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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY



                                             STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION
                                                 OF INCORPORATION OR
             SUBSIDIARY                      ORGANIZATION/TYPE OF ENTITY
--------------------------------------    --------------------------------------

AGH GP, Inc.                                      Nevada/Corporation

AGH LP, Inc.                                      Nevada/Corporation

American General Hospitality Operating
Partnership, L.P.                         Delaware/Limited Partnership

AGH UPREIT LLC                            Delaware/Limited Liability Company

AGH SECAUCUS LLC                          Delaware/Limited Liability Company

AGH DFW South LLC                         Delaware/Limited Liability Company

AGH 75 Arlington Heights LLC              Delaware/Limited Liability Company

AGH 2780 Atlanta LLC                      Delaware/Limited Liability Company

2929 Williams Limited Liability Company   Delaware/Limited Liability Company

3199 Glendale Joint Venture                    Ohio/General Partnership

MDV Limited Partnership                       Texas/Limited Partnership

Madison Motel Associates                    Wisconsin/General Partnership

183 Hotel Associates, Ltd.                    Texas/Limited Partnership

Richmond Williamsburg Associates, Ltd.        Texas/Limited Partnership

455 Meadowlands Associates, Ltd.              Texas/Limited Partnership

DFW South I Limited Partnership               Texas/Limited Partnership
<PAGE>

Lake Buena Vista Partners, Ltd.              Florida/Limited Partnership

75 Arlington Heights Limited                 Delaware/Limited Partnership
Partnership, L.P.

2780 Atlanta Limited Partnership, L.P.       Delaware/Limited Partnership
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 622 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 622

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide that a State containing an ozone 
  nonattainment area that does not significantly contribute to ozone 
  nonattainment in its own area or any other area shall be treated as 
satisfying certain requirements if the State makes certain submissions, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 24 (legislative day, March 23), 1995

Mr. Levin (for himself and Mr. Abraham) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Clean Air Act to provide that a State containing an ozone 
  nonattainment area that does not significantly contribute to ozone 
  nonattainment in its own area or any other area shall be treated as 
satisfying certain requirements if the State makes certain submissions, 
                        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. OZONE NONATTAINMENT.

    Subsection (h) of section 182 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
7511a(h)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(h) Nonattainment Transport Areas.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of this section or section 181, a State containing a rural or 
nonrural ozone nonattainment area that does not significantly 
contribute to ozone nonattainment in its own area or any other area 
shall be treated as satisfying the requirements of this section if the 
State makes the submissions required under subsection (a).''.
                                 <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

November 21, 2011 

h1114 

Order 

 

November 21, 2011 

143462 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143462 

 COA: 297994 

FRANK DOUGLAS HENDERSON, Ingham CC: 08-001406-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 21, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
7310 Turfway Road, Suite 400 ‐ Florence

‐ Kentucky

‐ 41042 ‐ USA

Phone: +1.859.568.9200

www.southernair.com Federal Aviation Administration

Regulatory Dockets

Orville Wright Building (FOB

‐ 10A)

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Filed to the Federal Register

– Electronically

June 13, 2016

Subject: Time

‐ limited Exemption from 14 CFR 91.227 (c)(1)(i) and (iii)

– Automatic Dependent

Surveillance Broadcast (ADS

‐ B) Out Equipment Performance Requirements

Reference: Grant of Exemption Number 12555, regulatory docket No. FAA 2015

‐ 0971

Grant of Exemption No. 12555 provides for a time

‐ limited grant of exemption from the ADB

‐ B

Navigation Integrity Category (NIC) and Navigation Accuracy Category for position (NACp)

requirements of 14 CFR section 91.227 (c)(1)(i) and (iii) from January 1, 2020 through December

31, 2024.

Southern Air Inc. 7310 Turfway Road, Suite 400 Florence, KY 41094 hereby notifies the FAA that

we intend to comply with the conditions and limitations expressed in the exemption cited

above.

Sincerely yours,

Capt. Steve Briner

Vice President, Flight Operations

Southern Air, Inc.

Office (859)

‐ 568

‐ 9194

sbriner@southernair.com

www.southernair.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      10,778,423
<SECURITIES>                                12,706,757
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,859
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     83,201
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,337,006
<PP&E>                                       1,502,856<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                               (382,284)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,062,791<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,264,867
<BONDS>                                        189,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,999
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,735,369
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,062,791
<SALES>                                         31,031
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,031
<CGS>                                          196,344
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,700,438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,992
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,992
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,955,558)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,865,751)<F3>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,955,558)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.45)<F4>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.04)
<FN>
<F1>PPE on Accountant Report is net of depreciation.
<F2>TOTAL ASSETS includes prepaid item not shown on schedule.
<F3>Interest and income for the 12 months ended December 31, 1996 was
$926,185.
<F4>See Accountant's Report for computation of net loss per share.
</FN>


</TABLE>
NO. 07-05-0406-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B FEBRUARY

24, 2006

______________________________ CHRISTOPHER

JOSEPH HAD LEY,

Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE CRI MINAL DIS TRICT CO URT NUMBER FOUR OF TAR RANT COUNT Y;

NO. 0934194D; HON. MIKE THOMAS, PRESI DING

_______________________________ Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Christopher

Joseph Hadley

(app ellan t) appeals hi s convic tion for possess ing marijuana. His thre e issu es in volve the trial court’s refusal to grant his motion to sup press evidenc e of the contraband. This is supposedly reversi ble since the marijuana was discovered as a result of an illegal stop. W e overrule the issues. The marijuana in question w as discov ered after an officer spied appellant

drivin g from a wooded are a onto Highway 360. To get there, according to the off icer, “you actually2

have to jump a curb. ” Furthermore, the officer knew of complaints about people dumping in that vici nity. C onsequently , he stopped appell ant. Appellant contends that the stop was improper because his conduct was asconsistent w ith innocent ac tivity as it was with g uilty activity. We reject the con tention for several reasons. First, the Court of

Criminal Appeals held that the construct to which appellant refe rs is no longer

viable. Woods v. State , 956 S.W .2d 3 3, 38 -39 (T ex. Crim. App. 1997). Thus, and contra ry to appellant’s supposition, innocen t activity may give r ise to reasonable suspicion if the totality of the ci rcumstan ces, a nd rat ional infere nces t herefr om, nonetheless permit an officer to reasonably conclude that t he detained individual actually engaged in, was engag ing in, or was about to engage in criminal conduct. Id. Second, statute gener

ally pr ohibits one from driving over or across a physica l barrier construct ed to impede vehicu lar traffic. T EX
. T RANS
. C ODE A NN
. §545.063(b) (Ver non 1999). Furthermore , the obstructi on need not be impass ible for it to be a physical barrier. Kindell v. State , 407 S.W.2d 784, 786 (Tex. Cri m. App. 1966). H ere, the officer noti ced that to arrive at the location where appellant was first seen, appellan t would have had to jump a curb adjacen t to Highw ay 360. Fur

thermore, a curb can be considered a physical barrier designed to i mpede v ehicular tr affic. Given th is and §545.063(b) of the Transportation Code, we conclude that circumstances existed up on which an officer could, atthe very

least, reaso nably suspec t that appellant

had engaged i n unlawful con duct, i.e. the violat ion of a traffic law . And, that w ould have ju stified appellant ’s stop.3

Acco rdin gly, the t ri al co urt d id no t err i n hol ding t hat t he st op was lawfu l. So, we affirm the judgment.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice Publish.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT IGNAC IO AGUILAR -IXTAS, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 14-70361 Age n c y No. A095-774-309 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 20, 2016 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TASHIM A, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Igna c io Aguila

r-Ixta s, a native and c itiz e n of M e x i c o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny i ng his motion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e d ings. Our jurisdiction is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a b use of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re ope n, M

ohamme d v . Gonzale

s , 

# FIL ED JAN 27 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2005), a n d we de ny

in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. Aguila r-Ixta s did not raise , a

nd ha s the re fore wa i ve d, a ny c ha lle nge to the B IA’ s de nia l of his motion a s untim e ly . Se eRizk v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th C ir. 2011) (issue s not ra ise d in theope ning brie f a re wa ive d). The re c ord doe s not support Aguila r-Ixta s’ c onte ntion tha

t the B IA fa ile d to c onside r the c orre c t ba sis for his ha rdship c la i m , whe re the B IA’ s de c ision e va luate d ha

rdship “upon re m a i ning in this c ountry or upon re turning”to M e xic o. W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s de c ision not to re ope n proc e e dings sua sponte . Se e Me

jia-He rnande

z v . Holde r , 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th C ir. 2011). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 4 - 7 0 3 6 1 2
#### STATE of Texas, ex rel. Cato S. HIGHTOWER, Chief of Police of the City of Fort Worth, Texas, Petitioner, v. Tommy LARIMORE, Respondent.

No. A-6048.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 14, 1956.

R. E. Rouer, City Atty., S. G. Johndroe. Jr., Robert R. Goodrich, G. Gordon Whitman, John Gano, Earl C. Morgan, Asst.. *655City Attys., Howard M. Fender, Criminal Dist. Atty., Ft. Worth, for petitioner. •

No appearance for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding in rem instituted by the Chief of Police of the City of Fort Worth, Texas, to obtain an order for the destruction of a “pinball machine” in accordance with Articles 636 and 637, V.A.P.C. The trial court denied the petition for the order of destruction and the Court •of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 293 S.W.2d 277.

The Court of Civil Appeals correctly held that the evidence at the trial showá without dispute that the pinball -machine was a gambling device per se -under the terms of Article 619, V.A.P.C. .and the above cited statutes. The trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that the plaintiff had the additional burden of proving the machine was being used for gambling purposes. In the recent case of Williams v. State of Texas, 283 S.W.2d 444, 447, the Court of Civil Appeals at Waco passed upon this identical question and construed Article 637 as follows:

> “From the foregoing statute it is apparent that if the court before whom an application to destroy is pending shall determine that if 1) the property seized is gambling equipment per se, •or 2) the property was being used for gambling purposes, it can be confiscated and destroyed.”

The above interpretation- of the ■statute was approved by the Supreme Court 'by its refusal of an application for writ of error in that case. Since the plaintiff in the present case proved that the pinball -machine was a gambling device per se, ihe machine should have been condemned sunder the statute.

The decision of the Court of Civil ■Appeals in the present case being in conflict with the decision in the Williams case which was approved by the Supreme Court, the judgments of the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals in this case- are reversed upon the application for writ of error. Rule 483, T.R.C.P. Thompson v. Gibbs, ISO Tex. 315, 240 S.W.2d 287. The cause is remanded to the trial court to enter an order consistent with the above opinion.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10286

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TONY CONTRERAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CR-130-9

Before ELROD, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Tony Contreras has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Contreras has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Contreras’s 

response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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

December 11, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10286 Document: 00515231848 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2019
No. 19-10286

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-10286 Document: 00515231848 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2019
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Understudied Proteins Associated with Rare Diseases (R03) Review.                    

*Date:*                         May 30, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ming Yan, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, MSC 4874, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-4312,                         *ming.yan@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 5, 2024.

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-02651 Filed 2-8-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50327

Summary Calendar

__________________

CHARLIE WILBORN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TERRY KEEL ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

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

CHARLIE WILBORN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ELIZABETH WATSON ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 94-CA-53 c/w 94-CA-54

- - - - - - - - - -

January 8, 1996

Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charlie Wilborn appeals from the district court's order

granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his

consolidated civil rights action. He argues that the arresting

officer and the technician from the Emergency Medical Service 
No. 95-50327

-2-

used excessive force at the time of his arrest and that the nurse

who attended him at the Travis County Jail was deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. See Harper v. Harris County, Tex., 21 F.3d 597, 600 (5th

Cir. 1994); Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 84 (5th Cir. 1987).

 AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9164-9165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02652]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel BRAIN K99, March 6, 
2024, 11:00 a.m. to March 06, 2024, 6:30 p.m., National Institutes of 
Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 
20852 which was published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2024, 
FR Doc. 2024-02045, 89 FR 7403.
    The meeting date has changed from March 6, 2024, to March 15, 2024. 
The

[[Page 9165]]

time of the meeting and the location remain the same. The meeting is 
closed to the public.

    Dated: February 5, 2024.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-02652 Filed 2-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P