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



Subsidiaries of Argonaut Group, Inc



|                                           |  |                       
|------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|Company Name                               |  | State of Incorporation
|Argonaut Group, Inc.                       |  | Delaware              
|Argonaut Group Statutory Trust             |  | Connecticut           
|Argonaut Group Statutory Trust III         |  | Delaware              
|Argonaut Group Statutory Trust IV          |  | Delaware              
|Argonaut Group Statutory Trust V           |  | Delaware              
|Argonaut Group Statutory Trust VI          |  | Connecticut           
|Argonaut Group Statutory Trust VII         |  | Delaware              
|Argonaut Group Statutory Trust VIII        |  | Delaware              
|Argonaut Management Services, Inc.         |  | Delaware              
|Argus Reinsurance Intermediaries, Inc.     |  | Texas                 
|Captive Advisory Services, Inc.            |  | Vermont               
|Trident Insurance Services, LLC            |  | Texas                 
|Trident Insurance Services of Oregon, Inc. |  | Oregon                
|Argonaut Claims Services, Ltd.             |  | Texas                 
|Argonaut Claims Management, LLC            |  | Texas                 
|Colony Insurance Company                   |  | Virginia              
|Colony Specialty Insurance Company         |  | Ohio                  
|Colony National Insurance Company          |  | Virginia              
|Argonaut Insurance Company                 |  | California            
|Argonaut-Midwest Insurance Company         |  | Illinois              
|Argonaut-Southwest Insurance Company       |  | Louisiana             
|Argonaut-Northwest Insurance Company       |  | Idaho                 
|Georgia Insurance Company                  |  | Georgia               
|Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company   |  | Illinois              
|Alpha Credit Corporation                   |  | Illinois              
|Central Insurance Management, Inc.         |  | Illinois              
|Insurance Agency of Central Illinois, Inc. |  | Ohio                  
|Grocers Insurance Agency, Inc.             |  | Oregon                
|AGI Properties, Inc.                       |  | California            
|AGI Limited Risks                          |  | California            
|Front Royal, Inc.                          |  | Delaware              
|Colony Management Services, Inc.           |  | Virginia              
|Colony Agency Services, Inc.               |  | Virginia              
|Fulcrum Underwriting Managers, Inc.        |  | Arizona               
|Rockwood Casualty Insurance Company        |  | Pennsylvania          
|Somerset Casualty Insurance Company        |  | Pennsylvania          
|Mid-State Insurance Underwriters, Inc.     |  | Pennsylvania          
|Comprehensive Casualty Services, Inc.      |  | Pennsylvania          
|Coal Operators Indemnity Company           |  | Pennsylvania
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 27, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 04-50534

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff - Appellee

 v.

ALBERTO ROJAS-DE LA ROSA

 Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Western District of Texas

(03-CR-666)

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate

sentence is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to

remand case to the district court for resentencing is granted. 

_________________

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5

th Cir. R.

47.5.4.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s alternative unopposed

motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief until 14 days

after denial of motion to vacate and remand is denied as moot.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1**  **7 43** 

LORENZO DOMINIC RICHARDSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. CORINDA GREENE , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Di strict of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 5:11

- cv - 00072

- H )

Submitted : February 9 , 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opini on . Lorenzo Dominic Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Dominic Richardson appeals the district
court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dism issing for lack of jurisdiction his complaint in which he sought to appeal the state court’s denial of his request to appeal his North Carolina criminal conviction
. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (200 6 ). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. S ee District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Accordingly, we deny Richardson’s motion for relief and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Richardson v. Greene , No. 5:11

-

cv - 00072

- H (E.D.N.C. July 6, 2011)
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

DERIN RESTAURANTS, LLC, a Florida ) limited liability company, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-826 ) HERITAGE SQUARE REAL ESTATE, LLC, ) a Florida limited liability company; and ) JOSEPH MAGDALENER, individually, ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed September 20, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; James R. Shenko, Judge. Joseph A. Davidow and Yasser Lakhlifi of Willis and Davidow, LLC, Naples, for Appellant. Rachel A. Kerlek of Woods, Weidenmiller, Michetti & Rudnick, LLP, Naples, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
#### Berry vs. Lathrop *&*Williams.

The declarations and representations of one person, that another was his partner in the purchase of goods, are not admissible to charge the latter, unless tliero be a sufficient foundation laid for the admission of such declarations. *(Berry vs. Barnes et al.*23 *Ark.,411.)*

*Appeal from Drew Circuit Courrt.*

Hon. Jora 0. Murray Circuit Judge.

HutCiiinsoN, for appellant.

HaReisoN, for appellees.

Mr. Chief Justice ENGLisn

delivered the opinion oí the Court.

Lathrop & Williams, merchants and partners, brought assump-sit against James D. Berry, in the Drew circuit court.

There were two counts in the declaration : the first upon a note which the count alleged to have been made by the defendant Berry and one Allen M. Scott, as merchants and partners in trade, by their firm name and style of A. M. Scott *&*Co. The second count was for goods, wares, and merchandise, alleged to have been sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant and Scott.

' The case was tried upon issue to the plea of non assumpsit, sworn to, and a verdict in favor oí the plaintiffs upon the first count, for the amount of the note, and in favor of ,the defendant on the second count. A motion for a new trial wa3 overruled, and the defendant excepted and appealed.

The evidence in this case was not materially different from the evidence in *Berry vs. Barnes et al.,*23 *Ark.,*411, and the principles of law applied to that case govern this.

■ There was really no competent proof that Berry was a partner of Scott, or that Scott was authorized to purchase goods upon the *13credit of Berry, or to bind him as a partner, or otherwise, by note.

The court erred in admitting in evidence, so much of the depositions of Snedeker and Burr as related to the declarations and representations made by Scott, in their presence, to the effect that Berry was his partner, there having been no sufficient foundation laid for the admission of Scott’s declarations to charge Berry.

It is not deemed material to decide any other question'presented by the record.

The judgment must bo reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to the court below to grant the appellant a.new trial
Ralston E. MACDONNELL and Charlene Ann Latimer-MacDonnell, Appellants, v. US BANK NA as Legal Title Trustee FOR TRUMAN 2013 SC4 TITLE TRUST; Equity Trust Company as Custodian FBO IRA Account No. Z029889 50% undivided interest; Angelo Ingorvaia, 50% interest; The Beaches of Longboat Key-South Owners Association, Inc. ; Quality Screening Window and Door, Inc. ; and Spectrum Contracting, Inc., Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-652

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge 

Darren Maurice King 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) (947A em
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Unaudited Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 24, 2000 and
Unaudited Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Nine Months Ended
September 24, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-24-2000
<CASH>                                           3,145
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,329
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,375)
<INVENTORY>                                     80,529
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               155,187
<PP&E>                                         899,615
<DEPRECIATION>                               (401,618)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 677,409
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,243
<BONDS>                                        230,540
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,647
<OTHER-SE>                                    (42,947)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   677,409
<SALES>                                        373,423
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               373,423
<CGS>                                          342,365
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  368,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,073
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,321)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       174
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,495)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,495)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.42)


</TABLE>
John G. SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Appellee.

John G. Saunders and Linda Saunders, as personal representative of the Estate of John J. Saunders, on behalf of Linda Saunders individually as surviving spouse of John J. Saunders, deceased, and the Estate of John J. Saunders, Appellants, v. Cessna Aircraft Company, Appellee.

Linda Saunders, as personal representative of the Estate of John J. Saunders, on behalf of Linda Saunders individually as surviving spouse of John J. Saunders, deceased, and the Estate of John J. Saunders, Appellants, v. Cessna Aircraft Company, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1392 Case No. 2D16-1395 Case No. 2D16-1527

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 2, 2018

Laura H. Howard and Kevin C. Ambler of Ambler Law Group, Tampa, for Appellants.

Karen S. Cox of Bush Ross, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### Pamela Sue BOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1090

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Pamela Sue Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Maija DiDomenico, Assistant Regional Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Pamela Sue Bond appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying Bond’s self-styled “Motion to Initiate Discovery by the Court.” On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because neither Bond’s informal brief nor the supplement thereto challenges the basis for the magistrate judge’s disposition on this post-judgment motion, Bond has forfeited appellate review of the order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order. We deny Bond’s motion for clarification of the Social Security Administration’s theory of defense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
EXHIBIT 10.17



PROMISSORY NOTE



|            |  |                 
|----------- |  | ----------------
|$25,000,000 |  | September , 2004



ARGONAUT GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation (the Borrower), promises to pay to the order of LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (the Lender) the aggregate unpaid principal amount of all Loans made by the Lender to the Borrower
pursuant to Article II of the Agreement (as hereinafter defined), in immediately available funds at the main office of LaSalle Bank National Association in Chicago, Illinois, as Administrative Agent, together with interest on the unpaid principal
amount hereof at the rates and on the dates set forth in the Agreement. The Borrower shall pay the principal of and accrued and unpaid interest on the Loans in full on the Termination Date and shall make such mandatory payments as are required to be
made under the terms of Article II of the Agreement.



The
Lender shall, and is hereby authorized to, record on the schedule attached hereto, or to otherwise record in accordance with its usual practice, the date and amount of each Loan and the date and amount of each principal payment hereunder.



This Note is one of the Notes issued pursuant to, and is
entitled to the benefits of, the Credit Agreement dated as of September , 2004, (as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time and in effect from time to time, the
Agreement), among the Borrower, the Lender and certain other financial institutions as lenders, and LaSalle Bank National Association, as Administrative Agent, to which Agreement reference is hereby made for a statement of the
terms and conditions governing this Note, including the terms and conditions under which this Note may be prepaid or its maturity date accelerated. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein are used with the meanings attributed
to them in the Agreement.



THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY
AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERNAL LAWS (INCLUDING 735 ILCS SECTION 105/5-1 ET SEQ. BUT OTHERWISE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONFLICT OF LAWS PROVISIONS) OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, BUT GIVING EFFECT TO FEDERAL LAWS APPLICABLE TO NATIONAL
BANKS.



ARGONAUT GROUP, INC.By:Name:Title:




---

SCHEDULE OF LOANS AND PAYMENTS OF PRINCIPAL

TO

NOTE OF ARGONAUT GROUP, INC.,



DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER , 2004



|     |  |                          |  |                             |  |                       |  |               
|---- |  | ------------------------ |  | --------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | --------------
|Date |  | Principal Amount of Loan |  | Maturity of Interest Period |  | Principal Amount Paid |  | Unpaid Balance
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7436

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WALTER DEOTIS FOSTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:04-cr-01039-TLW-1)

Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. James Hoffmeyer, LAW OFFICE OF W. JAMES HOFFMEYER, Florence, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina; 

Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Deotis Foster pled guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to possession with intent to distribute five grams or 

more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) 

(2000), and the court sentenced him to 204 months’ imprisonment. 

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the 

district court correctly classified Foster as a career offender 

pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) 

§ 4B1.1(a) (2004). Foster was advised of his right to file a 

pro se supplemental brief, but he did not do so. We affirm.

We review Foster’s sentence for reasonableness under a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). A sentence is procedurally 

reasonable if, among other requirements, the court properly 

calculates the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range. See id.

at 49-51. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

the district court did not err by classifying Foster as a career 

offender. Even absent consideration of his failure to stop for 

a blue light conviction, Foster had three prior convictions for 

felony drug offenses and one prior conviction for a crime of 

violence. See USSG § 4B1.1(a) (requiring defendant have “at 

least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence 
3

or a controlled substance offense” to qualify as career 

offender).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Foster, in writing, of the right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Foster requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Foster.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
addition to application:

List of aircraft to be used:

All Aircraft are well below the 55 pound weight limit and have autopilot return to home 

DJI S1000 with DJI A2 flight controller (two of these machines)

DJI S800 with DJI Wookong flight controller

DJI Phantom 3 

DJI inspire 1 

Custom Build X8 with DJI A2 flight Controller

Freefly Alta

1
# Navy Exchange Great Lakes Buoys A-School Students Placed on Restriction of Movement After Holiday Break

### 12 Jan 2021

 

“We were contacted by base leadership to lend our support to the 4,500 A-School students who were required to ROM after the holiday break,” said Christopher Ponchak, General Manager, NEX Great Lakes. “By utilizing our NEX Quarantine Program, we were able to offer a variety of food, beverages and other basic items since students couldn’t leave their rooms.”

To let the students know about the NEX Quarantine Program, the NEX staff provided them with a QR code before and after the holiday break. The QR code gave the students electronic access to the NEX merchandise order sheet. Once students gained access to the order sheet, they selected the items they wanted to purchase and sent it to the NEX. Once received, the NEX fulfilled the order, contacted the student to complete the transaction and then delivered the merchandise to the barracks quarterdeck for free, typically within 24 hours. The NEX offered the program to students from Dec. 28. 2020 – Jan. 8, 2021.

“During the peak, it was all hands on deck at the NEX where we had over 50 associates dedicated to this program, using 11 cash registers to ring up the sales just to keep up with the demand,” said Ponchak. “My team did an extraordinary job pulling and delivering over 46,000 items to over 10 different barracks during that two-week period. Being able to support these young men and women during a time when everyone is a little down due to COVID-19 really reenergized me and my team and shows what the NEX is really all about which is supporting our military members however and whenever we can.”

The students were thankful for the program as well. “I appreciate everything you guys are doing for us. Thank you so much,” said Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Wendy Correia. Interior Communications Electricians Apprentice Dusty Sweeney, wrote, “Thank you all for doing this! We all appreciate this system very much.”

The NEX Downrange Program was originally created overseas to support troops who are forward-deployed without access to a NEX. But due to the impact of the COVID-19 crisis, the program has transformed into a quarantine support program to support service members who have either been placed on ROM by their commands or aboard a ship in port overseas and unable to disembark.

## Quick Facts

## Contact