alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21


                       VALUE CITY DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.

                              List of Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              State of             Percentage                Doing
             Name                             Incorporation        Ownership                Business As
             ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                          <C>                  <C>                      <C>
             Carlyn Advertising
                 Agency, Inc.                Ohio                 100%                     Carlyn

             DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc.        Missouri             100% indirect            DSW

             GB Retailers, Inc.              Delaware             100% indirect            Value City

             J. S. Overland Delivery, Inc.   Delaware             100%                     J.S. Overland
                                                                                           Delivery, Inc.

             Value City Department
               Stores Services, Inc.         Delaware             100% indirect            Value City

             Shonac Corporation              Ohio                 99.9%                    Shonac

             Value City of Michigan, Inc.    Michigan             100%                     Value City

             Value City Limited
                 Partnership                 Ohio*                100% indirect            Value City of Kentucky LP

             VC Retailers, Inc.              Delaware             100% indirect            Value City

             Westerville Road LP, Inc.       Delaware             100%                     Value City

             Westerville Road GP, Inc.       Delaware             100%                     Value City
</TABLE>

             *This is a limited partnership, not an incorporated entity.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 254 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 254

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to provide 
 flexibility and reauthorization to ensure the survival and continuing 
                 vitality of Native American languages.

    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 ``Esther Martinez Native American 
Languages Preservation Act''.

SEC. 2. NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGES GRANT PROGRAM.

    Section 803C of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
2991b-3) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(7)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``10'' and 
                inserting ``5''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``15'' and 
                inserting ``10''; and
            (2) in subsection (e)(2)--
                    (A) by striking ``or 3-year basis'' and inserting 
                ``3-year, 4-year, or 5-year basis''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, 4-year, or 5-year'' after ``on 
                a 3-year''.

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGES PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 816(e) of the Native American Programs Act 
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2992d(e)) is amended by striking ``such sums'' and 
all that follows through the period at the end and inserting 
``$13,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023.''.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Section 816 of the Native American 
Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2992d) is amended in subsections (a) 
and (b) by striking ``subsection (e)'' each place it appears and 
inserting ``subsection (d)''.

            Passed the Senate November 29, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 254

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to provide 
 flexibility and reauthorization to ensure the survival and continuing 
                 vitality of Native American languages.
```
[Cite as State v. Moon , 2021-Ohio-3963.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE D ISTRICT OF OHIO

FAYETTE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,

- vs -

JUSTIN K. MOON, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2021-06-012

D E C I S I O N 11/8/2021

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM FAYETTE C OUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI20200231

Jess C. Weade, Fayette County Prosecuting Attorney, for appelle e. Steven H. Eckstein, for appellant.

Per Curiam. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal fil ed by appellant, Justin K. Moon, the transcript of the docket and jou rnal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Fayette County Court o f Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any err ors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated;Fayette CA2021-06-012 (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record i ndependently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and wit hout infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to w ithdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellan t. {¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no res ponse having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal i s dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

S. POWELL, P.J., HENDRICKSON and BYRNE, JJ., concur.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of --

Fedmine, LLC 

Under Contract No. FA7014-13-P-1021 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 59442, 59443 

Edward J. Tolchin, Esq. 

Offit Kurman, PA 

Bethesda, MD 

Lt Col James H. Kennedy III, USAF 

Air Force Chief Trial Attorney 

Erika L. Whelan Retta, Esq. 

John E. Pettit, Esq. 

Trial Attorneys 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The appeals have been settled. Accordingly, they are dismissed from the Board's 

docket with prejudice. 

Dated: 23 March 2015 

TERRENCES.HARTMAN 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59442, 59443, Appeals ofFedmine, 

LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
**Exhibit 23**

 

** INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT**

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in AnnTaylor Stores Corporation's Registration Statements No. 33-31505 on Form S-8, No. 33-50688 on Form S-8, No. 33-54387 on Form S-8, No. 33-52389 on Form S-8, No. 33-55629 on Form S-8, No. 333-32977 on Form S-8, No. 333-37145 on Form S-8, No. 333-79921 on Form S-8, No. 333-38174 on Form S-8, No. 333-53502 on Form S-8, No. 333-90954 on Form S-8, No. 333-97005 on Form S-8, No. 333-105914 on Form S-8 and No. 333-86955 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 9, 2004 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of AnnTaylor Stores Corporation for the year ended January 31, 2004.

 

 /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 Deloitte & Touche LLP
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2258 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2258

To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability if a student 
  on whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes 
                               disabled.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 20, 2017

   Mr. Portman (for himself, Mr. Coons, and Mr. King) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the discharge of parent borrower liability if a student 
  on whose behalf a parent has received certain student loans becomes 
                               disabled.

    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 ``Domenic's Law''.

SEC. 2. REPAYMENT OF LOANS TO PARENTS.

    Section 437(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1087(d)) is amended by inserting ``or becomes permanently and totally 
disabled (as determined in accordance with regulations of the 
Secretary), or if the student is unable to engage in any substantial 
gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or 
mental impairment that can be expected to result in death, has lasted 
for a continuous period of not less than 60 months, or can be expected 
to last for a continuous period of not less than 60 months,'' after 
``dies,''.
                                 <all>
```
#### DUNN v. STATE.

No. 19806.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 1, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 2, 1938.

Shelburne H. Glover, of Jefferson, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is selling whisky in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.

M. G. Closs, an inspector of the Texas Liquor Control Board, testified that he bought a pint of whisky from appellant on the 24th of October, 1937. The proof on the part of the state was to the effect that justice precinct No. 3 of Marion County, in which the sale was made, was a dry area.

The bills of exception, as qualified, fail to present error.

The judgment recites that appellant is guilty of the offense of possession of intoxicating liquor on premises where beer is sold under a permit. The judgment is reformed in order that it may be shown that appellant .has been adjudged to be guilty of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor in a dry area.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Judge.

The same complaint is brought forward here as to bill of exception No. 3 as appears in the companion case, Dunn v. State, 120 S.W.2d 451, this day decided on rehearing. The bill of exception in the present record is approved. The court certifies that he sustained objection to the proof offered because the record was the best evidence which rec-ord was not offered in evidence,, and further qualifies the bill to show that if introduced the record would not show sale of beer was prohibited in Marion County. Appellant was convicted for selling whisky under a prohibition election held in January, 1910.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40263

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

KIRSTI MELISSA LAYTON ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 604

Filed: July 30, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Sh indurling , District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of
sentence, affirmed

.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Kirsti Melissa Layton pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance
(methamphetamine), Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(c)(1) . The district court sentenced Layton to a unified term of five years, with two years determinate , and retained jurisdiction. After a period
of retained jurisdiction, the district court released is jurisdiction and executed the underlying

sentence. Layt on filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of her sentence, which
the district court denied. Layton appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion by
denying her Rule 35 motion.

A motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35 i s essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d2 23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In
presenting a Rule 35 motion, the de fendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of
new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the

denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent
the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of
Layton’s Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the
foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Layton’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin Salinas, Jr., Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 11, 2009



/s/ Martin Salinas, Jr.Martin Salinas, Jr.Chief Financial Officer


* A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to
and will be retained by Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner 

v.

HOWARD MARK HYMAN,

Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2633 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

File No. C2-19-37

Attorney Registration No. 30104

(Out of State)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of July, 2019, upon consideration of the Certificate of 

Admission of Disability by Howard Mark Hyman, he is immediately transferred to inactive 

status for an indefinite period and until further Order of the Court. See Pa.R.D.E. 301(e). 

He shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.

All pending disciplinary proceedings shall be held in abeyance, except for the 

perpetuation of testimony and the preservation of documentary evidence.
#### LOUDER v. STATE.

No. 15691.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 12, 1933.

Rehearing Denied May 24, 1933.

John Morison and T. C. McMurray, both of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for murder; punishment! being imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.

The opinion upon a former appeal is reported in 119 Tex. Cr. R. 438, 44 S.W.(2d) 719. The facts are set out in that opinion, and it is not necessary to extend this one by a repetition. A reversal upon the former appeal was predicated upon the omission from the charge of an instruction that, if deceased, an officer, .was attempting to arrest appellant, the arrest was unauthorized and unlawful, and in not informing the jury what appellant’s rights would he under such circumstances. Upon the present trial the court charged fully in regard to such matter, and in addition thereto gave two special charges requested by appellant upon’ the same defensive issues which had been submitted in the main charge.

*240. Five bills of exception are brought forward. The first complains because the court, refused to instruct a verdict, of acquittal. There was no basis for such a charge.

 The other bills are predicated upon refusal of special charges. It is not necessary to set them out in detail or to discuss them further than to say the main charge and the two special charges given amply covered the subjects embraced in the refused instructions.

No errors appear in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant complains of .the lack t of testimony to show that the shots fired by him caused the death of deceased. A witness testified that he saw appellant shoot at deceased, who was in front of his house. Appellant shot six or seven times. Deceased called' out, “Lord have mercy,” and fell near a light post. The undertaker testified that he went to the place and got the dead body of deceased near said light post. It was agreed by all parties that the wounds received by deceased were sufficient to cause his death. The father of deceased testified that the latter ate supper at home as usual that night and was in good health. The father said he next saw his son dead at the undertaker’s. We think there is nothing in the contention of appellant.

The motion for. rehearing will be overruled.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT (24)(b)


February 25, 2000

Mr. Alan M. Wright and
Mr. Thomas A. McNish
Consumers Energy Company
212 West Michigan Avenue
Jackson, MI 49201

Consumers Energy Company is required to file an Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1999 with the Securities and Exchange Commission
within 90 days after the end of the year.

We hereby make, constitute and appoint each of you our true and lawful attorney
for each of us and in each of our names, places and steads to sign and cause to
be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission said Annual Report with any
necessary exhibits, and any amendments thereto that may be required.

Very truly yours,


         /s/ William T. McCormick, Jr.                  /s/ Earl D. Holton
----------------------------------------     -----------------------------------
         William T. McCormick, Jr.                      Earl D. Holton


         /s/ John Deutch                                /s/ W. U. Parfet
----------------------------------------     -----------------------------------
         John M. Deutch                                 William U. Parfet


         /s/ James J. Duderstadt                        /s/ Percy A. Pierre
----------------------------------------     -----------------------------------
         James J. Duderstadt                            Percy A. Pierre


         /s/ K. R. Flaherty                             /s/ K. L. Way
----------------------------------------     -----------------------------------
         Kathleen R. Flaherty                           Kenneth L. Way


         /s/ Victor J. Fryling                          /s/ K. Whipple
----------------------------------------     -----------------------------------
         Victor J. Fryling                              Kenneth Whipple


                              /s/ John B. Yasinsky
                         ------------------------------
                                John B. Yasinsky
ATTORNEYS AT lAW

March 9,2012
VIA EMAIL ONLY Ms. VanessaHinkle US EPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Mail Code 8P-AR Denver, Colorado 80202-1129 THOMAS R. WOOD Direct (503) 294-9396

trwood@stoe1.com 900 S.W. f Hth r\wf:ue

..'iuile lhOO Portl;Uld. Oresoll 1)7204 nl;"" SO) 224lJ80 r,,, $012.10 "1811 I
..\\W
....tocl, com

Re: Ash Grove Cement Company Response to Supplemental Information Request DearVanessa: Ash Grove Cement Company ("Ash Grove") is submitting this response to EPA's request for informationregarding the emissions from Ash Grove's Montana City plant. The following table presents data relating to the rolling 30-day rolling average emission rates forthe period between when the emissions analyzers commenced operation on May 26, 2006 and September 8, 2008. 30-Dav Rolline: Averae:e Values 1b NOxiton clinker 1b SOz/ton clinker Mean 14.4 7.2 StDev 1.7 1.7 Mean + 3 SO 19.54 12.39 Max 19.1 11.2 99th Percentile 18.63 11.02
We believe that 19.54 lbs NOxiton clinker and 12.39 lbs S02/ton clinkerbestreflect a realistic production based emission rate for the Montana City kiln. The standard deviation value is not large meaning that there are nottremendous swings in the data. Therefore, it is important in evaluating the data for regulatory purposes to be inclusive ofthe full range ofvalues, given that they all are relatively clustered around the mean. Forthis reason, we believe that amean plus three standard deviations best captures kiln performance. Ifyou were to derive a limit based on justthe mean plus two standard deviations, you would be assuming that the kiln was out of compliance over 200 hours peryear. We believe thatrelying on such an assumption in establishing a limit would be arbitrary and capricious.

71337046.1 0012028-00044 Ala,k. California Idaho Mlnnc)ota Orcp"on Utah**W<J~hinf,ton**Ms. VanessaHinkle March 9, 2012 Page 2
Ash Grove is not claiming that any informationpresented inthis letteris confidential business information. Dataunderlying values presented inthe table above may be confidential business information. Ash Grove hopes thatthis information is fully responsive to your needs. Please call ifyou have any questions afterreviewing this material.

cc (via email): Carl Daly DickJohnson JeffBriggs Curtis Lesslie Bob Vantuyl

71337046.1 0012028-00044