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

---

EXHIBIT 8

List of Subsidiaries

|                                        |                                   
|--------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|Subsidiary Name                         | Jurisdiction of Incorporation     
|1. Easy Park Ltd                        | Israel                            
|2. Easy Park Israel Ltd.                | Israel                            
|3. Soft Chip Technologies (3000) Ltd.   | Israel                            
|4. OTI America, Inc.                    | Delaware, United States of America
|5. InSeal SAS                           | France                            
|6. OTI Africa, Inc.                     | South Africa                      
|7. ASEC Spolka Akcyjna                  | Poland                            
|8. Millennium Cards Technology Limited  | Hong Kong, China                  
|9. Millennium Cards Technology Limited  | Shenzhen, China                   
|10. e-Pilot Group                       | British Virgin Islands            
|11. Oriental Power Technology LTD       | Hong Kong, China                  
|12. Oriental Power Technology LTD       | Shenzhen, China                   
|13. Pioneer Oriental International Ltd. | Hong Kong, China                  
|14. Pioneer Oriental International Ltd. | Shenzhen, China                   
|15. InterCard Systemelectronic GmbH     | Germany                           



---

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 20.1



March 26, 1999

                           ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY

                             AFCO CREDIT CORPORATION

                  MELLON BANK PREMIUM FINANCE LOAN MASTER TRUST

                              ANNUAL PERIOD ENDING

                                DECEMBER 31, 1998



ANNUAL HOLDERS' DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY

Pursuant to Section 5.2, Servicer does hereby declare to the Trustee the
following distributions for the calendar year 1998 as set forth below:

Interest Payments

A.       Pursuant to subsection 4.11(g);

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         <S>      <C>                                                                   <C>
         1.       Amount distributed to the Class A Holders                             $ 25,932,805.55

         2.       Amount distributed to the Class B Holders                             $  1,526,684.04

         3.       Amount distributed to the Collateral Interest Holder                  $  2,129,884.65
</TABLE>


Principal Payments

B.       Pursuant to subsection 4.11(h)(i);

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         <S>      <C>                                                                   <C>
         1.       Amount distributed to the Class A Holders                             $             0

         2.       Amount distributed to the Class B Holders                             $             0

         3.       Amount distributed to the Collateral Interest Holder                  $             0
</TABLE>





                                           AFCO CREDIT CORPORATION, as Servicer



                                           By       C. LEONARD O'CONNELL
                                                ------------------------------
                                                Name:  C. Leonard O'Connell
                                                Title: Senior Vice President, 
                                                       Treasurer and
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1



Southeastern Banking Corporation



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 Southeastern Banking Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Cornelius P. Holland, III, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    CORNELIUS P. HOLLAND,
IIICornelius P. Holland, III, President & CEO May 15, 2003
### Exhibit A

IDYH Policy & Procedures Manual

Effective 03/01/15

All equipment including the actual UAV and all support equipment is thoroughly inspected prior to flying. This includes verifying all batteries are fully charged, additional rotor blades, motors as well as all necessary tools are inspected and loaded into professional cases which must accompany the flight crew. Our flight crew consists of both a pilot and an observer. We will NEVER fly with less than 2 responsible crew members. We will always conduct a pre-flight inspection of the subject property prior to flight with a 100% emphasis on security. Our goal is to identify any and all obstacles, such as power lines, trees, nearby structures that may potentially impact the UAV performance. We require signed written authorization from the property owner or responsible party, i.e. Realtor or signed listing agent prior to property entry and inspection. We will never fly when weather conditions are not optimal. Our potential clients must agree to abide by this directive as windy, rainy, foggy conditions may hamper the safety of the flight and the video quality of the recordation. We currently self monitor our operations under the highest standards of professionalism and safety. We expect our standards will exceed anything the FAA mandates and we will comply with any organizing or administrative body that ultimately will administer or regulate our segment of the market.

We have thus voluntarily and unilaterally agreed to the following flight restrictions pending a final FAA ruling regarding small UAVs.WE NEVER FLY ABOVE 150 FEET when shooting a property. We fly RESPONSIBLY at all

times utilizing the latest safety technologies, software updates and safety equipment. Although we have an FPV camera on board, WE ALWAYS MAINTAIN VISUAL SIGHT OF OUR DRONE and also record our drone with a separate camera, providing proof of control over our flight. We won't fly in inclement weather such as wind, rain, fog or at night.We will not fly a UAV within 5 miles of any airport without requesting limited permission. In addition to public safety, we have a significant investment in our equipment and will never put it at risk. We have NO INTEREST in anyone's private life. We require written permission from the homeowner who's home we are filming. Adjacent properties may appear on the periphery in our videos in connection with the home we are shooting, however we reject any video footage in which a neighbor or anyone else may be seen. We welcome all questions by interested parties regarding our video productions and endeavor to address all queries and assuage all issues PRIOR to flying. We will maintain our focus on the UAV when in flight so as not to be distracted. Continuous flight duration NEVER exceeds 10 minutes for both safety reasons and editing requirements. Ultimately, the purpose of utilizing the UAV and it's video capabilities provides for exciting and motivating productions that we believe will stimulate the housing sector and increase home sales. Our business expects to hire additional well trained professionals which will certainly increase employment across the country.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

FIFTH DISTRICT 

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 

WILLIAM THOMAS ARNOLD, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D16-2820

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Opinion filed November 29, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Seminole County,

Debra S. Nelson, Judge.

William Thomas Arnold, Bushnell, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. See State v. Liles, 191 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). 

WALLIS, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 275 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 275

   To allow individuals to choose to opt out of the Medicare part A 
                                benefit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 8, 2021

  Mr. Cruz (for himself and Mr. Paul) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To allow individuals to choose to opt out of the Medicare part A 
                                benefit.

    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 ``Retirement Freedom Act''.

SEC. 2. ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO CHOOSE TO OPT OUT OF THE MEDICARE PART 
              A BENEFIT.

    Any individual who is otherwise entitled to benefits under part A 
of title XVIII of the Social Security Act may elect (in such form and 
manner as may be specified by the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services) to opt out of such entitlement. Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, in the case of an individual who makes such an 
election, such individual--
            (1) may (in such form and manner as may be specified by the 
        Secretary) subsequently choose to end such election and opt 
        back into such entitlement (in accordance with a process 
        determined by the Secretary) without being subject to any 
        penalty;
            (2) shall not be required to opt out of benefits under 
        title II of such Act as a condition for making such election; 
        and
            (3) shall not be required to repay any amount paid under 
        such part A for items and services furnished prior to making 
        such election.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 24.7

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Robert E. Sulentic, Derek R. McClain, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher
Kirk and each of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his
behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2001, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do and
perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact or their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| |  | /s/CURTIS F. FEENYCurtis F. Feeny
| |  | ---------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
# C_2015269EN.01000101.xml

| 15.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7695 — Blackrock/First Reserve/Engie/TAG Pipelines Sur)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 269/01)

On 5 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7695. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7695. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2014417EN.01000401.xml

| 21.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 417/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 417/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7217 — Facebook/WhatsApp)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 417/02

On 3 October 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7217. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7217. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration



## OCT 09 2014-·

Mr. Kumaresan Subramaniam Engineering Director ST Aerospace Mobile, Inc. 2100 9th Street, Brookley Complex Mobile, Alabama 36615

Dear Mr Subramaniam: Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, Washington 98057-3356

Petition for Exemption

- Request for Additional Information

In your letter dated May 9, 2014, you petitionedthe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for relieffrom the requirements of§§ 25.7850), 25.807(g)(l) and (i)(1), 25.812(e), 25.813(b)(l) and (6), 25.1445(a)(2), and 25.1447(c)(1) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) to allow carriage ofnon-crewmembers (commonly referred to as supernumeraries) withinthe flight deck area on Boeing Model 757-200 airplanes thathave been converted from a passenger to freighter configuration. Although it was not mentioned inthe petition letter, we reviewed Figure 2 inthe informationyou submitted and confirmed with a telephone call thatyour intent was also to request relieffrom§ 25.810(a)(l), requiring passenger exits to be equipped with a self-supporting slide or equivalent assist

means.

In additionto omitting§ 25.810(a)(l) from your request for relief, we believe thatyou also inadvertently omitted consideration of§ 25.857(e). As you are aware from previous exemptions (e.g., ExemptionNo. 9487, Regulatory DocketNo. FAA-2007-28177), all such petitions for exemptionmust request relieffrom the requirement of§ 25.857(e), which permits carriage ofcargo within a Class E cargo compartment onthe airplane when operated in an all-cargo configuration (only flightcrew onthe airplane). Therefore, we are requesting that you provide confirmation by amending your petition to include 

### § 25.857(e) for the carriage ofsupernumeraries in addition to flightcrew on freighter airplanes. Ofcourse, your design will be expected to meet all otherrequirements of § 25.857(e) concerning smoke or fire detector system; a means to shut offthe ventilating airflowto, or within, the compartment, and the controls for these means are accessible to the flightcrew inthe crew compartment; and thatthe required crew emergency exits are accessible under any cargo loading condition.Thank you for your attentionto this matter. You may submit your amended petitionto the Department ofTransportation's Federal Docket Management System (DocketNo. FAA2014-0351) online atRegulations.gov. After we receive your amended petition and are satisfied withthe informationyou provide, we will amend Exemption 11060 (dated September 23, 2014), to reflect the additional reliefsought from§ 25.857(e). Ifyouhave any questions, please contact Mr. Steve Happenny bytelephone at (425) 227-2147 or byemail at Stephen.Happenny@faa.gov.

Sincerely, 

# {IJVtf!__

Victor Wicklund Manager, Propulsion & Mechanical Systems Transport Standards Staff 2
#### Holmes vs. Fairbank.

A judgment for damages will not be reversed on an appeal by tbe defendant, upon the ground that certain evidence bearing on the question of damages was improperly admitted, where it appears that the defendant admitted on the trial that the plaintiff, if he recovered at all, would be entitled to the amount for which the verdict was in fact rendered.

APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for *Fond du Lac*County.

*Qillet*& *Conklin,*for appellant.

*John Ware,*for respondent.

*By the Court,*

PAINE, J.

This being an action of trespass for taking wheat, on the trial in the circuit court, the plaintiff’s counsel asked a witness what was the highest market price of wheat of the quality taken, between the taking and the time of commencing the suit. The defendant objected, for the reason that the question did not call for an answer that would give the true rule of damages. The objection was overruled, and exception taken. ,

But afterwards, as appears by the bill of exceptions, when the plaintiff offered, by another witness, to prove the value of . the wheat, the defendant’s counsel admitted that if the plaintiff recovered at all the verdict should be for one hundred dollars ; and the appellant now seeks to reverse the judgment for the'alleged error of admitting evidence of the highest market price of the wheat.

But whether that was error or not, it was wholly immaterial after the defendant on the trial admitted that the verdict, if anything, should be for $100, the jury having found accordingly. Clearly no error in admitting evidence as to the damages could have prejudiced the defendant, when he himself, by his deliberate admission on the trial, assented to the amount which the jury found against him.

The force of this admission is sought to be obviated by the appellant’s counsel, by suggesting that it was made, assuming fhe rule of damages previously indicated by the court in rul*435ing upon tbe admission of evidence. In that view they should have said that if the plaintiff was entitled to the highest market value at any time after the taking, then they would admit that he should recover $100 — if at all. But the record shows no such qualification. And the admission, as it appears, can only be construed as an absolute consent that the verdict should be for $100, if for anything. After this it is too late to object here on account of any errors in admitting evidence as to the amount of damages, even if there were any.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Honorab le Charles A. Shaw, District Judge, United States 1 District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. ____________ No. 95-2208

____________ Leon Burgess, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Unknown Bone, Unknown Lawrence, * Unknown Gaides, Unknown Ghumm, * Unknown Edwards, Unknown Wisdom,* Unknown Crocker, Unknown Adams, * Unknown Wagner, Unknown Tilley, * Appeal from the United States A. Henson, Unknown Kitchell, * District Court for the Unknown Smith, Unknown Gelbauch,* Eastern District of Missouri Unknown Dicus, Unknown Bergner, * Unknown Turnbull, Unknown Dunn, * [UNPUBLISHED] Unknown Weber, Unknown Hutchins,* Unknown Hartley, Unknown Howell,* Unknown Bowen, Unknown Roper, * Unknown Pogue, Unknown Delo, * Unknown Wells, Unknown Bingham, * Unknown Reed, * * Appellees. *

____________ Submitted: April 12, 1996 Filed: July 5, 1996

____________ Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM.
Leon Burges s, an inmate who was transferred to the Jefferson Cit yCorrectional Center from the Potosi Correctional Cente r (Potosi) in December 1994, appeals from a final order entered i n the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 1-2-

Missouri granting summary judgment in favor of twenty-four Potosi offici als (the Potosi defendants) and three contracted medica l employees of Potosi from Correctional Medical Systems (the CM S defendants). Burgess brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 198 3 alleging that (1) the Potosi and CMS defendants violated hisEighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment by usin g excessive force against him and failing to respond to his medical needs; and (2) the Potosi and CMS defendants violated his du e proc ess rights by conspiring to conceal the excessive forc e incident. Upon summary judgment motions by both sets o f defendants, the district court held that the Potosi defendan ts were ent itledto qualified immunity and that Burgess had failed t o demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the CMS defendants had violated his Ei ghth and Fourteenth Amendment rights Bur gess v. Kevin Bone, et al. , No. 4:94-CV-1346-CAS (E.D. Mo
. Apr. 20, 1995) (memorandum and order). For reversal Burgessargues that (1) the district court erred in entering summary judgmen t against him in light of the alleged confiscation of his leg al file inOctob er 1994 by the Potosi defendants and by officials at th e Jeffer sonCity Correctional Center and (2) the Potosi defendant s violatedhis Fourteenth Amendment right to access to courts i n confiscating his legal file. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that no error of law or fact appears and that an opinion would lack precedential value. Accordingly , the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.