alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION

             EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


    The following is a list of subsidiaries of AFC at December 31,
1997.  All corporations are subsidiaries of AFC and, if indented,
subsidiaries of the company under which they are listed.

                                                                  Percentage of
                                                     State of     Common Equity
Name of Company                                     Incorporation    Ownership
American Premier Underwriters, Inc.                   Pennsylvania      81%
  Pennsylvania Company                                Delaware         100
    Atlanta Casualty Company                          Illinois         100
    Infinity Insurance Company                        Indiana          100
     Leader National Insurance Company                Ohio             100
   Republic Indemnity Company of America              California       100
   Windsor Insurance Company                          Indiana          100
Great American Holding Corporation                    Ohio             100
  Great American Insurance Company                    Ohio             100
    American Annuity Group, Inc.                      Delaware          81
      AAG Holding Company, Inc.                       Ohio             100
        Great American Life Insurance Company         Ohio             100
          Loyal American Life Insurance Company       Alabama          100
          Prairie National Life Insurance Company     South Dakota     100
            American Memorial Life Insurance Company  South Dakota     100
        American Annuity Group Capital Trust I        Delaware         100
        American Annuity Group Capital Trust II       Delaware         100
        American Annuity Group Capital Trust III      Delaware         100
    American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company   Delaware         100
    American National Fire Insurance Company          New York         100
    Brothers Property Corporation                     Ohio              80
    Mid-Continent Casualty Company                    Oklahoma         100
    Stonewall Insurance Company                       Alabama          100
    Transport Insurance Company                       Ohio             100

    The names of certain subsidiaries are omitted, as such subsidiaries
in the aggregate would not constitute a significant subsidiary.

    See Part I, Item 1 of this Report for a description of certain
companies in which AFC owns a significant portion and accounts for
under the equity method.

                                 E-3
23 February 2015 

Mr.' Abel Acosta, Clerk 

Court of Criminal Appeals 

P. o. Box 12308, ~apitol St. 

Austin, T~x~s 78711 

Re: Cause Bo.• 7S2079'.:.A (Count 2) 

BxParte Reyes 

Deay Wr1t etter 

Dear Mr. Acosta, Appeal ~~erk: 

8'·L_ . Cf1 CJ -()I . I () 

Jose J. Reyes 

TDC No. 821821 

McConnell Unit 

3001 s. Emily Dr. 

Beeville, Texas 78102 

RECEIVED IN 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

FEB 26 2015 

On January 5, 2015, the State'•s Proposed Findings 

of fact, conclusions of law and order was filed with the 

court. In that same Motion, the State claimed the motion 

was sent to the Court of Criminal Appeal; 

Here it is February 23, 2015, and I haven'•t received 

a "White Card" from the Court of Criminal Appeal informing 

me th~t the writ was now pending in that court. 

I understand.to gain ~ome time the court entered order 

extending the statuto~y time limits a practice condemned 

in .McCree v. Hampton, 824 s. w. 2d. 578 (Tex. Cr; App. 1992). 

However, that case sat out a method whereby the trial court 

can either on motion of the State or its own initiative, 

gain more ~ime to investigate the allegations raised within 

a writ application. 

If the trial court selects this option but fails to 

notify the Court of Crimin~l Appeals ~nd enquiry is made 

to the Court without mention of the previously entered 

order designating issue a "delayed writ letter" may well 

be sent to the trial court with copies to the District 

clerk and district attorney enquiring into the alleged delay. 

I hereby request that you conduct a investigation into 

these matters and order the files to those findings ~nd 

transmit them along with the writ transcript to the Clerk 

of the Court of Criminal Appeals as required,by law. 

-1-
McConnell Unit 

3001 s. Emily Dr. 

Beeville, Texas 78102 

files 

cc.: Mr.· Chris Daniel 

District Clerk 

Harris County District Clerk 

1201 Franklin 

P. o. Box 4651 

Houston, Texas 77210-4651 

-2-
AFS-12-013-E December 14, 2011

Exemption No. 8686C Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2003-14850

Mr. Ariel Weiss

125B Clawson Avenue

P.O. Box 317 Bisbee, AZ 85603

Dear Mr. Weiss:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8686, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the

conditions and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

On Septem ber 22, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an extension of Exemption No. 8686, as amended. That exemption from §§ 61.89(a)(5) and 61.111(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows your student pilots to conduct solo flights between the Dutch islands of St. Maarten, Saba, St. Eustatius, and the French island of St. Martin in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom territory of Anguilla, and the islands of the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis in the eastern Caribbean while fulfilling the cross-country requirements for a private pilot certificate.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in

the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to you.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8686, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. All operations conducted under this exemption will be conducted between official sunrise

and official sunset.

2. Before conducting operations under this exemption, the pilot must have successfully completed instruction on the requirements to operate an aircraft in the Caribbean including all customs and immigration requirements. A record of this instruction must be made available by the pilot upon request by the Administrator.

3. A copy of this exemption must be carried onboard the aircraft while operating under this exemption.

4. The following information will be held by Mr. Weiss during operations conducted under this exemption:

a. A copy of the flight plan;

b. A copy of the instructor’s authorization under § 61.93(c);

c. Actual time of departure; and

d. Estimated times of arrival and departure at all points of intended landing.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 8686, as amended, to January 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8686, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8686, as amended.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                          
<ARTICLE>                      5
<LEGEND>                    
                               FDS - 4TH QUARTER
</LEGEND>                   
<CIK>                          0000006207
<NAME>                         AMREP CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
<CURRENCY>                     U.S.DOLLARS
                                
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   APR-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                        1
<CASH>                            20,517
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                     68,515
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                      101,401
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       0
<PP&E>                            30,918
<DEPRECIATION>                    13,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   229,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  0
<BONDS>                           55,737
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                             740
<OTHER-SE>                        83,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     229,768
<SALES>                          104,832
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 171,368
<CGS>                             82,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    131,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 4,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   13,677
<INCOME-TAX>                       5,471
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                8,206
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                       8,206
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                       1.11
        
 

</TABLE>
Argued and submitted May 30,

conviction affirmed; remanded with instructions to delete order of restitution for stereo September 5, 1990

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*SHAWN MICHAEL THORNTON, *Appellant.*

(CR88-179; CA A50359)

796 P2d 1252

Lawrence J. Hall, Deputy Public. Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.

WARREN, J.

*298WARREN, J.

Defendant appeals his sentence, assigning as error the imposition of restitution of $275 for a stolen stereo. Defendant was convicted of theft for stealing cash and tires from the service station where he worked. A car stereo also disappeared that evening from a car parked at the station. Defendant was not charged with its theft, and he did not admit to stealing it.

Restitution may be imposed when a defendant’s criminal activities cause a pecuniary loss. ORS 137.106(1); *State v. Dillon,*292 Or 172, 181, 637 P2d 602 (1981). ORS 137.103(1) defines “criminal activities” as

> “any offense with respect to which the defendant is convicted or any other criminal conduct admitted by the defendant.”

Under that definition, the theft of the car stereo is not a criminal activity attributable to defendant.

The state contends that circumstantial evidence that defendant stole the stereo justifies the restitution award, relying on *State v. Doty,*60 Or App 297, 653 P2d 276 (1982). *Doty*cannot be read that broadly. There, the defendant was convicted of theft of items worth less than $200, but the court imposed restitution of $2,000, the value of all the items stolen from the house. The defendant had admitted kicking in the victim’s door and stealing several items but had claimed that someone else must have taken the rest. We held that the defendant’s criminal activities caused the loss of all of the items, because, by kicking in the door, he had created free access to the house for the hypothetical second thief. 60 Or App at 300; *see also State v. Hazlitt,*77 Or App 344, 713 P2d 617 (1986).

In this case, no evidence was presented that defendant’s criminal activities of stealing cash and tires made possible the theft of the stereo. Because there was not, restitution for the stereo could not be imposed.1

Conviction affirmed; remanded with instructions to delete order of restitution for stereo.

1

 The state contends that any error was harmless, because the trial court stated that, if the restitution was not proper, it would impose a fine for the same amount. What the trial court might have done is not before us.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E62]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        LETTER TO SPEAKER PELOSI

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, January 9, 2009

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

                                      House of Representatves,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 2009.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker: This letter is to advise you that, 
     effective today, I am taking a leave of absence from the 
     Homeland Security Committee until my tenure on the House 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is completed. I 
     understand that I will retain my seniority on the Homeland 
     Security Committee for the duration of my leave.
       Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                James R. Langevin,
     Member of Congress.

                          ____________________
```
EX-10.6.1





 Exhibit 10.6.1 

BIODESIX, INC. 
 STOCK
OPTION GRANT NOTICE 
 (NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION GRANTED OUTSIDE OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED 2006 EMPLOYEE, DIRECTOR AND CONSULTANT
STOCK PLAN) 
 Biodesix, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby grants to Optionholder an option to purchase the number of shares of the
Company’s Common Stock set forth below. This option is subject to all of the terms and conditions as set forth herein and in the Option Agreement, the Notice of Exercise and the Company’s Amended and Restated 2006 Employee, Director and
Consultant Stock Plan (the “Plan”), as if it had been granted pursuant to Section 5 of the Plan, all of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein in their entirety. 

 

			
	Optionholder:	 	  

	Date of Grant:	 	  

	Vesting Commencement Date:	 	  

	Number of Shares Subject to Option:	 	  

	Exercise Price (Per Share):	 	  

	Total Exercise Price:	 	  

	Expiration Date:	 	  


  

							
	Type of Grant:	 	☐	 	Nonstatutory Stock Option	  	
				
	Exercise Schedule:	 	☐	 	Same as Vesting Schedule	  	 ☐  Early Exercise Permitted

		
	Vesting Schedule:	 	Fully Vested on Date of Grant
		
	Payment:	 	By one or a combination of the following methods of payment (described in the Option Agreement): (i) Cash,
	check, bank draft or money order payable to the Company; (ii) Pursuant to a Regulation T Program (cashless exercise) if the shares are publicly traded; or (iii) one or more of the following methods IF the box
opposite such method is checked by the Company:
			
		 	☐	 	Delivery of already-owned shares if the shares are publicly traded
		 	☐	 	Net exercise
		 	☐	 	Deferred Payment

 Additional Terms/Acknowledgements: The undersigned Optionholder acknowledges receipt of, and understands and agrees to,
this Stock Option Grant Notice, the Option Agreement and the Plan. Optionholder further acknowledges that as of the Date of Grant, this Stock Option Grant Notice, the Option Agreement, and the Plan set forth the entire understanding between
Optionholder and the Company regarding the acquisition of stock in the Company and supersede all prior oral and written agreements on that subject with the exception of (i) options previously granted and delivered to Optionholder under the
Plan, and (ii) the following agreements only: 
  

			
	OTHER AGREEMENTS:	 	  

		 	  


  

									
	BIODESIX, INC. 	 		 	OPTIONHOLDER:
				
	By:	 	  
	 		 	  

					
		 	Signature	 		 		 	Signature
					
	Title:	 	  
	 		 	Date:	 	  

					
	Date:	 	  
	 		 		 	

 ATTACHMENTS: Option Agreement, Amended and Restated 2006 Employee, Director and Consultant Stock Plan and Notice of
Exercise
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-006-CV

NO. 2-06-155-CV

Ex Parte S.R.D., a child

In the Interest of B.G.D. a/k/a S.R.D., A Child	APPELLANT

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY	NO. 2-006  -04400    08-104              -CV

JOSEPH H. LEE, III, VIRGINIA K. LEE AND 	APPELLANTS

PATRICIA LEE BARROW AND SAVINGS 

OF AMERICA, INC.		   APPELLANT	

HVvVAaACcC AaAgGeEnNtT, LlLLlLCcC, PpPlLuUmMbBiInNgG AaAgGeEnNtT,  LlLLlLCcC, a	APPELLANTS

AnNdD EeElLeEcCtTrRiIcCaAlL AaAgGeEnNtT, LlLLlLCcC

	V.

 JoOeElL FrRaAnNcCoOmMaAnNoO aAnNdD LeEoOjJ SoOfFtTwWaArReE, LLCOPAL LEE, IN HER CAPACITY AS 	APPELLEES

 TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF DALE T. LEE, DECEASED	

	----------

	FROM THE 362ND362ND          PROBATE DISTRICT COURT  NO. 2 OF DENTON                     TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered “aAppellant’s [s’]’ “Motion To Dismiss aAppealNotice Of Nonsuit.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the appellants [ [s][- [oOR the the party incurring the same], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:     GARDENER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

    HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER                                     , JJ.

DELIVERED:    September 28, 2006  June 25, 2008
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Research conducted by: A. Michael Tucker Page 1 of 1

COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 32

February 19, 1984

Anthony F. Abar, Director 

Maryland Bureau of Mines 

69 Hill Street 

Frostburg, Maryland 21532

TOPIC: BOND FORFEITURE (Addendum to COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 5)

BACKGROUND: COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 5 asked whether regulatory authorities 

had the authority to forfeit the entire amount of a reclamation bond when the actual cost of 

reclamation was less than the bonded sum. Two jurisdictions, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, were 

identified as recently deciding the issue. Courts in both states decided the bond was penal in 

nature and that failure to perform all reclamation requirements resulted in total bond forfeiture, 

even if reclamation costs were less than the bonded sum. The purpose of this Report is to 

update the previous report with the recent decisions.

SEARCH RESULTS:

The Supreme Court of Tennessee recently decided whether a reclamation bond was penal in 

nature in TENNESSEE v GULF AM. FIRE & CASUALTY CO., slip op. (Tenn November 5, 

1984). The Court, holding that such a bond was penal, found opinions from Kentucky, 

Pennsylvania and West Virginia to be persuasive.

AM. DRUGGISTS INS. CO. v COM. DEPT. FOR NAT. RES., 670 SW 2d 485 (Ky Ct App 1983) 

and MORCOAL CO. v PENNSYLVANIA, 459 A 2d 1303 (Pa Commw Ct 1983) were the 

Kentucky and Pennsylvania decisions, respectively, upon which the Supreme Court of 

Tennessee relied. Both of these cases were identified in COALEX STATE INQUIRY - 5.

STATE v ELDER, 165 SE 2d 108 (WVA 1968). The West Virginia decision referred to by the 

Tennessee Supreme Court, also held that such bonds were penal in nature.

To date, four jurisdictions -- West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Tennessee -- have been 

identified as having addressed the issue of whether reclamation bonds are penal in nature. All 

four states have resolved the issued in the same manner, holding that such bonds are indeed 

penal, and that the total bonded sum may be forfeited.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. TENNESSEE v GULF AM. FIRE & CASUALTY CO., slip op. (Tenn November 5, 1984).

B. STATE v ELDER, 165 SE 2d 108 (W Va 1968).
Exhibit 23.1




    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors
Allen Organ Company:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement (No. 333-116002) on Form S-8 of Allen Organ Company of
our report dated February 24, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Allen Organ Company and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2004, which report appears in the December 31, 2004
annual report on Form 10-K of Allen Organ Company.




/s/KPMG LLP
Allentown, Pennsylvania
March 30, 2005
# Official Journal C 311/16 D

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 311 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4716 December 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 311

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4716 December 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Council |
| 2004/C 311/1 | Cuba — Council conclusions on the 14th evaluation of the Common Position | 1 |
| 2004/C 311/2 | Council Decision appointing the members of the Scientific and Technical Committee | 3 |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 311/3 | Euro exchange rates | 4 |
| | European Training Foundation |
| 2004/C 311/4 | Amending Budget 2004/No 1 | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Council

2004/C 311/1

Cuba — Council conclusions on the 14th evaluation of the Common Position

1

2004/C 311/2

Council Decision appointing the members of the Scientific and Technical Committee

3

Commission

2004/C 311/3

Euro exchange rates

4

European Training Foundation

2004/C 311/4

Amending Budget 2004/No 1

5

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN