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

                                  Subsidiaries

<Table>
<Caption>
                      Name                                                      Jurisdiction of Organization
                      ----                                                      ----------------------------
<S>                                                                             <C>
         Palm Harbor Finance Corporation                                                Texas
         Palm Harbor G.P., Inc.                                                         Nevada
         Standard Casualty Company                                                      Texas
         Better Homes Systems, Inc.                                                     Washington
         Palm Harbor Investments, Inc.                                                  Nevada
         Palm Harbor Holding, Inc.                                                      Nevada
         Standard Insurance Agency, Inc.                                                Texas
         CountryPlace Mortgage, Ltd.                                                    Texas
         Palm Harbor Homes I, L.P.                                                      Texas
         First Home Mortgage Corporation                                                Georgia
         Palm Harbor Insurance Agency, Inc.                                             New Mexico
         Magic Living, Inc.                                                             Nevada
         Palm Harbor Marketing, Inc.                                                    Nevada
         Palm Harbor Manufacturing, L. P.                                               Texas
         Palm Harbor GenPar, L. L. C.                                                   Nevada
         Palm Harbor Insurance Agency of Florida, Inc.                                  Florida
         Palm Harbor Insurance Agency of Alabama, Inc.                                  Alabama
         Palm Harbor Insurance Agency of Tennessee, Inc.                                Tennessee
         Palm Harbor Insurance Agency of Delaware, Inc.                                 Delaware
         Palm Harbor Insurance Agency of Texas, Inc.                                    Texas
</Table>
#### VERNE v. MARLO INVESTMENTS, INC.

No. 39198.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 16, 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2464

___________

Chautauqua Guest Home, Inc., *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Tandus US, LLC, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 21, 2012

Filed: June 28, 2012

___________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Chautauqua Guest Home, Inc. (Chautauqua) appeals following the district

court’s dismissal ofits complaint asserting state-law claims against Tandus US, LLC 1

(Tandus).

Chautauqua originally brought this action in state court, and Tandus removed

it to federal court. Chautauqua then moved for a remand of the case back to state

court, and Tandus moved to dismiss the action, or for a stay, asserting that the dispute

The Honorable Edward J. McManus, United States District Judge for the 1

Northern District of Iowa.
was subject to arbitration. The district court thereafter simultaneously denied

Chautauqua’s remand motion, and granted Tandus’s motion to dismiss, but did not

indicate whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. 

After careful review, see Palmer v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 666 F.3d 1081, 1083

(8th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of grant of motion to dismiss); Borntrager v. Cent.

States Se. and Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 577 F.3d 913, 919 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo

review of district court’s subject matter jurisdiction), this court affirms, but modifies

the dismissal to be without prejudice.

______________________________

-2-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilbert J. Hayes, Jr., Appellant.

[722 NYS2d 445]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By pleading guilty after jury selection at his trial, defendant waived his contention that County Court erred in summarily denying his motion challenging the composition of the panel of prospective jurors *(see, People v Self,*213 AD2d 998; *see also, People v Green,*75 NY2d 902, 904-905, *cert denied*498 US 860; *People v Cecchini,*58 AD2d 713, 714). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 1, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30145

In The Matter of: JOSEPHINE D. DIMITRI Debtor.

------------------------- JOSEPHINE D. DIMITRI, Appellant,

versus WILLIAM C. GARRETT, Succession of; GRANVILLE SEMMES, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; DEBE GARRETT LEVIS, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; BILLIE GARRETT SEMMES, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett, Appellees.

______________________ In The Matter of: JOSEPHINE D. DIMITRI Debtor.

------------------------- JOSEPHINE D. DIMITRI, Appellant,2 versus GRANVILLE SEMMES, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; DEBE GARRETT LEVIS, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; BILLIE GARRETT SEMMES, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; WILLIAM C. GARRETT, Succession of, Appellees.

____________________ In The Matter of: JOSEPHINE D. DIMITRI Debtor.

------------------------- JOSEPHINE D. DIMITRI, Appellant,

versus GRANVILLE SEMMES, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; DEBE GARRETT LEVIS, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; BILLIE GARRETT SEMMES, Individually and as executrix of the Succession of William C. Garrett; WILLIAM C. GARRETT, Succession of, Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (USDC No. 03-CV-3241)

_______________________________________________________* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 3 Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The bankruptcy court properly exercised its powers in lifting the automatic stay arising from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition filed in bad faith. 11 U.S.C.A. § 105(a); see In re Little Creek Development Co. , 779 F.2d 1068, 1071 (5 th Cir. 1986). Further, the court granted the motion to dismiss, based on bad faith of the filing, as demonstrated by the record. See 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b); see In re Little Creek , 779 F.2d at 1072. The district court was also correct in denying the motions for reconsideration and a new trial. See Brown v. Wright , 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9 th Cir. 1978); see also Johnston v. Lucas , 786 F.2d 1254, 1257 (5 th Cir. 1986). Finally, the “NASCO” motion was properly denied as it was without merit. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. , 501 U.S. 32, 115 L.Ed.2d 27, 111 S.Ct 2123, 2132 (1991).

AFFIRMED.
#### W. A. RILEY v. Willis RICHARDSON et al.

No. 46788.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 15, 1972.

*420Adams, Long & Adams, Tupelo, for appellant.

Walter M. O’Barr, Okolona, for appel-lees.

ON MOTION TO STRIKE OPINION AND DECREE

JONES, Justice:

This matter is on a motion to strike an opinion and a final decree of the chancery court. The motion is made under Section 1650.5, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (Supp.1971) which reads as follows:

> All chancellors or judges of the chancery and circuit courts of the State of Mississippi shall render their final decree on any and all matters taken under advisement by such chancellors or judges not later than six (6) months after the date when same are taken under advisement or not later than six (6) months after the date on which the chancellors or courts or judges set as a date for the final brief or memoranda of authority is required to be filed on or as to the cause taken under advisement, whichever is the latest date after the date on which the cause or case is taken under advisement.

> In the event a final decree has not been entered within the six months period hereinbefore referred to, then any party to said law suit shall have the right to appeal on the record as otherwise provided the same as if a final decree has been rendered adversely. Said appeal shall be to the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi and shall be treated as a preferred case over other cases except election contests.

The facts are as follows: Suit was filed, and several different hearings were had. The last hearing was on November 3, 1970. The case was taken under advisement by the chancellor, and he having rendered no opinion, appellant, on July 31, 1971, more than six months after the last hearing, filed a petition for appeal, gave notice to the stenographer to transcribe the notes and filed a bond for appeal to this Court, which bond was duly approved. Thereafter, on August 4, 1971, the court filed its opinion, and on August 9, 1971, final decree was signed and was filed in the trial court on August 26, 1971.

In 1961 when the case of McMahon v. Milam Manufacturing Company, 242 Miss. 71, 127 So.2d 647 (1961) was decided, the said statute only consisted of the first paragraph hereinbefore copied, and the Court in that case held that decrees rendered after the said six months were not invalid because the statute did not so provide. In 1968 the statute was amended so as to incorporate the second paragraph thereof as hereinbefore copied.

We are sustaining the motion to strike the said opinion and final decree rendered after the six-month period.

After the appeal, taken as aforesaid, the lower court had no jurisdiction to enter any opinion or decree. McDowell v. Minor, 159 Miss. 572, 132 So. 565 (1931); Turner v. Carter, 159 Miss. 496, 132 So. 333 (1931); Jennings v. Shapira, 131 Miss. 596, 95 So. 305 (1923).

The motion is sustained.

Sustained.

All Justices concur except SUGG, J., who took no part.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H.R. 3514

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 19 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

Received

AN ACT

To clarify the regulatory oversight exercised by the Rural

Electrification Administration with respect to certain

electric borrowers.

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

3 SECTION 1. ADMINISTRATIVE PROHIBITIONS APPLICABLE

4 TO CERTAIN ELECTRIC BORROWERS.

5 Section 306E of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936

6 is amended to read as follows:

7 ‘‘SEC. 306E. ADMINISTRATIVE PROHIBITIONS APPLICABLE

8 TO CERTAIN ELECTRIC BORROWERS.

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of relieving bor10 rowers of unnecessary and burdensome requirements, the

11 Administrator, guided by the practices of private lenders
2

HR 3514 RDS

1 with respect to similar credit risks, shall issue regulations,

2 applicable to any electric borrower under this Act whose

3 net worth exceeds 110 percent of the outstanding principal

4 balance on all loans made or guaranteed to the borrower

5 by the Administrator, to minimize those approval rights,

6 requirements, restrictions, and prohibitions that the Ad7 ministrator otherwise may establish with respect to the op8 erations of such a borrower.

9 ‘‘(b) SUBORDINATION OR SHARING OF LIENS.—At

10 the request of a private lender providing financing to such

11 a borrower for a capital investment, the Administrator

12 shall, expeditiously, either offer to share the government’s

13 lien on the borrower’s system or offer to subordinate the

14 government’s lien on that property financed by the private

15 lender.

16 ‘‘(c) ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS.—In issuing regu17 lations implementing this section, the Administrator may

18 establish requirements, guided by the practices of private

19 lenders, to ensure that the security for any loan made or

20 guaranteed under this Act is reasonably adequate.

21 ‘‘(d) AUTHORITY OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.—Nothing

22 in this section limits the authority of the Administrator

23 to establish terms and conditions with respect to the use

24 by borrowers of the proceeds of loans made or guaranteed
3

HR 3514 RDS

1 under this Act or to take any other action specifically au2 thorized by law.’’.

3 SEC. 2. ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS.

4 The Administrator of the Rural Electrification Ad5 ministration shall issue interim final regulations imple6 menting this Act not later than 180 days after enactment.

7 If the regulations are not issued within such period of

8 time, the Administrator may not, until the Administrator

9 issues such regulations, require prior approval of, establish

10 any requirement, restriction, or prohibition, with respect

11 to the operations of any electric borrower under the Rural

12 Electrification Act of 1936 whose net worth exceeds 100

13 percent of the outstanding principal balance on all loans

14 made or guaranteed to the borrower by the Administrator.

Passed the House of Representatives November 19,

1993.

Attest:

DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
# C_2016105DE.01001601.xml

| 19.3.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | C 105/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2016

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

C 105/16

---

Berichtigung der Leitlinien vom 19. März 2015 zu den Grundsätzen der guten Vertriebspraxis für Wirkstoffe von Humanarzneimitteln

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 95 vom 21. März 2015
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 95 vom 21. März 2015

(2016/C 105/11)

Seite 2, Kapitel 1 Nummer 1.2.:

anstatt:

anstatt:

„Für die Zwecke der vorliegenden Leitlinien umfasst der Vertrieb von Wirkstoffen jede Tätigkeit, die in der Beschaffung, der Einfuhr, der Lagerung, der Lieferung oder der Ausfuhr von Arzneimitteln besteht, mit Ausnahme der Vermittlung.“

muss es heißen:

muss es heißen:

„Für die Zwecke der vorliegenden Leitlinien umfasst der Vertrieb von Wirkstoffen jede Tätigkeit, die in der Beschaffung, der Einfuhr, der Lagerung, der Lieferung oder der Ausfuhr von Wirkstoffen besteht, mit Ausnahme der Vermittlung.“.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13

                      AMENDMENT # 1 DATED FEBRUARY 14 2000
                     TO PATHWAYS MIDWAY-CASH CARD AGREEMENT
                             DATED JANUARY 27, 2000

THIS AMENDMENT #1 IS DATED EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 14, 2000, AMENDS THAT CERTAIN
PATHWAYS MIDWAY-CASH CARD SYSTEM AGREEMENT DATED JANUARY 27, 2000 (HEREINAFTER
AGREEMENT) BETWEEN THE PATHWAYS GROUP, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION (HEREINAFTER
PATHWAYS) AND FUNTASTIC RIDES COMPANY, INC., AN OREGON CORPORATION (HEREINAFTER
FUNTASTIC) FOR THE PURPOSES AND ON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREAFTER STATED.

                           ARTICLE I - AMENDMENTS.
SECTION 3.1 OF AGREEMENT.
      Section 3.1 of AGREEMENT is hereby amended to provide that the rental
      period shall be from March 13, 2000 through June 4, 2000 inclusive.
SECTION 3.3 OF AGREEMENT.
      Section 3.3 of AGREEMENT is hereby amended to provide that the rental
      items may be used in the vicinity of Longview Washington, and the Greater
      San Francisco Bay area of California. All transportation to and from such
      sites shall be the responsibility of FUNTASTIC without cost or expense to
      PATHWAYS, unless otherwise agreed in writing between the parties.
SECTION 4.1 OF AGREEMENT.
      Section 4.1 of AGREEMENT is hereby amended to provide that delivery by
      PATHWAYS of equipment and cards shall be made to:

                            FUNTASTIC TRAVELING SHOWS
                            3407 S.E. 108TH & POWELL
                               PORTLAND, OR 97266
SECTION 4.2 OF AGREEMENT.
      Section 4.2 of AGREEMENT is hereby amended to provide that rental shall be
      due on the 13th day of each month during the agreement, commencing March
      13, 2000, and the last payment shall be prorated for the last twenty-two
      (22) days of the rental period based on 11/15ths of the monthly rental.
SECTIONS 6.1 AND 6.2 OF AGREEMENT
      Sections 6.1 and 6.2 are each hereby amended to provide that support and
      maintenance shall commence on March 13, 2000.
EXHIBIT A OF AGREEMENT.
      Rental period for the Longview WA and Greater San Francisco Bay Area, CA
      shall be from March 13, 2000 through June 4, 2000, inclusive.
<PAGE>

                      ARTICLE II -ALL OTHER PROVISIONS.
All other provisions of AGREEMENT dated February ____, 2000, between the parties
shall remain the same.

Dated February 14, 2000.

   THE PATHWAYS GROUP, INC., and Its     Funtastic Rides Company Inc.,
   Subsidiaries and affiliates           and Its Subsidiaries and
                                         affiliates


By: /s/ Monte P. StrohL                By:   /s/ Ronald Burback
   -------------------------              -----------------------------
   Monte P. Strohl                           Ronald Burback
   Senior Vice President                     Vice President
   Sales & Marketing
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3255

To repeal the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act

of 1992.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 12, 1993

Mr. BARTON of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To repeal the Cable Television Consumer Protection and

Competition Act of 1992.

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 ‘‘Cable Consumer Pro5 tection and Competition Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 1992 CABLE REREGULATION LAW.

7 (a) REPEAL.—Except as provided in subsection (c),

8 the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competi9 tion Act of 1992 is repealed.
2

•HR 3255 IH

1 (b) EFFECT OF REPEAL; RESTORATION OF PRIOR

2 LAW.—Except as provided in subsection (c), each section

3 of the Communications Act of 1934 amended by the Cable

4 Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of

5 1992 shall be applied as if the Cable Television Consumer

6 Protection and Competition Act of 1992 had not been en7 acted.

8 (c) RETRANSMISSION CONSENT.—Notwithstanding

9 subsection (a), section 6 of the Cable Television Consumer

10 Protection and Competition Act of 1992 is not repealed.

11 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS RESCINDED.

12 Any regulations prescribed by the Federal Commu13 nications Commission to implement amendments made by

14 the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competi15 tion Act of 1992 (other than section 25 thereof) shall

16 cease to be effective on the date of enactment of this Act.

17 The Commission shall promptly act to amend or rescind

18 its regulations as necessary to comply with this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7651

RODNEY LAWRENCE GREEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GARY M. CLARK; JOHN DOE, Captain; JOHN DOE,

Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (CA-05-361-3)

Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Lawrence Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Lawrence Green appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Green v.

Clark, No. CA-05-361-3 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2005). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
`Exhibit 31.1

                            Section 302 Certification
                        of David R. Schroder (President)`

---

`CERTIFICATION


     I, David R. Schroder, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MACC Private Equities
Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a  material  fact or  omit to sate a  material  fact  necessary  to make  the
statements made, in light of the circumstances  under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

     4. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

          a) Designed such disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such
     disclosure controls or procedures to be designed under our supervision,  to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant,  including its
     consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made  known to us by  others  within  those
     entities,  particularly  during the  period in which  this  report is being
     prepared;

          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
     and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
     controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
     based on such  evaluation;  and c) Presented in this report our conclusions
     about the effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on
     our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5. The registrant's other certifying  officers and I have disclosed,  based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial  reporting,  to
the  registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee of  registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the  registrant's  ability to record,  process,  summarize and report  financial
information; and

     b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.`

---

`Date: December 29, 2005

         /s/ David R. Schroder
      ---------------------------
      David R. Schroder
      President and Secretary`
#### CITY OF LAUDERHILL, etc., Appellant, v. UTILITIES OF LAUDERHILL, INC., etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 39381.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 19, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.