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

                                  SUBSIDIARIES


Set forth below is a list of all  subsidiaries  of Burlington  Industries,  Inc.
(the  "Corporation")*  and, as to each person  named,  the  percentage of voting
securities owned, or other bases of control, by its immediate parent.




                                                     Percentage of Voting
                                    State or         Power Represented by
                                  Jurisdiction       Securities Owned by
                                       of            the Corporation on
       Name                       Incorporation      October 2, 1999
-------------------------         -------------      ---------------------

Burlington Fabrics Inc.             Delaware                100%

B.I. Funding, Inc.                  Delaware                100%

Insuratex, Ltd.                     Bermuda                 100%







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

*        The names of 19 domestic  subsidiaries (4 of which are inactive) and 20
         foreign  subsidiaries  have been  omitted  because,  considered  in the
         aggregate,  they would not constitute a significant subsidiary.  All of
         the foregoing  subsidiaries are included in the consolidated  financial
         statements of the Corporation.
·i 

In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: May 4, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2014-J 116 

Pacific International Skydiving Center 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014WP130012 

Respondent 

ORDER SETTING PREHEARING CONFERENCE 

On April 4, 2016, the undersigned judge issued an Order Directing the Parties to Meet and 

Confer Regarding Litigation and Scheduling Issues in the above captioned case; 

On May 3, 2016, the parties submitted a joint report to the undersigned judge reporting on 

the results of their meeting. In the report, the parties suggested May 16, 17 or 18 as possible 

dates for a telephonic prehearing conference. 

Pur.suant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(l) and (7), it is hereby ORDERED: 

1. The parties shall appear by telephone for a prehearing conference with the undersigned 

judge on May 17, 201~ at 3pm Eastern time. 

2. The parties shall access the conference by dialing telephone number 888-204-5984 and 

then inputting access code 6392406 when prompted. 

3. ·During the conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss the issues in dispute, the 

proposed litigation schedule, the status of any settlement negotiations, and any other 

related matters. 

;;;?~--------- DOUGLAS M. RA WALD 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. · 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

ONE COPY 

Robert L. Feldman, Respondent's Counsel 

8900 SW 107th Avenue, Suite 203 

Miami, FL 33176 

TEL: 305-598-4841 

FAX: 305-598-4842 

Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Admiriistration 

Western-Pacific Region 

P. 0. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-3454 

FAX:310-725-6816 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Lqw Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 · 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-t 116 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following 

address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright 

Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1401 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1401

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove United States tax 
  barriers inhibiting competitiveness of United States owned business 
                  operating in the European Community.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 1993

  Mr. Gibbons introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove United States tax 
  barriers inhibiting competitiveness of United States owned business 
                  operating in the European Community.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 1. Same Country Rules.--Section 954 of such Code (relating 
to foreign base company income) is amended by adding at the end thereof 
a new subsection as follows:
    ``(h) Special Rule for European Community Activities.--
            ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsections (d) and (e), 
        the countries comprising the European Community shall 
        constitute a single country.
            ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term 
        ``European Community'' shall include countries:
                    ``(A) which are members of the Council of Ministers 
                of the European Communities (Belgium, Denmark, France, 
                Greece, the Irish Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, The 
                Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, the Federal Republic of 
                Germany, and the United Kingdom) and
                    ``(B) which--
                            ``(i) have a maximum statutory tax rate 
                        greater than 90 percent of the maximum rate of 
                        tax specified in section 11(b), and
                            ``(ii) do not exempt from taxation pursuant 
                        to a tax holiday, preferential statutory rate 
                        or similar special rule income of a controlled 
                        foreign corporation described in subsection (d) 
                        or (e) (determined without regard to this 
                        subsection).''
    Sec. 2. Effective Date.--The amendment made by section 1 shall be 
effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993.

                                 <all>
```
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1466

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to improve the procedure for

appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 24, 1993

Mr. OWENS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Education and Labor

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to improve

the procedure for appointing members to the National

Labor Relations Board.

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

3 SECTION 1. APPOINTMENT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RE4 LATIONS BOARD.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(a) of the National

6 Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 153(a)) is amended by

7 inserting immediately before the period at the end of the

8 first sentence the following: ‘‘, two to be selected from lists

9 of qualified individuals recommended by national labor or10 ganizations and two to be selected from lists of qualified
2

•HR 1466 IH

1 individuals recommended by national organizations rep2 resenting employers, with each such list including the

3 names of at least three individuals for each applicable va4 cancy’’.

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

6 subsection (a) shall take effect with respect to appoint7 ments to the National Labor Relations Board made after

8 the date of enactment of this Act as follows:

9 (1) The first and third appointments shall be

10 from lists of individuals recommended by national

11 labor organizations.

12 (2) The second and fourth appointments shall

13 be from lists of individuals recommended by national

14 organizations representing employers.

Æ
### Request for Information Privileg e Underwriters, Inc (FAA-2015-4767) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. McKinnon: This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your peti tion (Docket No. FAA-2015-4767). This information is necessary for the Federal Av iation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

z Describe the aircraft make(s), model( s), and type(s)(i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorc raft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) s hould include the maximum weight (i ncluding payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). Please submit the additional informati on (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, plea se also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comm ent tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we mu st receive the information described above by January 13, 2016. If we do not receive the information, we wi ll close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feelfree to contact me at (202) 267-2999.
FAA Office o f Rulemakin g Sent : Wednesday , December 30, 2015 1:07 PM To: Mark.McKinnon@dentons.com
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RAMEL MOSLEY,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 69 MM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4 th day of November , 2022, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED. To the extent Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus

prompting the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County to dispose of his June 2020

petition for return of property , the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary

Relief is GRANTED. The Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County is DIRECTED to

dispose of Petitioner’s June 2020 petition for return of property within 90 days. In all other

respects, the Petition f or Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1286 

To amend the Act titled ‘‘An Act to provide for the establishment of the 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and for other purposes’’ to clarify 

the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to accept donations of 

lands that are contiguous to the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 3, 2009 

Mr. VISCLOSKY (for himself and Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Act titled ‘‘An Act to provide for the establishment of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and 

for other purposes’’ to clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to accept donations of lands that 

are contiguous to the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 

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. CLARIFICATION OF CONTIGUOUS LANDS. 

4 Section 19 of the Act titled ‘‘An Act to provide for 

5 the establishment of the Indiana Dunes National Lake6 shore, and for other purposes’’ (16 U.S.C. 460u–19) is 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1286 IH

1 amended by designating the existing text of the section 

2 as subsection (a), and by adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘(b) For purposes of subsection (a), lands may be 

4 considered contiguous to other lands if the lands touch 

5 the other lands, or are separated from the other lands by 

6 only a public or private right-of-way, such as a road, rail7 road, or utility corridor.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 233 (Monday, December 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75716-75717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30707]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1347-DR]


Arizona; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Arizona, (FEMA-1347-DR), dated

[[Page 75717]]

October 27, 2000, and related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3772.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of Arizona is hereby amended to include the following area among those 
areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe 
declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of 
October 27, 2000:
    Yavapai County for Individual Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)

Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 00-30707 Filed 12-01-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM H. MENDENHALL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21-35464 

D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00312-SLG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Sharon L. Gleason, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 8, 2022

Anchorage, Alaska

Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

William H. Mendenhall appeals the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit 

under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), alleging negligence and civil rights 

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The parties are familiar 

with the facts, so we do not recount them here. 

The district court properly dismissed Mendenhall’s negligent handling claim 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

AUG 18 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

as a “claim arising out of assault, battery, [or] false imprisonment,” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2680(h), even though the complaint only pleaded negligence. See Snow-Erlin v. 

United States, 470 F.3d 804, 808 (9th Cir. 2006) (courts must “look beyond the 

party’s characterization to the conduct on which the claim is based” and to the 

“gravamen of Plaintiff’s complaint” to determine whether the claim is barred under 

§ 2680(h)) (citations and alterations omitted). 

The district court properly dismissed Mendenhall’s negligent training and 

supervision claim as barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA’s 

waiver of sovereign immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). Mendenhall does not 

specify which policy or procedure he believes the defendants violated, and he only 

cites general policies that leave room for discretion. See Kelly v. United States, 241 

F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] general regulation or policy . . . does not remove 

discretion unless it specifically prescribes a course of conduct.”). Employee training 

and supervision decisions are generally the type of discretionary judgments that the 

discretionary function exception was designed to protect. See Miller v. United 

States, 992 F.3d 878, 888 (9th Cir. 2021).

Mendenhall also failed to state a claim for a violation of his civil or

constitutional rights. See Morse v. N. Coast Opportunities, Inc., 118 F.3d 1338, 

1343 (9th Cir. 1997) (“§ 1983 precludes liability in federal government actors”); 

F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478 (1994) (“[T]he United States simply has not 
3 

rendered itself liable under [the FTCA] for constitutional tort claims.”). 

The motion for oral argument, Dkt. 10, is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 43 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-35780) and Amendment No. 390 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 8, 2015, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.













/s/ Ernst & Young LLP









Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


October 1, 2015
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                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 on Form 10-Q of SS&C Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned officers of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, 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: May 10, 2005                        By: /s/ William C. Stone
                                                   ------------------------
                                                   William C. Stone
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

      Date: May 10, 2005                        By: /s/ Patrick J. Pedonti
                                                   ------------------------
                                                   Patrick J. Pedonti
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
1 

15‐3833

Millennium Partners, L.P., et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. U.S. Bank National Association

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.    CITATION TO A SUMMARY

ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1.    WHEN CITING A SUMMARY

ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL

APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@).    A PARTY

CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY

COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley

Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of July, two thousand sixteen.

PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY,

DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

GERARD E. LYNCH,

Circuit Judges.   

_____________________________________

MILLENNIUM PARTNERS, L.P., MILLENNIUM

FIXED INCOME, LTD.,   

    Plaintiffs‐Appellants,   

v.    15‐3833
2 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

                             Defendant‐Appellee,

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE

ACQUISITION TRUST 2006‐WF1,   

                           Defendants.

1

_____________________________________

FOR APPELLANT: PETER DEXTER ST. PHILLIP, JR. (Geoffrey M.

Horn, Deborah Rogozinski, on the brief), Lowey

Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., White Plains,

NY.

FOR APPELLEE: ROBERT S. FRIEDMAN (Mark E. McGrath, on the

brief), Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP,

New York, NY.

Appeal from the United States District Court from the Southern District of

New York (Baer, J.; Koeltl, J.).2    

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is

AFFIRMED.   

 

1 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption to reflect that

U.S. Bank National Association is no longer a party to this appeal.   

2 This case was reassigned to the Honorable John G. Koeltl after the passing of the

Honorable Harold Baer Jr.   
3 

Plaintiffs‐Appellants Millennium Partners, L.P. and Millennium Fixed

Income, Ltd. (together, “Plaintiffs”) appeal the District Court’s dismissal of their

breach of contract claim against Defendant‐Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, National

Association.3    We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the Judge Baer in

his thorough and well‐reasoned opinion and order, Millennium Partners, L.P. v.

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 12 Civ. 7581(HB), 2013 WL 1655990 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17,

2013), and Judge Koetl in his similarly thorough and well‐reasoned denial of

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, Millennium Partners, L.P. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l

Ass’n, No. 12 Civ. 7581(JGK), 2015 WL 6454844 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2015).

We have considered all of the Plaintiffs’ arguments and find them to be

without merit.    Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

FOR THE COURT:   

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

 

3 Defendant J.P. Morgan Acquisition Trust 2006‐WF1 is not a party to this appeal.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30763]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the closed meeting 
scheduled for Thursday, November 30, 2000 at 11:00 a.m. time has been 
changed to Thursday, November 30, 2000 at 10:30 a.m.
    Commissioner Carey, as duty officer, determined that no earlier 
notice thereof was possible.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: November 28, 2000.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30763 Filed 11-29-00; 11:17 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
```