alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 8



COMPAÑÍA ANÓNIMA NACIONAL TELÉFONOS DE VENEZUELA (CANTV)

AND SUBSIDIARIES



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                               |  |                        |  |                                               
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                             |  | Place of Incorporation |  | Name under which doing business (if different)
|Telecomunicaciones Movilnet, C.A.              |  | Venezuela              |  | MOVILNET                                      
|                                               |  |                       
|Compañía Anónima Venezolana de GuíasCAVEGUÍAS |  | Venezuela              |  | CAVEGUÍAS                                     
|                                               |  |                       
|CANTV.NET, C.A.                                |  | Venezuela              |  | CANTV.Net                                     
|                                               |  |                       
|INVERCANTV, S.A.                               |  | Venezuela              |  |                                              
|                                               |  |                       
|CANTV Finance, LTD.                            |  | Grand Cayman           |  |                                              
|                                               |  |                       
|CANTV International, LTD.                      |  | Grand Cayman           |  | 
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We have issued our report dated March 11, 2005, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements in Annual Report of DCB Financial Corp (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003. We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
DCB Financial Corp on Form S-3, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Commission) on March 30, 1999, the Company's Form S-8, filed
with the Commission on November 17, 1999, the Company's Form S-8, filed with the
Commission on May 9, 2002, and the Company's Form S-8, filed with the Commission
on June 18, 2004.

/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP


Cincinnati, Ohio
March 11, 2005


                                       49
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6866

KENNETH ROSHAUN REID, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

WARDEN, UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY LEWISBURG, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior 

District Judge. (0:15-cv-01354-CMC) 

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Kenneth Roshaun Reid, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2012) or, in the alternative, for a writ of audita querela. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Reid v. Warden, No. 0:15-cv-01354-CMC (D.S.C. May 19, 

2015). 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
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

DAVID DEBENEDETTO, et al., )

)

 Plaintiffs, )

)

 v. )

)

Case No. 1:16-cv-02429-TSC

THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

 AND

THE IRANIAN MINISTRY

INFORMATION AND SECURITY

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Defendants. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently before the court is a motion for the entry of final judgment by Plaintiffs Melvin 

Rich, as representative of the Estate of Mabel Rich, and Dawn Webb, as representative of the 

Estate of Donald Webb. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiffs are estate representatives of deceased relatives 

of American servicemembers killed in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, 

Lebanon. Plaintiffs have sued the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iranian Ministry of Information 

and Security for their roles in the bombing under the state-sponsored terrorism exception in the 

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. 

This court previously entered extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law 

addressing Iran’s liability for Plaintiffs’ injuries—leaving only the quantum of damages 

unresolved. (See ECF No. 24.) The court-appointed Special Master subsequently filed reports 

reflecting his recommendations on Plaintiffs’ damages. (See ECF Nos. 29–35.) Plaintiff did not 

object to those findings. 
2

The court previously entered a partial final judgment, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 38.) In accordance with the Special Master’s

damages recommendations, the court held the claims brought on behalf of the Estates of Mabel 

Rich and Donald Webb in abeyance pending the issuance of letters of administration for each 

Estate. (ECF No. at 37 at 7–8.) Letters of administration have since been issued for the Estates 

of Mabel Rich and Donald Webb and filed with the court. (ECF No. 43, Exs. A, B.) 

At Plaintiffs’ request, the court delayed issuing final judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims 

pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 140 S. Ct. 1601 (2020). 

On May 20, 2020, Plaintiffs informed the court that the Opati decision confirms the availability 

of punitive damages to Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 45.) 

Based on the foregoing and in accordance with the court’s February 19, 2020 

Memorandum Opinion adopting the Special Master’s recommendations and finding that a ratio 

of 3.44 punitive damages to compensatory damages was appropriate,(ECF No. 37 at 7),

Plaintiffs’ motion for the entry of default judgment as to the Estates of Mabel Rich and Donald 

Webb will be GRANTED. Furthermore, Plaintiffs shall be awarded $5,600,000.00 in 

compensatory damages and $19,264,000 in punitive damages, for a total award of $24,864,000 

to be distributed as follows: 

Plaintiff Pain and 

Suffering

Solatium Economic Punitive

Estate of Donald 

Webb

-- $600,000.00 -- $2,064,000.00

Estate of Mabel 

Rich

-- $5,000,000.00 -- $17,200,000.00
3

The court will issue an order accordingly. 

Date: December 9, 2020

Tanya S. Chutkan 

TANYA S. CHUTKAN

United States District Judge
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James R. Grimes, Jr, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[769 NYS2d 439]

Appeal from a judgment of Onondaga County Court (Walsh, J.), entered October 23, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in *People v Grimes*(2 AD3d 1476 [2003]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Kehoe, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,776,733
<SECURITIES>                                    62,100
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,889,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                    29,527
<INVENTORY>                                  1,385,990
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,219,348
<PP&E>                                       6,413,277
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,995,313
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,512,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,636,686
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,885,495
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,865,745)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,512,947
<SALES>                                      4,621,388
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,621,388
<CGS>                                        2,307,536
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,356,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                470,506
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            264,445
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                206,061
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   429,606
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                    
|View History:                                                     
|                                                                  
|U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Turkiye (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  
|                                                                  
|U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Turkiye (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         | 0      | 3,145  | 8,762  | 24,855 | 23,205 | 30,611
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 123,957 | 188,849 | 192,067 | 156,403 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Conquest Cleaning Corp., Appellant, v New York City School Construction Authority, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 292]

*566In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beldock, J.H.O.), dated September 10, 2002, as, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against it dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The determination of the trial court should not be disturbed *(see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl.,*80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]; *Loughran v Town of Eastchester,*299 AD2d 329 [2002]; *Matter of Hartford Ins. Co. v Khan,*279 AD2d 524, 525 [2001]; *Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Marshall,*275 AD2d 417, 418 [2000]). The defendant acted properly in terminating the parties’ contract, which provided that time was of the essence, since the plaintiff failed to substantially perform its obligations by the completion date set forth in the contract *(see Steven Strong Dev. Corp. v Washington Med. Assoc.,*303 AD2d 878 [2003]; *Windjammer Homes v Lieberman,*278 AD2d 411 [2000]; *New Day Bldrs. v SJC Realty,*219 AD2d 623 [1995]; *Bilotto v Webber,*172 AD2d 639 [1991]; *Wilson Roofing & Painting v Jobco-E.R. Kelly Assoc.,*128 AD2d 953 [1987]; *Sear-Brown Assoc. v Blackwatch Dev. Corp.,*112 AD2d 765 [1985]). Furthermore, the defendant did not waive the right to terminate the contract by waiting several days after the completion date before terminating, during which time the plaintiff was simply recleaning areas of asbestos that were previously inadequately cleaned *(see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co.,*70 NY2d 966 [1988]; *Bilotto v Webber, supra).*

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.
2800 S. Andrews Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: 954.320.5367 Fax: 305.423.3246 Email: jcanny@amerijet.com

Submitted electronically via regulations.gov June 22, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations, M-30

West Building ground floor

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington D.C. 20590

Re: Amerijet International, Inc.- Exemption No. 9469D (FAA-2005-22192) 

Dear Sir or Madam:

The purpose of this letter is to request an extension of Exemption No. 9469D (FAA-2005-22192), which 

was last granted to Amerijet International, Inc. ("Amerijet'') on July 11, 2013.

Amerijet filed its initial Petition for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(l)(ii) of Title 14 on August 18, 2005,

to allow Amerijet to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to 

observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties during at 

least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing initial or upgrade training as 

specified in§ 121.434. Amerijet's Petition was not opposed by any party and was approved by the FAA 

on September 15, 2005. Subsequent two-year extensions were approved on September 10, 2007, 

September 2, 2009, June 20, 2011, and July 11, 2013. The current extension terminates September 30, 

2015.

Amerijet has continued to use the exemption and has been able to realize the substantial benefits it 

anticipated when it first filed its petition in 2005. Moreover, use of the exemption has not resulted in any 

adverse consequences. In short, all of the public interest justifications Amerijet advanced in support of its 

Petition have been achieved, and it can reasonably be expected that each will continue to be achieved if 

the exemption is extended. In addition, the extension of the exception reasonably cannot be expected to 

diminish in any way the ability of the FAA to maintain the same level of safety oversight regarding 

Amerijet that it observes right now and under the rule from which the exemption has been granted.

Accordingly, Amerijet contends that it would be in the public interest, would not adversely affect safety 

but would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which Amerijet seeks 

the exemption, for the FAA to extend the exemption for another two years, subject to the same conditions 

previously imposed.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Joan M. Canny_________

Joan M. Canny

Senior Vice President and General Counsel

Amerijet International, Inc.

cc: Mr. John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION





I,  Gregory B. Lipsker, Chief Executive Officer of Metaline Mining and Leasing Company, certify that:



1.

This quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Metaline Mining and Leasing Company 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Metaline Mining and Leasing Company



Date: May 14, 2003

/s/ Gregory B. Lipsker

________________________________

Gregory B. Lipsker, Chief Executive

Officer
No. 12-7749.

#### Greenwell *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Milastar Corporation (the "Company")

on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities

and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Russell

Duncan, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and results of

operations of the Company.

/s/ J. Russell Duncan

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

J. Russell Duncan

Chief Executive Officer

December 12, 2002
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 30, 2014

p1215 

# Order

Clerk December 30, 2014

147013

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147013

COA: 312441

Kent CC: 93

- 064278

- FC

GREGORY WINES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

By order of January 31, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the January 25,

2013 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People

v Carp (Docket No. 146478), People v Davis (Docket No. 146819), and People v Eliason

( Docket No. 147428). On order of the Court, the cases having been decided on July 8,

2014, 496 Mich 440 (2014), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED,

because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this

Cour t.
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted in Ohio (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Total Liquids Extracted in Ohio (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 1,201  | 248    | 2,077  | 2,591  | 2,247  | 1,674  | 1,136 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,123  | 994    | 908    |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0180. HAROLD R. LILLY v. CITY OF CARROLLTON, GEORGIA.

Harold Lilly sued the City of Carrollton for damages. On February 12, 2015,

the trial court entered an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Lilly filed

several pro-se motions, which the trial court denied. Lilly filed an application for

discretionary appeal seeking review of the trial court’s orders. We dismissed the

application for lack of jurisdiction because Lilly had no right of direct appeal. See

Case No. A15D0364, dismissed May 7, 2015. 

On June 8, 2015, Lilly filed a motion to set aside the judgment. The City of

Carrollton responded to Lilly’s motion and sought attorney fees pursuant to OCGA

§ 9-15-14. Lilly filed another pro se motion that purported to challenge allegations

raised in the motion for fees. On July 22, 2015, the trial court entered orders denying

Lilly’s motion to set aside, granting attorney fees to the City of Carrollton, and

dismissing Lilly’s pro se motion. Lilly filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial

court’s orders. The City of Carrollton has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction.

An appeal from the denial of a motion to set aside under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d)

must be taken by application for discretionary appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8); see

MMT Enterprises, Inc. v. Cullars, 218 Ga. App. 559, 561 (462 SE2d 771) (1995).

Similarly, an appeal from an order awarding attorney fees and litigation expenses

under OCGA § 9-15-14 must be made by discretionary application rather than direct

appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (10). Finally, as the trial court did not set aside the

dismissal order, Lilly has no right to the relief requested in his most recently filed

motion.

November 23, 2015
Under these circumstances, Lilly’s failure to comply with the discretionary

review procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, the City

of Carrollton’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and this appeal is

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/23/2015