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
              ---------------              -------------      -------------
       American Loan and Jewelry, Inc.         Texas               100%
       WR Financial, Inc.                      Texas               100%
       Famous Pawn, Inc.                       Maryland            100%
       JB Pawn, Inc.                           Texas               100%
       Cash & Go, Inc.                         California          100%
       Capital Pawnbrokers, Inc.               Maryland            100%
       Silver Hill Pawn, Inc.                  Maryland            100%
       Elegant Floors, Inc.                    Maryland            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%
       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%
Exhibit 31.1


                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kevin Halter Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc.

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4. I am responsible for  establishing  and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
procedures  (as  defined  in  Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14)  for the
registrant and have:

         a.  Designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c.  Presented  in  this  quarterly  report  my  conclusions  about  the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date.

5. I have disclosed,  based on my most recent  evaluation,  to the  registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's  board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

         a. All significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls  that  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b. Any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls.

6. I have  indicated in this  quarterly  report  whether there were  significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal  controls  subsequent  to the  date  of  our  most  recent  evaluation,
including any  corrective  actions with regard to significant  deficiencies  and
material weaknesses.


Date:  October 4, 2006               /s/ Kevin Halter, Jr.
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Kevin Halter, Jr., President,
                                    Treasurer and Director (Principal
                                    Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)
J

- A34032

- 14

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellant

v.

STEPHANIE J. SALTER

Appellee : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 653 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered March 17, 2014, In the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Criminal Division, at No. CP

- 67

- CR

- 0008129

- 2013.

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and STABILE, J.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY SHOGAN, J.:

I respectfully disagree that the police officer had probable cause to

conduct the traffic stop due to his di stance of seventy

- five feet from

Appellee’s vehicle at the time he became suspicious that her license plate

lamps were not functioning. The traffic regulation in question requires only

that the lights “make the registration plate visible from distance of 50 feet to

the rear of the vehicle.” 67 Pa. Code § 175.66(k). However, because I

conclude that the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that the license

plate lamps were not functioning properly, the traffic stop was proper, and

because I conclude that the officer had probable cause to arrest Appellee for

DUI, I concur in the result reached by the Majority.
No. DA 20-0083

In the Supreme Court of the State of Montana

GREENFIELDS IRRIGATION DISTRICT, et al., 

Defendants-Appellants,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA, DNRC, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees.

On Appeal from the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County

The Honorable Michael F. McMahon, Presiding

Order Granting Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time

Pursuant to Mont. R. App. P. 26(2), Appellants have moved this Court 

for a 75-day extension of time. Having reviewed the motion and the declaration 

attached thereto, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court determines that Appellants 

have shown that diligence and substantial need warrant the requested extension 

and GRANTS Appellants’ motion. Appellants are granted a 75-day extension 

of time up to and including August 7, 2020, to file their opening brief.

Dated this ______ day of May, 2020.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 8 2020

05/08/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0083
State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

Office ofAir Resources Notice of Public Hearing and Comment Period Concerning the adoption of the proposed "Rhode Island Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision" Notice is hereby given that a public hearing regarding adoption ofthe proposed "Rhode Island Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision." will be held in Room300ofthe Department of Environmental Management, at 235 Promenade Street, Providence, RI on Thursday, July 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM, at which time interested parties will be heard. States that contribute to visibility impairment in one or more Federal Class I Areas (national parks and wilderness areas) are required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prepare plans consistent with the national goal of restoring visibility in those areas to natural conditions. Although Rhode Island does not have any Class I Areas, the EPAhas determined that emissions fromsources in the State contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas in nearby states. This SIPRevision addresses the EPA requirements. As required by the EPArule (40 CFR 51 .300-309), the proposed SIPrevision includes a long-term strategywith emissions control measures that constitute Rhode Island's share ofthe emission reductions needed to meet visibility goals in the region. The measures included in Rhode Island's strategy include participation in a regional low-sulfur fuel oil program . Copies ofthe proposed plans are available fromthe Office ofAir Resources, 235 Promenade Street, Providence, RI, between 8:30 amand 4:00 PM and fromthe Air Resources section ofthe Department's web site at http ://www

.dem .ri .gov/. For more information contact Barbara Morin at (401) 222-2808, ext . 7012, TCDD(401) 222-6800 . Written comments may be sent to the Office ofAir Resources at the above address or emailed to Barbara Morin at barbara.morin cudem .ri .9ov until 4:00 PM

on Thursday, July 30, 2009, at which time the comment period will end, unless extended by the hearing officer. It is requested that persons who wish to make comments during the public hearing submit a copy oftheir statement for the record. Members of the Office ofAir Resources may question commenters concerning their remarks. The Department of Environmental Management building is accessible to those with disabilities. Persons with disabilities requiring accommodation should contact the Office ofAir Resources at (401) 222-6800, or (401) 222-2808 at least three business days prior to the hearing. Signed this 24"' day ofJune 2009 % 

# ; Dou as McVay, Ac~fing Chief Office of Air Resources
EXHIBIT 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION
         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Norton Industries Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Jianjun Zhang, President 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, to my knowledge, 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.


Date: July 22, 2004

/s/ Jianjun Zhang
---------------------------------------------
Jianjun Zhang, President
(principal executive officer and principal
 accounting officer)
Order entered September 25 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 19 - 00560 - CR JOSE DAVID GUTIERREZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the C ri m i na l District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16 - 23201 - H

O RDER On September 22, 2020 , a ppellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief. Two days later, he tendered his brief and a n affidavi t execut ed September 2 2, 2020

. The affi davit, executed by appellant ’s wife , states that she was present and prepared to testify at trial but was not c alled as a witness

. The affidavit then details what her testimony would have been if she had been called to testify. An appella te court may not consider factual assertions that are outside the record, and a party cannot circumvent this prohibition by submitting an affidavitfor the first time on appeal. Whitehead v

. State , 130 S.W.3d 866, 87 2 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2004) ; Moore v. State , 999 S.W.2d 385, 398 ( Tex. Crim. App. 199 9 ) ; Janecka v . State , 937 S.W.2d 456, 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)

. A n appellate
court ’ s review of the record itself is generally limited to the evidence before the trial court at the time of the trial court ’ s rulin g. Dragoo v. State , 96 S.W.3d 308, 313 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2003 )

. The affi davit appellant filed with this Cour t w as not e vidence at trial , nor was it part of the reporter ’ s or clerk’s record in this case. Because it is n ot properly before the Court , we STRIK E the affidavit

. W e GRANT appellant ’ s motion and O RDER the brief received by the C o urt on September 24, 2020 filed as of the date of this order. The S t ate ’ s brief is DUE on October 26, 2020.

/ s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5434 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 40 South Walnut Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Larry Cox Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

HR 5434 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. LARRY COX POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 40 South Walnut Street in Chil4 licothe, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Larry 

5 Cox Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Larry Cox Post Of10 fice’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 12, 

2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Granite Broadcasting Corporation (theCompany) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), we, W.Don Cornwell and Lawrence I. Wills, Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of our knowledge:

 

(i)                  the Form 10-Kfully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of section13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)               the information contained in the Form 10-Kfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  March 31, 2006 |                                                                              |   |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |                                                                              |   |
|                   | /s/          W.  DON CORNWELL   |   |
|                   | W. Don Cornwell                                                                   |   |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer                                                           |   |
|                   |                                                                              |   |
|                   |                                                                              |   |
|                   | /s/          LAWRENCE  I. WILLS |   |
|                   | Lawrence I. Wills                                                                 |   |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer                                                           |   |

 

----
#### Marcia Sanchez et al., Respondents, v Delgado Travel Agency, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[719 NYS2d 887]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated April 12, 2000, which denied their 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.

The injured plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she slipped and fell on a moist floor in offices leased by the defendant Delgado Travel Agency, Inc. (hereinafter Delgado), from the defendant Grancolombia Realty, Inc. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, *inter alia,*that they did not have either actual or constructive notice of the condition that caused the injured plaintiff to fall. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony raised a triable issue of fact. We reverse.

It is well settled that “[t]o prove a prima facie case of negligence in a slip and fall case, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant created the condition that caused the accident or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition” *(Bradish v Tank Tech Corp.,*216 AD2d 505, 506; *see also, Gaeta v City of New York,*213 AD2d 509; *Pirillo v Longwood Assocs.,*179 AD2d 744). The defendants made a prima facie showing of the absence of notice as a matter of law *(see, Dwoskin v Burger King Corp.,*249 AD2d 358). The burden *624thus shifted to the plaintiffs to come forward with sufficient evidence to show the existence of a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiffs failed to do so. Their opposition was based solely upon the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she had observed a man holding a mop in a bucket near the spot where she fell. However, she admitted that she did not see him mopping anywhere. This was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact either as to the defendants’ creation of the condition, or that they had notice thereof *(see, Cellini v Waldbaum Inc.,*262 AD2d 345; *Spagnola v Trump Taj Majal,*261 AD2d 604; *see generally, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836). Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 1426

KIRIL ZAHARIEV , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 9:20

- cv - 01072

- RMG )

Submitted : January 21, 2022 Decided: January 27, 2022

Before MOTZ and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.
Kiril Zahariev , Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth J. Bondurant , Atlanta, Georgia , Lewis Gregory Cook Horton , WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP , Charleston, Sout h Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kiril Zahariev appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying Zahariev’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reopen. Zahariev
argues on appeal that the district court failed to address his specific objection s to th e portion of the magistrate judge’s report finding that Zahariev was not entitled to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). For the fo llowing reasons, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. The Federal Magistrates Act allows the district court to refer certain matters to a magistrate judge who may then submit proposed findings of fact and recommend a resolution to the district c ourt. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). “ If any party objects to the magistrate judge ’ s recommendations, the district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” United States v. De Leon

- Ramirez , 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not address Zahariev’s claim that he was entitled to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) because of discovery fraud by the Defendant . We conclude that the district court was obligated to revie w the magistrate judge’s report de novo on this issue because Zahariev timely filed specific objections to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings regarding this claim. Accordingly,

we vacate the district court’s order and remand so that the district cou rt may consider Zahariev’s objections

. See id. (“[W]e generally [do not] reach factual or legal questions in3 a magistrate judge’s report that were not first subject to de novo review by the district court.”). Zahariev’s motion to expedite is denied. We d ispense 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5539 Received in Senate (RDS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5539

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 13, 2006

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``North American Wetlands Conservation 
Reauthorization Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 7(c) of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 
U.S.C. 4406(c)) is amended by striking ``fiscal year 2007'' and 
inserting ``each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 12, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```