9 Space Administration (NASA) Western Aeronautical Test 

10 Range in California is redesignated as the ‘‘NASA Hugh 

11 L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range’’. 

12 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg13 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

14 States to the test range referred to in subsection (a) shall 

15 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘NASA Hugh L. Dry16 den Aeronautical Test Range’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                           8,165
<SECURITIES>                                     7,517
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,834
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (801)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,816
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,067
<PP&E>                                          14,664
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (9,342)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 (33,344)
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,575
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,344
<SALES>                                         27,724
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,893
<CGS>                                           12,952
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,734
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,516
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (22,326)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,928
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (27,254)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (27,254)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.24
        

</TABLE>
#### Katherine J. Nutting *vs.*Freemont Wing Freemont H. Wing *vs.*Katherine J. Nutting (Two cases) Leola Wing *vs.*Katherine J. Nutting

Androscoggin.

Opinion, February 1, 1956.

*436*Frank W. Linnell,*for Nutting.

*Berman & Berman,*for Wing.

Sitting : Fellows, C. J., Williamson, Webber, Beliveau, Tapley, Clarke, JJ.

Williamson, J.

These four cases arise from a “head-on” collision between automobiles driven by Mrs. Nutting and Mr. Wing. The jury found for the plaintiff in *Nutting*v. *Wing*and assessed damages at $4500, and for the defendant in actions brought by Mr. Wing and by Mrs. Wing, a passenger in her husband’s automobile. The cases are before us on general motions on the usual grounds. The question of excessive damages is present only in *Nutting*v. *Wing.*

On the issue of. liability, we are satisfied that the jury could properly find, as they did, that Mrs. Nutting was in the exercise of due care and Mr. Wing was negligent. The vital question was whether the collision took place on the Wing or Nutting side of the median line of a highway with a tarred surface eighteen feet in width.

The evidence of the course and position of the cars and of other factors was conflicting. The jury evidently believed and gave weight to the testimony of a State Police officer about tire marks of the Wing car leading from the Wing toward the Nutting side of the highway. There is nothing inherently improbable or unreasonable in the evidence for Mrs. Nutting. *Fossett et al.*v. *Durant,*150 Me. 413, 113 A. (2nd) 620 (1955); *Parker*v. *Knox,*147 Me. 396, 87 A. (2nd) 663 (1952); *Arnst*v. *Estes & Harper,*136 Me. 272, 8 A. (2nd) 201 (1939); *Raymond*v. *Eldred,*127 Me. 11, 140 A. 608 (1928).

*437On the issue of damages Mrs. Nutting was awarded $4500, with special damages of $1751, as follows: Automobile damage $1600, hospital care $66, doctors’ bills $50, ambulance $20, towing automobile $15. The balance of $2749 is attributable to personal injuries and pain and suffering. Mrs. Nutting was in the hospital for six days and in bed at home for a week, used a crutch for about three weeks, and felt effects of pain in her leg for another six to eight weeks. She suffered no fractures, and at the time of the trial had made a complete recovery. The only permanent injury she received is a small scar on the forehead of minor consequence. She is a young woman of twenty-five years of age with life expectancy of 30 years. It is difficult, indeed, to measure damages in terms of dollars.

From a review of the record the jury, however, in our opinion was plainly not justified in awarding more than $2000 for the damages in question. For the governing principles see *Candage*v. *Belanger et al.,*143 Me. 165, 57 A. (2nd) 145 (1948); *Tardiff*v. *Parker, Sr.,*149 Me. 365, 102 A. (2nd) 866 (1953).

The entries will be

*Freemont H. Wing v. Nutting (two cases) and Leola Wing v. Nutting*— Motions *overruled. Nutting v. Wing*— Motion *sustained unless within thirty days from filing of mandate plaintiff remits all of the verdict in excess of $3751.*
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1402 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1402

              To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2013

  Mr. Boozman introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

    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 ``Death Tax Repeal Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes) is hereby 
repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to estates of decedents dying, gifts made, and generation-skipping 
transfers made after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                       8,001
<SECURITIES>                                28,353
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       256
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,407
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,038
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,595
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,595
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,595
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 3.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 2.94
<FN>
See the financial statements for an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        




</TABLE>
#### Mrs. Kathryn (Roberts) BURTON v. Leon ROBERTS.

No. 50746.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 19, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 9, 1978.

Jimmie H. Fields, Meridian, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
Table 7.  Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder:  Second Quarter 2003 and 2004


                             Second     Second    Standard   Standard
Age of householder           Quarter    Quarter   error on   error on
                              2003       2004     2004 rate difference

United States..............      68.0       69.2        0.1        0.2

    Under 25 years.........      23.2       25.7        0.6        0.8
    25 to 29 years.........      39.6       40.8        0.6        0.8
    30 to 34 years.........      55.6       57.6        0.5        0.8
    35 to 39 years.........      64.1       66.1        0.5        0.7
    40 to 44 years.........      71.1       72.3        0.4        0.7
    45 to 49 years.........      75.6       77.1        0.4        0.6
    50 to 54 years.........      77.1       76.8        0.4        0.7
    55 to 59 years.........      81.6       81.6        0.4        0.7
    60 to 64 years.........      81.5       83.4        0.5        0.7
    65 to 69 years.........      82.6       83.5        0.5        0.8
    70 to 74 years.........      82.0       83.5        0.5        0.8
    75 years and over......      78.0       78.8        0.4        0.6

      Under 35 years.......      41.9       43.6        0.3        0.5
      35 to 44 years.......      67.8       69.4        0.3        0.5
      45 to 54 years.......      76.3       77.0        0.3        0.4
      55 to 64 years.......      81.6       82.4        0.3        0.5
      65 years and over....      80.2       81.1        0.3        0.4
#### Doris TIEDT, Appellant, v. William MILENZ, Arthur Smith, and James Gallagher, Appellees.

No. 7114.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 8, 1967.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21



SCHEDULE OF TRANSMONTAIGNE INC. SUBSIDIARIES AT JUNE 30, 2001



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Ownership
 of                                                                             State/Country
Subsidiary       Name of Subsidiary                           Trade Name        of Organization
-----------     ---------------------------------------      --------------     ----------------
<S>              <C>                                          <C>                 <C>
   100%          K123 Corporation                             None                Colorado

    97%          Refined Solutions Inc.                       None                Delaware

   100%          Republic Natural Gas Company                 None                Kansas

   100%          TransMontaigne Canada Ltd.                   None                Canada

    65%          TransMontaigne Holding Inc.                  None                Arkansas

   100%          TransMontaigne Pipeline Inc.                 None                Arkansas

   100%          TransMontaigne Product Services Inc.         None                Delaware

   100%          TransMontaigne Terminaling Inc.              Razorback           Arkansas
                                                              Terminaling
                                                              Co.
</TABLE>
#### James B. LOFTON v. S. H. CADE et al.

No. 62523.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: Michael R. Mitchell and Herman Wood Company, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Natchitoches. 359 So.2d 1074.

Writ denied.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

MATTIE LOMAX, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHNNIE BERNELL MATHIS, Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2023

- 1504

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Florida in No. 1:12

- cv

- 23836

- JAL, Judge Joan A. Lenard.

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

Having considered Mattie Lomax’s response to this

court’s March 23, 2023

, order to show cause, we dismiss

. “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement,” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007), and, in ord er to be timely, a notice of appeal must generally be filed within 30 days after entry of final judgment, 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1)(A). Here, Ms. Lomax filed her notice of appeal nearly 10 years after the district court’s entry of final Case: 23-1504 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 05/18/2023LOMAX v. MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT 2

judgment in this case

. A t least because of this untimeliness, w e lack jurisdiction over the appeal, and we cannot transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 because the appeal would not be timely in any other court of appeals.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

May 1 8 , 2023

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court Case: 23-1504 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 05/18/2023
#### James Junior ENFINGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-7.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 21, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, Stephen 0. Rushing, Asst. Public Defender, and Richard D. Muga, Legal Intern, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

*1134PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed. The order revoking probation, while indicating the appellant was to receive credit for time served, does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes. *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).

Remanded for correction of the sentence; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21  SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT  State of
IncorporationNortheast Utilities (a Massachusetts business trust)MAThe Connecticut Light and Power CompanyCTCL&P Funding LLCDEHWP CompanyMANorth Atlantic Energy CorporationNHNorth Atlantic Energy Service CorporationNHNortheast Nuclear Energy CompanyCTNortheast Utilities Service CompanyCTNU Enterprises, Inc.CTNortheast Generation Services CompanyCTE. S. Boulos CompanyCTSelect Energy, Inc.CTPublic Service Company of New HampshireNHPSNH Funding LLCDEThe Rocky River Realty CompanyCTWestern Massachusetts Electric CompanyMAWMECO Funding LLCDEYankee Energy System, Inc.CTYankee Gas Services CompanyCT
Exhibit 10.13.3

                 THIRD AMENDMENT TO PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
                 ----------------------------------------------

      THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, dated as of March 10,
1998, by and between American Biltrite Inc., a Delaware corporation ("ABI") and
Congoleum Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Congoleum");

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

      THAT WHEREAS, ABI and Congoleum are parties to a Personal Services
Agreement, dated as of March 11, 1993 (the "Personal Services Agreement"), as
amended February 8, 1995 and November 15, 1996, pursuant to which ABI agreed
that Roger S. Marcus would serve as the Chief Executive Officer of Congoleum and
Richard G. Marcus would serve as the Vice Chairman of Congoleum, subject to
certain terms and conditions set forth in the Personal Services Agreement;

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements set forth herein and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

      1. Extension of Term. The term of the Personal Services Agreement is
renewed for a five-year period beginning on March 11, 1998.

      2. Ratification. Each of ABI and Congoleum hereby ratifies and confirms
all of the terms and provisions of the Personal Services Agreement, as amended
hereby.

      3. Counterparts. This Amendment to Personal Services Agreement may be
executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original but all
of which shall collectively constitute a single instrument.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this
Amendment to Personal Services Agreement as of the date first above written.


                                       AMERICAN BILTRITE INC.

                                       By:________________________________
                                            Name:  Roger S. Marcus
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                       CONGOLEUM CORPORATION

                                       By:________________________________
                                            Name:  H. N. Feist
                                            Title: Sr. Vice President - Finance
Page No. GES |

SCHEDULE 1.—Free Inhabitants in
of enumerated by me, on the 47 day of
Post Office (. Yin, 1g #, , G

Description. Vauvue or Estate Owwen.

Whether deaf and
dumb, blind, insane,
idiotic, pauper, or
convict.

-houses—

Profession, Occupation, or Trade of Place of Birth,

The name of every person whose usual
place of abode on the first day of June, each person, male and female, over Value of Value of Naming ‘the State, Territory,

1860, was in this family. ) 15 years of age. Real Estate. Personal or Country.
a . Estate.

within the

year.

Attended School

black, or
mulatto

White,

2

numbered in the
in the order of

order of visitation.
visitation.

! Families numbered
within the year.
Persons over 90 y'rs of age

whe cannot read & write.

Dwellin

| Married

Historic census records are maintained and released by
the National Archives and Records Administration,

not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Df 365 Donte ope er Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly

: available records like the one shown here.

Newsy — oe

| | Bm A 4

a ee el

VDU| VOZ AL Y

oe mn 8 828 A ee hh CUD
oe 2 %~ 8@ a *» &@ ®

S

ne ee
a » &

WASILTLLA , 4
A,
Vt MsL14A41 A Lté

~,
.

|
|
}

JF (Yr

cae i —_
No. white males, ___..___- No. colored males, ’ Ne. foreign born,

3 ad

id iS A
3 a
o pa
=|

wet

eat]

bed al
- ad
inn ad

ra ra
7 a
a
— Le
a ok
mr
mS

te fe |
Gee

—}| YYW

aes
——
Se
=
oor
ware
2 3)
ob
NW

No. white females, © | No. colored females, | No. deaf and dumb,

-