alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1
Subsidiaries     Name Jurisdiction of Organization     Palm Harbor G.P., Inc.   NevadaStandard Casualty Company   TexasBetter Homes Systems, Inc.   WashingtonPalm Harbor Holding, Inc.   NevadaStandard Insurance Agency, Inc.   TexasCountryPlace Mortgage, Ltd.   TexasPalm Harbor Homes I, L.P.   TexasMagic Living, Inc.   NevadaPalm Harbor Marketing, Inc.   NevadaPalm Harbor Manufacturing, L.P.   TexasPalm Harbor GenPar, L.L.C.   NevadaPalm Haven Insurance Agency of Florida, Inc.   FloridaPalm Harbor Insurance Agency of Texas, Inc.   TexasNationwide Homes, Incorporated   DelawareCountryPlace Acceptance Corporation   NevadaCountryPlace Acceptance GP, LLC   TexasCountryPlace Acceptance LP, LLC   DelawareCountryPlace Funding, Inc.   DelawarePalm Harbor Albemarle, LLC   Delaware
## Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

- Revisions

Meeting Documentation : National Association of Clean Air Agencies
Date Staff Contact In formation (Name, email, phone #) Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability
, reporting requirements, etc.) Written Comments Provided? Did they also submit to Docket? Date sent to

EPA

- CCD

8 / 3/2010 Lisa Hanle Hanle.Lisa@e pa.gov National Association of Clean Air Agencies

The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) represents air pollution control agencies in 53 states and territories and over 165 major metropolitan areas across the United States. EPA provi ded the g eneral overview presentation on

the Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendments and the Revision of Certain Provisions of the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule on a standing NACAA call. The presentation can be found at http:/ /www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/technic al

- corrections.html#revisions

There were no questions raised during the call. No w ritten
comments were submitted
at meeting. 8/5/10
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 25521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8302]

Issuance of a Presidential Permit Authorizing the State of 
Michigan To Construct, Connect, Operate, and Maintain at the Border of 
the United States a Bridge Linking Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, 
Ontario

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Correction of Date in Summary Paragraph

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

SUMMARY: The Department of State published a document in the Federal 
Register of April 18, 2013 concerning the issuance of a Presidential 
Permit. The summary section incorrectly stated that the permit issued 
on April 11, 2013 when, in fact, the permit issued on April 12, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh Rubin, Canada Border Affairs 
Officer, via email at WHACanInternal@state.gov, by phone at 202 647-
2256 or by mail at Office of Canadian Affairs--Room 1329, Department of 
State, 2201 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20520.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 18, 2013, in FR 78, 23327, in the 
first sentence of the summary paragraph, correct the permit's date of 
issuance to read: The Department of State issued a Presidential Permit 
to the State of Michigan on April 12, 2013, authorizing the permitee to 
construct, connect, operate and maintain at the border of the United 
States a bridge linking Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario.

    Dated: April 24, 2013.
Elizabeth Martinez,
Director, Office of Canadian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2013-10280 Filed 4-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-29-P
```
304(m) CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA-HQ- OW-20 10 - 0824 DCN CBM00585A1 THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
#### Nancy Hamby and Silas Hamby, Defendants in Error, *vs.*Thomas Brasher, Executor of the last will of Aquilla Brasher, deceased, Plaintiff in Error.

1. Judgment affirmed.

*jError to Cedar County Circuit Court.*-

*R. F.*Buller, for Plaintiff in Error.

*J. Bracey,*for Defendants in Error.

Ewing, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff, Nancy Hamby, presented a demand in the Probate Court of Cedar County, for services in taking care o^ Aquilla Brasher and his wife, for a period of some twenty months. Defendant moved to dismiss the proceeding in the Probate Court, but the motion was overruled. "Whereupon leave was given to amend by joining Silas Hamby, the husband, as a party plaintiff. After hearing the testimony, the amount claimed, one hundred dollars, was allowed. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court, where on a trial by jury, there was a verdict, and judgment for plaintiff for sixty-two and 25-100 dollars. Upon a careful examination of the bill *440of exceptions, we find nothing to warrant us in disturbing the verdict. ‘ An instruction given at the instance of the plaintiff is subject to criticism, but we do not think the jury were misled by it to the prejudice of the defendants. The court refused an instruction asked by defendants, to the effect that plaintiffs could not recover for services rendered after the death of Brasher, the husband.. This was a correct proposition of •law, but the court declared the same thing in effect in an instruction given at the instance of the defendant.

The *jury*in rendering their verdict evidently took the lowest estimate of the value of the services as testified to by the witnesses. Upon the whole, we think the judgment is for the right party.

The judgment of the Circuit Court' is affirmed.

The other Judges concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                       SUBSIDIARIES (DIRECT AND INDIRECT)
                                       OF
                                 DATASCOPE CORP.

Datascope FSC, Ltd. (Barbados)

Datascope Trademark Corp. (Delaware)

Datascope Investment Corp. (New Jersey)

Datascope B.V. (Netherlands)
      Datascope Medical Co. Ltd. (U.K.)
      Datascope S.A.R.L. (France)
      Datascope GmbH (Germany)
      InterVascular S.A.S. (France)
      Datascope S.L. (Spain)

Bioplex Corp. (Delaware)
      Bioplex Medical B.V. (Netherlands)

Datascope Biomaterials Research B.V. (Netherlands)

Genisphere, Inc. (Delaware)

InterVascular Inc. (Delaware)
      InterVascular S.A.R.L. (France)
      InterVascular Belgium (Belgium Branch)
      InterVascular GmbH (Germany)
      Datascope Italia S.R.L. (Italy)
      Datascope S.P.R.L. (Belgium)
#### CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. R. N. MILLER, Appellee.

No. O-233.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 4, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1971.

James C. Rinaman, Jr., David U. Tumin and Frederick J. Simpson, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Tom B. Stewart, Jr., of Evans and Stewart, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant City of Jacksonville appeals from a final judgment in a declaratory action suit ordering it to pay appellee, an employee, the sum of $1,691.92, said amount being the amount paid appellee by appellant’s compensation carrier as a lump sum settlement for a permanent partial disability.

Our examination of the record and consideration of the briefs and oral arguments submitted by the parties indicate that no reversible error was committed in arriving at the judgment appealed. Schel v. City of Miami, 193 So.2d 170 (Fla.1966). Accordingly, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 May 27, 2014

d0519

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2014

146329

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146329

COA: 305671

Wayne CC: 10-007585-FH

JERARD DUNN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of April 29, 2013, the application for leave to appeal the November 20, 

2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

People v Earl (Docket No. 145677). On order of the Court, the case having been decided 

on March 26, 2014, 495 Mich 33 (2014), the application is again considered, and it is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed 

by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          17,982
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,116
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,411,192
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,427)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,553,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        619,732
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     879,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,553,798
<SALES>                                         83,429
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,829
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,895
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,783
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,759
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,759
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (317)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,442
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Larry Paul GRAVLEE, Respondent.

No. 43427.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 18, 1973.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Robert P. Miller, Daytona Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for writ of certiorari was filed in this cause by the State of Florida based upon the conflict between the decision sub judice of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 272 So.2d 889, and our decision in State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, 253 So.2d 129 (1971). Fla. Const., Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(3), F.S.A. Oral argument was dispensed with pursuant to F.A.R. 3.10(e), 32 F.S.A.

The District Court affirmed, per curiam, the order of the trial judge discharging respondent from criminal prosecution under Rule 1.191, Cr.P.R. (now 3.191), 33 F.S.A. The basis of the discharge was a demand *481for speedy trial filed by respondent fifty-three days before any indictment, information or trial affidavit had been filbd against him. Respondent was discharged only twenty-five days after an information had been filed.

In State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, *supra,*we held:

> “Under the provisions of Rule 1.191, . the 60-day period does not begin to run until a demand for trial by the defendant has been filed in accordance with the provisions of the rule *after defendant has been charged with a crime by indictment, information or trial*affidavit(Emphasis added.)

We see no reason to recede from our above-quoted decision. We therefore reverse the District Court with directions to remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with' this opinion.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 357

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the onetime exclusion of gain from sale of a principal residence shall apply

to a portion of the farmland on which the residence is located.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. SLATTERY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that the one-time exclusion of gain from sale of a principal residence shall apply to a portion of the farmland

on which the residence is located.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF FARMLAND SOLD WITH RESI4 DENCE UNDER ONE-TIME EXCLUSION OF

5 GAIN FROM SALE OF PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d) of section 121 of

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to one-time

8 exclusion of gain from sale of principal residence by indi-
2

•HR 357 IH

1 vidual who has attained age 55) is amended by adding

2 at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

3 ‘‘(10) TREATMENT OF FARMLAND SOLD WITH

4 RESIDENCE.—If—

5 ‘‘(A) a parcel of farmland on which is lo6 cated a residence with respect to which the tax7 payer meets the holding and use requirements

8 of subsection (a) is sold with such residence,

9 ‘‘(B) the taxpayer meets the holding re10 quirements of subsection (a) with respect to

11 such farmland, and

12 ‘‘(C) the taxpayer meets requirements

13 similar to the requirements of section

14 2032A(b)(1)(C) with respect to such farmland,

15 notwithstanding paragraph (5), the taxpayer shall be

16 treated as meeting the use requirements of sub17 section (a) with respect to so much of such parcel

18 as does not exceed 160 acres and with respect to

19 structures thereon.’’

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

21 this section shall apply to sales or exchanges after Decem22 ber 31, 1992.

Æ
|                             |                                                                                                                       |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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/ JON A. FAULKNER                 |
| Jon A. Faulkner, Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:                                    | March 14, 2011 |
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

June 10, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 03-14131

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 02-00042-CR-N-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH BLANKENSHIP,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

_________________________

(June 10, 2005)

Before DUBINA, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Appellant Joseph Blankenship was indicted for food stamp fraud under 7

U.S.C. § 2024(c). He was tried by a jury and found guilty on all counts listed in

the indictment. The district court sentenced Blankenship to twelve months and

one day in the penitentiary on each count to run concurrently. Blankenship has

completed his sentence.

The issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court erred in

enhancing Blankenship’s sentence by two-levels under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 which

mandates an upward adjustment if a defendant abuses a position of public trust. 

Factual findings made by the district court are reviewed for clear error. United

States v. Ward, 222 F.3d 909, 911 (11th Cir. 2002). We review questions of law

arising under the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Bush, 126 F.3d

1298, 1299 (11th Cir. 1997).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court correctly

found that Blakenship held a position of trust in that he was entrusted by the

federal government to administer the food stamp program, and to follow the rules

of the program. Blankenship was in a position of significant managerial

discretion, in that he was the only employee of Fishnet Seafood and was

authorized to obtain the EBT food stamp machine. See generally, United States v.
3

Britt, 388 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v. Cooper, 94 F.3d 653 (9th

Cir. 1996) (table). Accordingly, we affirm Blankenship’s sentences.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of The Singing Machine Company, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carol Lau, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Singing Machine Company, Inc. and will be retained by The Singing Machine Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/S/ Carol LauCarol LauChief Financial OfficerDate: June 29, 2011
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO CATTLE SUPPLY AND FEEDING AGREEMENT 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CATTLE SUPPLY AND FEEDING AGREEMENT (“First Amendment”) is made and entered into as of November 7, 2014 by and
between JBS Food Canada Inc., a Canadian Corporation, (“JBS Canada”) and J&F Ranch Canada Inc., a Canadian Corporation, (“J&F Canada”). 

RECITALS 
 A. JBS Canada and J&F
Canada have entered into that certain Cattle Supply and Feeding Agreement dated as of January 24, 2013 (the “Agreement”); and 
 B. JBS
Canada and J&F Canada desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement past July 1, 2016. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
foregoing and the mutual covenants and agreement contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 

Section 1.1. Section 1 of the Agreement is amended by deleting “July 1, 2016” in the second sentence thereof and replacing it with
“December 31, 2019”. 
 Section 1.2. Other than as set forth in this First Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect. 
 Section 1.3. The Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment, constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to
the matters set forth in the Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment and supersedes any prior understanding or agreement, oral or written, with respect to such matters. 

Section 1.4. This First Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original but all of which together will constitute
one and the same instrument. 
 Section 1.5. This First Amendment shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of
Alberta without giving effect to any choice or conflict of laws rule or provision that would cause the application of the domestic substantive laws of any other jurisdiction. 

[Signature page follows.] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, JBS Canada and J&F Canada have executed this First Amendment to the Agreement as of the
date first written above. 
  

			
	JBS Food Canada Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Denilson Molina

		 	  

		
	Name:	 	 DENILSON MOLINA

		
	Its:	 	 CFO

	
	J&F Ranch Canada Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Luke Lind

		 	  

		
	Name:	 	 Luke Lind

		
	Its:	 	 Vice President




  
 –2–
Order issued August 18 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 15
- 01079
- CV

——————————— HORIZON POOLS & LAND SCAPES, INC. AND CUR T OLMSTEAD , Appella nt s V. NELSON SUCARICHI , Appell e e

On Appeal from the 412th Judicial District Court

Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 81251
- CV

MEMORANDUM ORDER Appellant Curt Olmstead has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss h is
individual appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal filed by Curt
Olmstead. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). The appeal of Horizon Pools & Landscapes, Inc. remains pending.2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3241 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3241

  To assure that advertisements by States for participation in their 
  lotteries are subject to regulation by the Federal Trade Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 7, 1993

 Mr. McCrery introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To assure that advertisements by States for participation in their 
  lotteries are subject to regulation by the Federal Trade Commission.

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

SECTION 1. LOTTERY ADVERTISEMENTS.

    The advertisements by States to encourage participation in 
lotteries administered by the States are subject to the regulations of 
the Federal Trade Commission respecting unfair and deceptive acts or 
practices under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

                                 <all>
```