alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries
of the registrant are as follows:

|                                          |  | State or Other
Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or
Organization
|----------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|BCOP Nevada Company                       |  | Nevada                                                      
|Boise Cascade Office Products Corporation |  | Delaware                                                    
|Boise Cascade Trust I                     |  | Delaware                                                    
|Boise Southern Company                    |  | Louisiana                                                   
|Grand & Toy Limited                       |  | Canada                                                      
|Loving Creek Funding Corporation          |  | Delaware                                                    
|New Zealand Office Products Limited       |  | New Zealand                                                 
|OfficeMax, Inc.                           |  | Ohio                                                        
|Picabo Holdings, Inc.                     |  | Delaware                                                    

|Note: |  | The names of various consolidated wholly owned subsidiaries have been omitted. None of the omitted subsidiaries, considered either alone or together with the other omitted subsidiaries, constitutes a significant
subsidiary.
|----- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

MANDATE

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF DALLAS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, on the 4th day of February, 2015, the 

cause on appeal to revise or reverse the judgment between

CHARLES A. WALLACE, M.D., 

INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A 

A NEW REFLECTION COSMETIC 

SURGERY CENTER, AND 

CHARLES A. WALLACE, M.D., P.A., 

Appellants

No. 05-15-00002-CV V.

ROSE MARIE ELLIOTT, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-02403-C.

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Fillmore and Brown, participating.

was determined; and this Court made its order in these words:

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee ROSE MARIE ELLIOTT recover her costs of this appeal 

from appellants CHARLES A. WALLACE, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A A NEW 

REFLECTION COSMETIC SURGERY CENTER, AND CHARLES A. WALLACE, M.D., 

P.A..

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of the Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth District of Texas, in this behalf, and have it duly obeyed and executed.
–2–

WITNESS the HON. CAROLYN WRIGHT, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, with 

the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Dallas, this 16th day of April, 2015.

LISA MATZ, Clerk
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00290-CV

IN RE RADER WADE GILLELAND

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Rader Wade Gilleland has filed a motion to dismiss this original 

proceeding. The motion is granted, and this original proceeding is dismissed. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

Relator’s Motion for Submission to the Court for Ruling, filed on March 23, 2020, 

is dismissed as moot.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice
In re Gilleland Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Neill

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 7, 2020

[OT06]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 5, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50139

Summary Calendar

 

GABRIEL CONTRERAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-02-CV-227-SS

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gabriel Contreras appeals the district court’s denial of his

petition for attorney’s fees following the remand of his case to

the Social Security Commissioner for further proceedings. The

district court determined that Contreras’s attorney had filed a

semi-standard brief in the district court that did not address

the issue for which the case was remanded and that an award of

attorney’s fees would be unjust. Our review of the record

reveals that the district court’s denial of Contreras’s petition
for attorney’s fees was not an abuse of discretion. See State of

La., ex rel. Guste v. Lee, 853 F.2d 1219, 1221, 1224 (5th Cir.

1988); see also Hensely v. Eckehart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983);

U.S. v. 27.09 Acres of Land in Town of Harrison, 43 F.3d 769,

773-74 (2d Cir. 1994). Contreras’s attorney did not brief the

issue that served as the basis for the remand and the attorney’s

efforts did nothing more than to keep Contreras’s case alive. 

The attorney’s fees were thus expended “efforts that achieved no

appreciable advantage;” the attorney “made no contribution” to

the claim upon which Contreras’s case was remanded; and the

attorney is not entitled to fees for simply keeping the case

alive to allow for the district court to reverse and remand the

ALJ’s decision based upon a case to which the attorney drew no

attention and which may no longer require remand. 27.09 Acres,

43 F.3d at 773; see Milton v. Shalala, 17 F.3d 812, 814 (5th Cir.

1994); see also Frank v. Barnhart, 326 F.3d 618, 619 (5th Cir.

2003). The Court AFFIRMS the denial of the petition for

attorney’s fees.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1246 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1246

To amend title IV-A of the Social Security Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2019

  Mr. LaHood (for himself and Mrs. Walorski) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title IV-A of the Social Security Act, 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 ``Improving Access to Work Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING STATE DIVERSION OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO REPLACE STATE 
              SPENDING.

    Section 404 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 604) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
    ``(l) Limitation on Use of Federal Funds To Replace State General 
Revenue Funds.--Funds made available to States under this part on or 
after the effective date of this subsection must be used to supplement, 
not supplant, State general revenue spending on activities described in 
this section.''.

SEC. 3. TARGETING FUNDS TO CORE PURPOSES.

    (a) Requirement That States Reserve 25 Percent of TANF Grant for 
Spending on Core Activities.--Section 408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(13) Requirement that states reserve 25 percent of tanf 
        grant for spending on core activities.--A State to which a 
        grant is made under section 403(a) for a fiscal year shall 
        expend not less than 25 percent of the grant on assistance, 
        case management, work supports and supportive services, work, 
        wage subsidies, work activities (as defined in section 407(d)), 
        and non-recurring short-term benefits.''.
    (b) Requirement That at Least 25 Percent of Qualified State 
Expenditures From Non-Private Sources Be for Core Activities.--Section 
408(a) (42 U.S.C. 608(a)), as amended by subsection (a) of this 
section, is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(14) Requirement that at least 25 percent of qualified 
        state expenditures from non-private sources counting towards 
        maintenance of effort requirement be for core activities.--Not 
        less than 25 percent of the qualified State expenditures of a 
        State during the fiscal year shall be expenditures of funds 
        from non-private sources for assistance, case management, work 
        supports and supportive services, work, wage subsidies, work 
        activities (as defined in section 407(d)), and non-recurring 
        short-term benefits.''.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on October 1, 
2019.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 21, 2012 

d0514 

Order 

 

May 21, 2012 

144527 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144527 

 COA: 298126 

Wayne CC: 09-029908-FC 

CARLOS LAMONT HICKS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 20, 2011 

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.
|   | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended October 29, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated: January 14, 2011 |   |
|-------------------------|--------|

|   | /s/  WILLIAM L. BRIDGFORD |
|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   | William L. Bridgford                |
|   | Chairman of the Board               |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)       |
EXHIBIT 10.10


                                 PROMISSORY NOTE



$31,336.61                                                     December 31, 2001

For value received, Grand Prix Sports, Inc. promises to pay to Harrysen Mittler,
or order, the sum of $31,336.61 U.S. Dollars with interest from December 31,
2001 until paid, at the rate of ten percent (10%), per annum, payable upon
demand. The principal sum of $$31,336.61 is comprised of $30,780.00 advanced by,
or on behalf of, Harrysen Mittler for the benefit of Grand Prix Sports, Inc.,
and $556.61 in interest accrued and unpaid through December 31, 2001.

Should interest not be so paid, it shall thereafter bear like interest as the
principal, but such unpaid interest so compounded shall not exceed an amount
equal to simple interest on the unpaid principal at the maximum rate permitted
by law. Should default be made in the payment of any installment of interest
when due, the whole sum of principal and interest shall become immediately due
and payable at the option of the holder of this note. Should suit be commenced
or an attorney employed to enforce the payment of this note, The undersigned
agrees to pay such additional sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as
attorney's fees in said suit. Principal and interest shall be payable in lawful
money of the United States.


                  /S/ Harrysen Mittler
                  --------------------
                  Harrysen Mittler, President
                  Grand Prix Sports, Inc.

                  /S/ Gregory J. Martin
                  ---------------------
                  Gregory Martin, Secretary
                  Grand Prix Sports, Inc.
<PAGE>


                                                                    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

         This Certification is intended to accompany the Quarterly Report of
Finlay Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
August 2, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The undersigned hereby certifies 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.




Date: September 10, 2003

                                              /s/ Bruce E. Zurlnick
                                             ----------------------------------
                                              Bruce E. Zurlnick
                                              Senior Vice President, Treasurer
                                              and Chief Financial Officer












A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Finlay Enterprises, Inc. and will be by Finlay Enterprises, Inc.
retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9751]



[[Page 24538]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science And 
Engineering; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:
    Name: Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and 
Engineering (1115).
    Date and Time: May 10, 2012 12 p.m.-5:30 p.m., May 11, 2012 8 a.m.-
2 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1235, 
Arlington VA.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Carmen Whitson, Directorate for Computer and 
Information Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Suite 1105, Arlington VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-
8900.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To advise NSF on the impact of its policies, 
programs and activities on the CISE community. To provide advice to the 
Assistant Director for CISE on issues related to long-range planning, 
and to form ad hoc subcommittees to carry out needed studies and tasks.
    Agenda: The agenda will comprise of a CISE overview including the 
status of the current budget priorities, the AC working groups will be 
reporting out. There will also be preparations for the upcoming COV 
meetings.

     Dated: April 18, 2012.
 Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-9751 Filed 4-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### Walsh, Appellant, *v.*West Pittston Borough.

*Negligence*— Defective *sidewalks*— Erroneous *instruction*— Harm*less error.*

In an action against a municipality for injuries sustained by plaintiff in consequence of defects in a sidewalk, the fact that the trial judge in charging the jury referred to the ultimate liability of the property owner for the injuries complained of was not reversible error, where no complaint was made of the general charge and the court instructed the jury that the liability of the property owner was not involved in the case.

Argued May 29, 1918.

July 17, 1918:

Appeal, No. 61, Jan. T., 1918, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., March T., 1914, No. 259, on verdict for defendant, in case of P. J. Walsh v. West Pittston Borough.

Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Garman, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the "facts.

Verdict for defendant and judgment thereon. Plaintiff appealed.

*Errors assigned*were instructions to the jury.

*Charles B. Lenahan,*with him *Edward A. Lynch,*for appellant.

*Frank A. McCuigan,*with him *Wm. W. Fall,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

The sole complaint of the appellant is of the reference by the trial judge in his charge to the jury to the ulti*211mate liability of the owner of the lot abutting on the alleged defective sidewalk. This reference was uncalled for and may be regarded as out of place: Fleming v. Wilmerding Boro., 223 Pa. 295; but we cannot say it was reversible error in view of the general charge, of which no complaint is made, and of the instruction in that portion of it, which is the subject of the second assignment, that the liability of the property owner was not involved in the case. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1053 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to direct the Securities 

and Exchange Commission to issue regulations to require public corporations to disclose political expenditures, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2019 

Mr. CARBAJAL (for himself and Ms. LOFGREN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to direct 

the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue regulations to require public corporations to disclose political 

expenditures, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Corporate Political 

5 Disclosure Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1053 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE EXPENDITURES FOR 

2 POLITICAL ACTIVITIES. 

3 (a) AMENDMENT TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.— 

4 Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

5 U.S.C. 78m) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(s) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO EX8 PENDITURES FOR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.— 

9 ‘‘(1) REPORTS REQUIRED.—Each issuer re10 quired to file an annual report under this section 

11 shall disclose in that report, and publish on an inter12 net website accessible to the shareholders of such 

13 issuer and to the public, a summary of expenditures 

14 for political activities made during the preceding 

15 year. 

16 ‘‘(2) EXPENDITURE FOR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

17 DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘expenditure 

18 for political activities’ means any— 

19 ‘‘(A) independent expenditure (as defined 

20 in section 301(17) of the Federal Election Cam21 paign Act of 1971); 

22 ‘‘(B) electioneering communication (as de23 fined in section 304(f)(3) of that Act) and any 

24 other public communication (as defined in sec25 tion 301(22) of that Act) that would be an elecVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:52 Feb 20, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1053.IH H1053

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1053 IH

1 tioneering communication if it were a broad2 cast, cable, or satellite communication; or 

3 ‘‘(C) dues or other payments to trade asso4 ciations or organizations described in section 

5 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

6 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of 

7 that Code that are, or could reasonably be an8 ticipated to be, used or transferred to another 

9 association or organization for a use described 

10 in paragraphs (1), (2), or (4) of such section 

11 501(c).’’. 

12 (b) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 90 days after the 

13 enactment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Com14 mission shall issue regulations to carry out the amend15 ment made by subsection (a). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW #3 OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 21st

day of January, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

CONNIE FRAZIER, Appellant

NO. 12-14-00308-CV; Trial Court No. 63,495-B

By per curiam opinion.

IRINEO GARCIA, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, 

it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, 

and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 7

th day of April, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk