alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21.1

List of Subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership

|Subsidiary                                 |  | Jurisdiction 
|------------------------------------------ |  | -------------
|The Retail Property Trust                  |  | Massachusetts
|Simon Property Group (Illinois), L.P.      |  | Illinois     
|Simon Property Group (Texas), L.P.         |  | Texas        
|Shopping Center Associates                 |  | New York     
|DeBartolo Capital Partnership              |  | Delaware     
|Simon Capital Limited Partnership          |  | Delaware     
|SDG Macerich Properties, L.P.              |  | Delaware     
|M.S. Management Associates, Inc.           |  | Delaware     
|M.S. Management Associates (Indiana), Inc. |  | Indiana      
|DeBartolo Properties Management, Inc.      |  | Ohio         
|Mayflower Realty LLC                       |  | Delaware     
|Rosewood Indemnity, Ltd.                   |  | Bermuda      
|Simon Business Network, LLC                |  | Delaware     
|Simon Brand Ventures, LLC                  |  | Delaware     

Omits names of subsidiaries which as of December 31, 2002 were not, in the aggregate, a
"significant subsidiary".

97

---

QuickLinks
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00308-CV

IN THE INTEREST of S.A.W., a Child

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12167

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is REINSTATED on the 

docket of this court, and appellant Bradley D. Winters and appellee Sara D. Ahearn’s agreed 

motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED. 

We order that appellee Sara D. Ahearn recover her costs of this appeal, if any, from 

appellant Bradley D. Winters.

SIGNED December 7, 2016.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2014-0478 Directorate ID: 2014-SW-017-AD

Helicopter Model: AgustaWestland S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 102 Helicopters in the U.S. Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect excessive play of the lower half scissor 

spherical bearing and prevent failure of the main rotor rotating scissors and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $808 for replacing one bearing

Labor per Helicopter

(Minimal amount of time for 

the inspection for play of the 

bearing)

(1 work-hour x $85/workhour for the detailed 

inspection)

(2 work-hours x $85/workhour for removing a bearing)

Nominal cost per inspection

$85 per detailed inspection

$170

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter Nominal cost per inspection for play of the bearing

$85 per detailed inspection

$978 for replacing one bearing

Total US Fleet Cost $99,756 for replacing one bearing

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Robert Grant
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

R. WAYNE JOHNSON, 

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2022-1651

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 21-8317, Judge Amanda L. 

Meredith. 

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to pay the docketing fee 

required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) within the time 

permitted by the rules, it is 

Case: 22-1651 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 05/25/2022
2 JOHNSON V. MCDONOUGH 

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same 

hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

May 25, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 25, 2022

Case: 22-1651 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 05/25/2022
# C_2016090EN.01000101.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 090/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 78, 29.2.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 68, 22.2.2016

OJ C 59, 15.2.2016

OJ C 48, 8.2.2016

OJ C 38, 1.2.2016

OJ C 27, 25.1.2016

OJ C 16, 18.1.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
# C_2015287EN.01000101.xml

| 1.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7661 — Archer Daniels Midland Company/Eaststarch)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 287/01)

On 25 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 the 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 32015M7661. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7661. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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-QSB of Star Energy
Corporation ("Registrant") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"),
I, Marcus Segal, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Director of the
Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

      (1)   This Report 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 represents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition of Registrant at the end
            of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of
            Registrant for the period covered by this Report.

Date: November 14, 2006

/s/ Marcus Segal
----------------
Marcus Segal
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
(Principal Executive, Financial, and Accounting Officer)

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.906 has been provided
to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       18
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-11250 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Servando Alcala Gonzalez, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:21-CR-252-3 

______________________________ 

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Servando Alcala Gonzalez has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Alcala Gonzalez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

June 25, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-11250 Document: 56-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2024
No. 23-11250 

2 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

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

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 23-11250 Document: 56-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2024
#### Coleman v. Cooley

*Lawrence Metzg.er,*for plaintiffs.

*Frederick T. Lachat, Jr.,*for defendants.

*Dennis Veneziale,*for additional defendants.

*496March 7, 1978

GREENBERG, *J.,*

Defendant, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, seeks to obtain statements or reports given by defendant, Jackie Cooley, to his insurance carrier. Jackie Cooley started suit against SEPTA for injuries arising out of the same occurrence as of January term, 1977, no. 4730. In that action we granted plaintiffs motion to produce the accident report which is routinely prepared by the SEPTA driver.

SEPTA now claims that for the same reasons the report made by defendant, Jackie Cooley, to his carrier should be made available to them. Their argument overlooks the obvious fact that they seek the report from Cooley’s carrier, a report which Cooley makes in accordance with the requirements of his insurance policy, a policy which is designed to protect him from the detrimental effects of any lawsuit started against him as a result of an accident. Mr. Cooley is not engaged in any business which requires the preparation of reports about accidents as is SEPTA. Aside from the fact that the insurance carrier is not a party to the suit, the only reason they would get a report is because of pending or potential litigation. This is a far different situation from that posed in plaintiffs motion in the case where Cooley sued SEPTA.

Accordingly, we denied SEPTA’s motion to produce.

ORDER

And now, March 7, 1978, the motion for production pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4009 of the additional defendant, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transpor*497tation Authority, to obtain reports of defendant, Jackie Cooley, provided to his insurance carrier regarding the accident involved in this litigation is denied for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion filed this date.
EXHIBIT 32.1  Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)   I, Ed Bailey, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Financial Officer, of LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby 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 our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2011 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and   (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Dated:  May 12, 2011 By:  /s/ Ed Bailey  Ed Bailey  Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial  Officer  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. and will be retained by LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF WEIDER NUTRITION INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS OF,
AND FOR THE YEAR ENDING MAY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF WEIDER NUTRITION INTERNATIONAL, INC.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                             684
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                       291
<INVENTORY>                                     66,153
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,500
<PP&E>                                          57,158
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,812
<BONDS>                                         68,792
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           248
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,740
<SALES>                                        250,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               250,542
<CGS>                                          161,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  161,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                61,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   273
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,014
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,010
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,004
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,004
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56
                                           

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re David Patrick Daniel

Appellate case number: 01-16-00953-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-71645

Trial court: 308th District Court of Harris County

Relator, David Patrick Daniel, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 

and a “Motion for Emergency Stay of Enforcement of the October 14, 2016 ‘Order 

on Respondent’s Motion for Interim Attorney’s Fees’” in this Court. The Court 

requests a response to the motion for emergency stay and the petition from real 

party in interest, Jennifer Leigh Garrett. The response, if any, is due no later 

than 14 days from the date of this order.

Relator also has filed a “Motion for Leave to File the Official Reporter’s 

Record Exhibits by USB/Flash Drive.” The motion is granted. Exhibits submitted 

on the USB/flash drive must comply with the applicable portions of Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure 9.4(j), 9.9, and 52.7.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting for the Court

Date: December 5, 2016
#### Maisch, Appellant, *v.*Order of Americus.

*Practice, C. P.*— Assumpsit—Equity—Unincorporated *association.*

An action of assumpsit will not lie against an unincorporated association. The proper remedy is by a bill in equity.

Argued May 10, 1907.

Appeal, No. 192, April T., 1907, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P., No. 1, Allegheny Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 944, on verdict for defendant in case of Catherine F. Maisch v. Order of Americus.

Before Rice, P. J., Henderson, Orlady and Beaver, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit on a beneficial certificate. Before Brown, P. J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

*JError assigned*was in giving binding instructions for defendant.

*James T. Buchanan,*with him *George L. Me Oleary,*for appellant.

The action was properly brought: Phipps v. Jones, 20 Pa. 260 ; Ryers v. Presbyterian Congregation of Blossburg, 33 Pa. 114; Schoales v. Order of Sparta, 206 Pa. 11; Hamill v. Supreme Council, 152 Pa. 537 ; Dickinson v. A. O. U. W., 159 Pa. 258; Kurz v. Eggert, 9 W. N. C. 126 ; Sparks v. Husted, *4375 Pa. Dist. Rep. 189; Kline v. Allen Council D. of A., 6.. Northampton Co. Reps. 17; Com. v. Order of Vesta, 4 Dauphin Co. Rep. 233.

October 7, 1907:

*J. A.*Langfitt, with him *K. U.*Wilson, for appellee.

The remedy is not at law, but in equity : McConnell v. Apollo Savings Bank, 146 Pa. 79; Fletcher v. Gawanese Tribe, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 393; Luders v. Volp, 8 W. N. C. 417; Paul v. Keystone Lodge, 3 W. N. C. 408.

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

This action of assumpsit was originally brought August 31, 1903, against the defendant as a corporation, and service of the summons was made on E. E. Robbins as the president.

On March 28, 1906, upon affidavit of the plaintiff that a mistake had been made in the name of the defendant by describing it as a corporation, the court permitted the statement of claim to be amended by adding after the name “ Order of Americus,” the following: “ An unincorporated, fraternal, beneficial society duly organized under the laws of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and composed of Lee W. Squire, Edwin E. Robbins and others.”

No alias summons was issued, and when the cause was tried on October 16, 1906, the defendant presented a point for charges as follows : “ That under the pleadings in this case no verdict can be had against the defendant, because the remedy, if any, is by a bill in equity, and not by an action of assumpsit,” which was affirmed by the court, and a verdict directed for the defendant under authority of Fletcher v. Gawanese Tribe, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 393. The decision of this court in . that case controls us in this one and the judgment is affirmed.

Henderson, J., dissents.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44071

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

EDWARDO DAVID GOMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 803

Filed: December 2, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. George A. Southworth, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of one and one-half years, for possession of a controlled 

substance, affirmed

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Edwardo David Gomez pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code 

§ 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Gomez to a unified term of five years with one and 

one-half years determinate. Gomez appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion 

by imposing an excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Gomez’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Order entered July 17 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00844
- CV JAMES BELL MCCOY, Appellant
V. CRAIG WATKINS, ET AL ., Appellee s On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. DC
- 13
- 13955
- B 

### O RDER The clerk’s record is past due. On July 14, 2014, the Court received correspondence from Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk, inquiring whether his office is required to file the clerk’s record because the cas e is still active in the trial court. This Court cannot determine its jurisdiction over an appeal without reviewing the clerk’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER Gary Fitzsimmons to file the clerk’s record on or before JULY 31, 2014

. We DIRECT the Clerk of t his Court to send a copy of this order by first

- class mail to appellant and by electronic transmission to Gary Fitzsimmons and counsel for appellees.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE