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

EXHIBIT 21

Storage USA, Inc.
Subsidiaries

All subsidiaries are organized under Tennessee law unless otherwise indicated.

Direct

Storage USA Trust (Maryland)
SUSA Partnership, L.P.
Huron Acquisition, Inc.

Indirect

SUSA Management, Inc.
441 Mini-Storage Partners, Ltd. (Florida)
Buzzman Partners I Ltd. Partnership (Pennsylvania)
Buzzman Partners II, Ltd. Partnership (Pennsylvania)
Clarendon Storage Associates Ltd Partnership (Virginia)
Cole/Morgan, Ltd
Dade County Mini-Storage Associates, Ltd. (Florida)
Parklawn Storage Partners, LP
Preston Self Storage, Ltd. (Texas)
Prospect Heights Self Storage, LLC (Illinois)
Southeast Mini-Storage Limited Partners (Florida)
Storage Partners of Okeechobee, Ltd (Florida)
Storage Partners of Paoli, LP
Storage USA Franchise Corp.
Storage USA of Palm Beach County Ltd. Partnership (Maryland)
Sunset Mini-Storage Partners, Ltd. (Florida)
SUSA Hackensack LP
SUSA Harrison LP
SUSA Hollywood, LP
SUSA Investments II, LLC (Virginia)
SUSA Investments I, LLC (Virginia)
SUSA Mesa L.P.
SUSA Nashville L.P.
SUSA Orange LP
SUSA Secaucus LP
SUSA/38th Avenue, Capitola LP (California)
SUSA/Poplar Partners, LP
Tamiami Mini-Storage Partners, Ltd. (Florida)
ABC Self Storage Limited Co.(New Mexico)
SUSA Mt. Vernon, LLC (New York)
SUSA Germantown, LP
SUSA Columbia, LP
SUSA Whitney Mesa, LP (Nevada)
Frankford Road Self Storage, Ltd. (Texas)
Spring Creek Self Storage, Ltd. (Texas)
McNeil Drive Self Storage, Ltd. (Texas)
SUSA Peachtree, LLC (Virginia)
Storage Partners of West Colonial, LLC (Florida)
<PAGE>

DMMJ Limited Parnership (Maryland)
River Road Limited Partnership (Maryland)
SUSA Brooklyn John, LP (New York)
SUSA Brooklyn Snyder, LP (New York)
SUSA Long Island, LP (New York)
Storage Partners of Egg Harbor, LLC (New Jersey)
Storage Partners of Eatontown, LLC (New Jersey)
SUSA Construction, LLC (Delaware)
SUSA Finance Corp. (Delaware)
SUSA Holdings, LP Savi Ranch - SPC, LLC (Delaware)
Rockline - SPC, LLC (Delaware)
Calvine - SPC, LLC (Delaware)
Oxnard - SPC, LLC (Delaware)
Elk Grove - SPC, LLC (Delaware)
Storage Portfolio I, LLC (Delaware)
Storage Development Holding Portfolio, LLC (Delaware)
Storage Development Portfolio, LLC (Delaware)
Storage Acquisition Portfolio, LLC (Delaware)
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5123 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5123

To abolish the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the Office 
of Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2018

 Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico (for herself and Mr. Crist) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To abolish the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the Office 
of Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services, 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 ``Eliminating the HHS Discrimination 
Division Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. ABOLISHMENT OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DIVISION.

    (a) In General.--Effective on the date that is 30 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Conscience and Religious Freedom 
Division in the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Health and 
Human Services is abolished.
    (b) No Substantially Similar Division.--No Federal funds may be 
used to establish or operate any substantially similar division, 
agency, or office with respect to the programs and activities of the 
Department of Health and Human Services.
    (c) Transition.--Before the effective date specified in subsection 
(a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take such actions 
as may be necessary to transfer the assets, personnel, and liabilities 
of the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division to other agencies and 
offices of the Department of Health and Human Services.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1059. NORTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER, LLC v. DOCTOR’S ANTIAGING INSTITUTE, INC.

Doctor’s Anti-Aging Institute, Inc., filed garnishment claims against multiple

banks seeking to collect a default judgment it had obtained against Northwest

MedicalCenter, LLC (“Northwest Medical”).NorthwestMedicalsought to challenge

the garnishment, claiming the affidavit was insufficient. The trial court denied the

claim, and Northwest Medical filed this appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Appealsin casesinvolving garnishment must be initiated by an application for

discretionary appeal filed with this Court. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (4); Maloy v. Ewing,

226 Ga. App. 490, 491 (486 SE2d 708) (1997). Because Northwest Medical failed to

follow the required procedure, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which is

hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

March 14, 2022

03/14/2022
#### Anthony JEAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7476.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.

Decided Feb. 12, 2003.

Anthony Jean, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, George W. Maugans, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Linda Susan Wendtland, Patrick Shen, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

*689Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Jean appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Jean v. Ashcroft,*No. CA-02-2532-AW (D.Md. Sept. 26, 2002).* 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.*

*

 We decline to address issues raised for the first time on appeal. *See Muth v. United States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993).
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1604

To improve the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act requirements

regarding separate detention and confinement of juveniles, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 12, 1996

Mr. KOHL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To improve the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Act requirements regarding separate detention and confinement of juveniles, 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 ‘‘Juvenile Jail Improve5 ment Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds that—

8 (1) current Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

9 Prevention Act rules and regulations concerning the
2

•S 1604 IS

1 separation of adults from juveniles during short pe2 riods of detention or confinement have proven un3 duly burdensome for rural law enforcement;

4 (2) altering requirements concerning the length

5 of stay permitted in a State-approved portion of a

6 county jail or secure detention facility, while retain7 ing the separation of juveniles from adults, would di8 minish these burdens without harm to juveniles;

9 (3) the requirement of completely separate

10 staffing during these short stays also creates large

11 burdens yet yields little benefit for juveniles; and

12 (4) experience with shared staff indicates that

13 juveniles are not harmed by the use of shared staff,

14 so long as the staff members are appropriately

15 trained and certified, and juveniles do not have regu16 lar contact with adults.

17 SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF CONTACT RULES.

18 Section 223(a)(14) of the Juvenile Justice and Delin19 quency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(14))

20 is amended—

21 (1) by striking ‘‘1997’’ and inserting ‘‘2001’’;

22 (2) by striking ‘‘pursuant to an enforceable

23 State law requiring such appearances within twenty24 four hours after being taken into custody (excluding

25 weekends and holidays)’’ and inserting ‘‘and permit
3

•S 1604 IS

1 the detention or confinement of juveniles in a State

2 approved portion of a county jail or secure detention

3 facility for up to 72 hours’’; and

4 (3) by striking ‘‘such exceptions are’’ and all

5 that follows through the end of the paragraph and

6 inserting the following: ‘‘such exceptions—

7 ‘‘(A) are limited to areas that are in com8 pliance with paragraph (13) and—

9 ‘‘(i) are outside a Standard Metropoli10 tan Statistical Area; and

11 ‘‘(ii) have no existing acceptable alter12 native placement available that is easily ac13 cessible;

14 ‘‘(B) permit the same staff members to

15 oversee both juveniles and adults only if such

16 staff members have been properly trained and

17 certified to supervise juveniles; and

18 ‘‘(C) ensure that juveniles have no regular

19 contact with adult persons who are incarcerated

20 because they have been convicted of a crime or

21 are awaiting trial on criminal charges;’’.

Æ
ex10-2.htm



Exhibit 10.2



STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING


(ROTORJET & TURBOJET)










Coil Tubing Technology, Inc. (CTT) is a manufacturer and provider of coiled tubing tools and equipment to the oilfield well service industry and oil companies.







Hammelmann Corporation (Hammelmann) is a leader in the industry of industrial nozzles and high-pressure pump systems.







Hammelmann with the assistance of CTT has developed downhole nozzles known as the “Rotorjet” and “Turbojet” for the cleaning of downhole tubulars.







CTT also is owner of proprietary tools that are provided in conjunction with the Hammelmann nozzle that attaches to the coil tubing.







Hammelmann Corporation agrees to provide CTT with downhole nozzles and CTT agrees to market, field test and report performance to Hammelmann for further development of the product lines within the oilfield. The financial agreement for revenues is that, of 50/50 split between CTT and Hammelmann.







CTT will pay Hammelmann all customary repair charges of the nozzles provided to CTT within five (5) days of return of the cleaner to Hammelmann. (This allows CTT to invoice the customary charges to the customers).







This agreement will remain in effect until agreement is terminated with sixty (60) day written notice from either party.







CTT will provide a monthly royalty report (Exhibit “A” attached) by the 15th of every month following closing of billing of prior month to Hammelmann Corporation, Dayton, Ohio.










This agreement is in effect 01/01/07 and will continue until termination is notified in written communication:










	
IF TO:

	  
	  	
Hammelman Corporation


	  	
600 Progress Road


	  	
Dayton, Ohio 45449


	  	  
	  	  
	
IF TO:

	  
	  	
Coil Tubing Technology, Inc.


	  	
19511 Wied Rd., Ste. E


	  	
Spring, Texas 77388


































	
Hammelmann Corporation

	
Coil Tubing Technology, Inc.


	
Mike Goecke

	
Jerry Swinford


	
/s/ Mike Goecke
From: "Bruss, Larry H - DNR" <Larry.Bruss@Wisconsin.gov>

To: Kathleen Dagostino/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Douglas Aburano/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Compher/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, "Steidl, Thomas 

F - DNR" <Thomas.Steidl@Wisconsin.gov>, "Hoch, Joseph A - DNR" 

<Joseph.Hoch@wisconsin.gov>, "Melby Jr, John H - DNR" <John.MelbyJr@Wisconsin.gov>

Date: 03/25/2010 11:06 AM

Subject: RE: Manitowoc and Door County redesignations

Kathleen, 

EPA has correctly interpreted our intent and we are okay with EPA including 

the following language in the redesignation approval: "EPA is interpreting 

this commitment to mean that the measure will be adopted and implemented 

within 18 months of the triggering event. In addition, it is EPA's 

understanding that to acceptably address a violation of the standard, existing 

and on-the way control measures must be in excess of emissions reductions 

included in the projected maintenance inventories." Let me know if you have 

any questions.

Larry

-----Original Message-----

From: Dagostino.Kathleen@epamail.epa.gov [

mailto:Dagostino.Kathleen@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 8:17 AM

To: Bruss, Larry H - DNR

Cc: Aburano.Douglas@epamail.epa.gov; Compher.Michael@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Manitowoc and Door County redesignations

Larry,

I am working on a rule proposing to approve your redesignation requests for 

Manitowoc and Door Counties. To meet EPA redesignation policy, the 

contingency measures contained in the maintenance plan must be adopted and 

implemented within 18 months of the triggering event. Additionally, any 

existing and on-the-way control measures used to address a violation of the 

standard must be in excess of emissions reductions included in the projected 

maintenance inventories. The contingency plan language submitted with the 

Manitowoc and Door County redesignations mirrors the language submitted with 

your Kewaunee redesignation request and is not as clear as our attorneys would 

like. When we approved the Kewaunee redesignation request, we stated that: 

"EPA is interpreting this commitment to mean that the measure will be adopted 

and implemented within 18 months of the triggering event. In addition, it is 

EPA's understanding that to acceptably address a violation of the standard, 

existing and on-the way control measures must be in excess of emissions 

reductions included in the projected maintenance inventories." We intend to 

make this interpretation for the Manitowoc and Door County contingency plan as 

well. I know Doug talked with you about this on the last bimonthly call, but 

we need you to verify this interpretation in writing. An official letter is 

not necessary; responding to this email is sufficient. The proposed rule has 

gone through OGC and headquarters review. This is the last item to wrap up 

before I send the rule up for signature.

Thanks for your help,

Kathleen

______________________

Kathleen D'Agostino

Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA - Region 5

Phone: (312) 886-1767

email: dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Mission Broadcasting, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2007 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 14, 2007



/S/    DAVID S. SMITHDavid S. Smith President and Treasurer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is
not deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. The foregoing certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-24527, No. 33-65002, No. 33-65004 and No. 33-58657 of Quiksilver, Inc. on
Form S-8 of our report, dated December 22, 1995, appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Quiksilver, Inc. for the year ended October 31, 1995.
 
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 
Costa Mesa, California
January 24, 1996
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of LitFunding Corp. a Nevada corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Morton Reed, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the
best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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 LitFunding Corp. and will be retained by LitFunding Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ Morton Reed
--------------------------
Morton Reed
Chief Executive Officer
May 20, 2005
#### Gary Wayne HENDRICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7719.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.

Decided Feb. 12, 2003.

Gary Wayne Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Gary Wayne Hendricks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on proce*701dural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Hendricks has not satisfied either standard. *See Hendricks v. Young,*CA-01-758-7 (W.D.Va. Oct. 15, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 12, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice 128273 & (85) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly MARY ANNE LINSELL, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman, Cross-Appellant, Justices v SC: 128273 COA: 249647 APPLIED HANDLING, INC., Wayne CC: 01-101515-CZ Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 8, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross

appellant are considered, and they are DENI ED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., concurs and states as follows:

The Court of Appeals was correct in holdi ng that the $100,0 00 cap on damages is an aggregate, rather than a p er commission, maximum. It was also correct in holding that MCL 600.2961(5)(b) is ambiguous.

M ARKMAN , J., concurs and states as follows:

Although the Court of Appeal s correctly held that the $100,000 cap on damages is an aggregate maximum, rather than a per commission maximu m, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that MCL 60 0.2961(5)(b) is ambiguous. As this Court held in In re Certified Question (Kenneth He nes Special Projects v Contin ental Biomass Industries, Inc), 468 Mich 109, 118 (2003), MCL 600. 2961(5)(b) is unambiguous. MCL 600.2961(5)(b) unambiguousl y provides that the prin cipal must pay the sales representative, “[i]f the principal is found to have intentionally failed to pay the commission when due, an amount equal to 2 times the amount of commissions due but not paid as required by this section or $100,000.00, whiche ver is less.” That is, MCL 600.2961(5)(b) unambiguously provides for a $100,000 cap on damages as a whole.

t0509 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 12, 2006

Clerk