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



EXHIBIT 21.1



FIRST CASH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
SUBSIDIARIES



| |                                               |  |                  |  | Percentage   
| | --------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------- |  | -------------
| |                                               |  | Country/State of |  | Owned        
| | Subsidiary Name                               |  | Incorporation    |  | By Registrant
| |                                               |  |                  |  |              
| | Famous Pawn, Inc.                             |  | Maryland         |  | 100%         
| | CashPlus CSO, Inc.                            |  | Maryland         |  | 100%         
| | Cash & Go, Inc.                               |  | California       |  | 100%         
| | One Iron Ventures, Inc.                       |  | Illinois         |  | 100%         
| | First Cash, S.A. de C.V.                      |  | Mexico           |  | 100%         
| | American Loan Employee Services, S.A. de C.V. |  | Mexico           |  | 100%         
| | Ya Servicios, S.A. de C.V.                    |  | Mexico           |  | 100%         
| | First Cash, Ltd.                              |  | Texas            |  | 100%         
| | First Cash Corp.                              |  | Delaware         |  | 100%         
| | First Cash Management, LLC                    |  | Delaware         |  | 100%         
| | First Cash, Inc.                              |  | Nevada           |  | 100%         
| | Cash & Go, Ltd.                               |  | Texas            |  | 49.5%        
| | Cash & Go Management, LLC                     |  | Texas            |  | 50%          
| | First Cash Credit, Ltd.                       |  | Texas            |  | 100%         
| | First Cash Credit Management, LLC             |  | Texas            |  | 100%         
| | FCFS MO, Inc.                                 |  | Missouri         |  | 100%         
| | FCFS OK, Inc.                                 |  | Oklahoma         |  | 100%         
| | FCFS SC, Inc.                                 |  | South Carolina   |  | 100%         
| | FCFS MI, Inc.                                 |  | Michigan         |  | 100%         
| | Guaranteed Auto Finance, Inc.                 |  | Arkansas         |  | 100%         
| | SHAC, Inc.                                    |  | Arkansas         |  | 100%         
| | SHAC Joint Venture                            |  | Texas            |  | 100%         
| |                                               |  |                  |  |
# EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TierOne Corporation (Company), hereby
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:

| | (1) | The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
               June 30, 2006 (Report) fully complies with the requirements of
               Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a)                or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

|Date:  August 1, 2006 | By:/s/ Gilbert G. Lundstrom                
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------
|                      | Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of the Board
|                      | and Chief Executive Officer
fs12010ex10vii_chinabct.htm


    Exhibit
10.17

    


    


    Confirmation
Agreement

    


    Party A:
Guangxi Liuzhou Baicaotang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

    Party B:
Jiang Youru

    Party C:
Guangxi Liuzhou Baicaotang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Guigang Branch

    


    In
consideration of:

    Party B
signed the "Personal loan / Guarantee contract"(2007,No.005) with Industrial and
Commercial Bank of China Co., Ltd. Liuzhou Branch ,Longcheng Sub-Branch
(hereinafter referred to as ICBC Longcheng sub-branch) on February 12th
2007. The loan agreement  amount of RMB1,800,000 yuan ,term of the
agreement for 96 months, and the repayment of the loan  principal and
interest on a monthly basis equal to repay the loan principal and interest way.
Party C to provide a property as collateral.

    


    The
above-mentioned loan of party B actually for the Party A using.

    To
crystallize A ,B, C parties’ rights and obligations of the above-mentioned loan,
after negotiating, the parties hereby agree as follows:

    


    Article
1

    Party A
actual use of all of the above-mentioned loans.

    Party A
confirmed that the above-mentioned loan which B borrowed the entire amount from
the ICBC Longcheng sub-branch are the actual use of Party A. Party B transfer
the total amount of the loan to party A’s use as a Travel section (no interest
no mortgage ) before December 31st, and
list on Party A’s account of the “own travel section of Party B” From January
1st
2009,Party A still continue to use all of the above-mentioned
loans.

    


    Article2
Party A is responsible for repayment of all the above-mentioned
loans

    


    From
January 1st
2009, the two sides agree that Party A should bear the responsibility and the
above loan account in full recognition in the Party A’s account as "bank loans",
Party A, as the actual use of all of these loans, unconditionally undertake the
obligation to repay all the loan principal and interest of Party B, until full
satisfaction of principal and interest, and to bear the full cost may arise
(Bonds due to the costs incurred by the creditor claims).

    


    Article3  Party
C continue to bear the responsibility of collateral.

    


    To ensure
that the "agreement" the successful fulfillment of Party C collateral duty not
due to the above A and B sides of the relevant facts change confirmation, Party
C continue to bear the collateral liability for the above loans.

    The above
facts are the confirm of A ,B, C pairs’ relevant facts.

    This
agreement is to be written up in three original copies with the Party A, B, C
shall each hold one original copy, entry into force after the seal
of  Party A, C and Party B sign the agreement.

     

    Party A
: Guangxi Liuzhou Baicaotang Pharmaceutical Co.,Ltd.

    Party B :
legal
representative : Jiang Youru

    Party C:
Guangxi Liuzhou Baicaotang Pharmaceutical Co.Ltd. Guigang Branch

    Date :
12/31/2008
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

March 7, 2017

t0227 

# Order

Clerk March 7, 2017

153691 (54)

KELLI SHINN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153691

COA: 324227

Wayne CC: 13

- 008123

- NF

STATE OF MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF

STATE ASSIGNED CLAIMS FACILITY,

Defendant,

and

AMERICAN COUNTRY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

______________________________________/

On o rder of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November

23, 2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order

was entered erroneously.
Jasmine CLERKLEY, Employee/Appellant, v. S. THOMAS SEHY D.P.M., LLC, Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent/Respondent.

No. ED 106434

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: August 14, 2018

Meghan M. Forck, P.O. Box 59, Jefferson City, MO 65104.

Bruce Farmer, Co-counsel, 33175 W. Truman Blvd., P.O. Box 599, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0599.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Jasmine Clerkley appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (Commission) decision denying her unemployment benefits. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the Commission's decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 31, 2019

No. 04-19-00797-CV

EWING CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,

Appellant

v.

BENAVIDES INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-18-122

The Honorable Baldemar Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

appellee’s brief is due on or before January 31, 2020.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of December, 2019.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
STATE of North Carolina v. Terrence Andrew THOMAS

No. COA18-959

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 26, 2019

NO PLAIN ERROR.
Summary of Executive Compensation


 

 Exhibit 10.28
 

 Summary of Executive Compensation
 

 The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation
Committee”) of First Midwest Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”), after considering a market review of total compensation and applicable regulations limiting executive compensation for certain executive officers expected to be named in
the Company’s 2010 Proxy Statement, determined the 2010 base salary for such officers, which is presented in the table below.
 

 

 
	 Name and Principal Positions
 	 2010 Base Salary
 
	 Mr. Michael L. Scudder, President and Chief Executive Officer
  
 	 $1,008,884
 
	 Mr. Thomas J. Schwartz, Group President Commercial Banking
  
 	 682,987
 
	 Mr. Paul F. Clemens, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
  
 	 388,438
 
	 Mr. Victor P. Carapella, Executive Vice President and Commercial Banking Group Manager
  
 	 362,815
 
	 Ms. Janet M. Viano, Group President Retail Banking
  
 	 236,000
 

 
 

 Each of these officers is also eligible to receive certain benefits and to
participate in the Company’s employee benefit plans applicable to executive officers, including the Company’s Savings and Profit Sharing Plan, Pension Plan, Short-Term Incentive Compensation Plan, the Omnibus Stock and Incentive Plan,
and Nonqualified Retirement Plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of such plans.  These officers are also parties to Indemnification Agreements and Employment Agreements that, among other things, entitle them to payments upon
severance or upon a change in control.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We have issued our reports dated April 4, 2005, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Bay
View Capital Corporation and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
reports in the previously filed Registration Statements of Bay View Capital
Corporation and subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (33-30602, 33-30603, 33-36161,
33-41924, 33-95724, 33-95726, 333-37027, 333-37029, 333-37031, 333-92637,
333-70372 and 333-70362) and on Forms S-3 (333-29757 and 333-64877).



/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
----------------------



San Francisco, CA

April 4, 2005
Agreement to furnish instruments & agreements defining rights of long-term debt



 Exhibit 4.1 
 March 3, 2010 
 Securities and Exchange Commission 
 100 F Street, N.E. 
 Washington, D.C. 20549 
  

	 	Re:	 First Defiance Financial Corp. – Annual Report on Form 10-K 


 for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2009 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Today, First Defiance Financial Corp., an
Ohio corporation (“First Defiance”), is filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-K”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). 
 Pursuant to the instructions relating to the Exhibits in Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, First Defiance hereby
agrees to furnish the SEC, upon request, copies of instruments and agreements, defining the rights of holders of First Defiance’s long-term debt and of the long-term debt of its consolidated subsidiaries, which are not being filed as exhibits
to the Form 10-K. The total amount of securities issued under any instrument of such long-term debt does not exceed 10% of the total assets of First Defiance and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. 
  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 FIRST DEFIANCE FINANCIAL CORP.

	
	 /s/ Donald P. Hileman

	 Donald P. Hileman

	 Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2
 
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: May 16, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Martin SchneiderMartin SchneiderVice President and Principal Financial Officer E-3
Exhibit 23.1


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED ACCOUNTING FIRM


 We consent to the incorporation by  reference in Registration Statement  No.
 333-71077 on Form S-3, Registration Statement  No. 333-106878  on Form  S-3,
 Registration Statement No. 333-73391 on Form S-8, and Registration Statement
 No.  333-106880  on  Form S-8  of  First  Cash  Financial Services, Inc.  of
 our  report  dated  March 8, 2004 (October 8, 2004  as  to the effect of the
 restatement described  in  Note 17)  (which report expresses an  unqualified
 opinion  and  includes  explanatory paragraphs  relating  to  the  Company's
 adoption of Financial Accounting  Standards Board Interpretation  No.  46(R)
 Consolidation of  Variable  Interest  Entities, effective December 31, 2003,
 the Company's  adoption of  Statement of  Financial Accounting Standards No.
 142, Goodwill  and Other  Intangible Assets,  effective January 1, 2002, and
 the restatement of the statements of cash flows for the years ended December
 31, 2003,  2002  and  2001  described in Note 17)  appearing  in this Annual
 Report  on Form 10-K/A  of First Cash Financial Services, Inc. for  the year
 ended December 31, 2003.



 DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 Fort Worth, Texas
 October 8, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0019

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SACRAMENTO JUAN DOMINGUEZ JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 12, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 4 2023

12/04/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0019
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Brandon M. ROBERTS, Appellant.

WD 79896

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: June 26, 2018

Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia for appellant.

Christine K. Lesicko, Jefferson City for respondent.

Before Division Two: Karen King Mitchell, P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM:

After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Appellant Brandon Roberts was convicted of domestic assault in the first degree, in violation of § 565.073, RSMo, and victim tampering, in violation of § 575.270, RSMo. Roberts was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to five years for the domestic assault conviction and two years for victim tampering, with the sentences ordered to run consecutively. Roberts appeals. He argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting recordings of two jail house phone calls between him and the victim, because the probative value of the recordings was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 30.25(b).
#### Robert Jennings et al., Respondents, v Oceanside Union Free School District, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 271]

In *508an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ort, J.), dated March 9, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

A school is not an insurer of the safety of its students *(see, Mirand v City of New York, 84*NY2d 44, 49; *Farrukh v Board of Educ.,*227 AD2d 440). Rather, a school is obligated to exercise such care over students in its charge that a parent of ordinary prudence would exercise under comparable circumstances *(see, Mirand v City of New York, supra; Ohman v Board of Educ.,*300 NY 306; *Ceglia v Portledge School,*187 AD2d 550). Under this standard of care, a school will be held liable only for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision *(see, Mirand v City of New York, supra; Pratt v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs.,*251 AD2d 949; *Foster v New Berlin Cent. School Dist.,*246 AD2d 880; *Gattyan v Scarsdale Union Free School Dist. No. 1,*152 AD2d 650).

The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a *matter of*law by establishing that the infant plaintiffs injuries resulted from a sudden and unforeseeable act *(see, Ascher v Scarsdale School Dist.,*267 AD2d 339; *Malik v Greater Johnstown Enlarged School Dist.,*248 AD2d 774; *Walsh v City School Dist.,*237 AD2d 811; *Tomlinson v Board of Educ.,*183 AD2d 1023; *Hauser v North Rockland Cent. School Dist. No. 1,*166 AD2d 553), and not from any negligence attributable to the defendant. In opposition, the plaintiffs’ conclusory and speculative submissions failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issue of fact. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion should have been granted. S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20346

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUBEN GARZA PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-494-3

Before KING, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ruben Garza Perez 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).

Garza Perez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to 

allow us to make a fair evaluation of Garza Perez’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without 

 

* 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20346 Document: 00515006393 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2019
No. 18-20346

2

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 

(5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Garza Perez’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the 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: 18-20346 Document: 00515006393 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2019
(January 22, 2001)

#### Aetna Electrical Distributing Co., Appellant, v Homestead Electric, Ltd., Defendant, and Robert F. Lutz, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 668]

In an action to recover damages for goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), dated September 15, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Robert F. Lutz for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff contends that the corporate veil of Homestead Electric, Ltd., should be pierced and that its sole shareholder, Robert F. Lutz, should be held liable for its debts. However, to pierce the corporate veil, the plaintiff must show that the owner exercised complete domination of the corporation with respect to the transaction attacked, and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in the plaintiff’s injury *(see, Matter of Morris v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.,*82 NY2d 135; *Hyland Meat Co. v Tsagarakis,*202 AD2d 552).

Here, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence showing that Lutz used his alleged domination of Homestead Electric, Ltd., to commit a fraud or wrong against it. Thus, Lutz was *542entitled to summary judgment *(see, TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp.,*92 NY2d 335; *Hyland Meat Co. v Tsagarakis, supra).*O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.