alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017063EN.01003001.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/30

---

Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty (NAILS FACTORY)

(Case T-886/16)

(2017/C 063/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nf Nails In Vogue, SL (Arganda del Rey, Spain) (represented by: L. Jáudenes Sánchez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nails & Beauty Vertriebs GmbH (Kiel, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘NAILS FACTORY’ — Application for registration No 13 528 336

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 202/2016-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible;

| — | annul the contested decision and uphold the Opposition Division’s decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and uphold the Opposition Division’s decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Doc WARREN

NO. 2018-KH-0426

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

Denied. Moot.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

BENNY GENARO TREJO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0644 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-150337-001

The Honorable Mark H. Brain, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Adena J. Astrowsky

Counsel for Respondent

Benny Genaro Trejo, Eloy

Petitioner

FILED 10-12-2017
STATE v. TREJO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James P. Beene, Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kent 

E. Cattani delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Benny Genaro Trejo seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is Petitioner’s first 

petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction 

relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). 

It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its 

discretion by denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. 

Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has 

burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the 

petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse 

of discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
EX PARTE Robert Marcus RUSSELL

CR-16-0616

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE PAGE 1

Jason M. Rudd, Texas State Bar No. 24028786 

jason.rudd@wickphillips.com 

Scott D. Lawrence, Texas State Bar No. 24087896 

scott.lawrence@wickphillips.com 

Catherine A. Curtis, Texas State Bar No. 24095708 

catherine.curtis@wickphillips.com 

Mallory A. Davis, Texas State Bar No. 24133121 

mallory.davis@wickphillips.com 

Paul T. Elkins, Texas State Bar No. 24092383 

paul.elkins@wickphillips.com 

WICK PHILLIPS GOULD MARTIN, LLP 

3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 500 

Dallas, Texas 75204 

(214) 692-6200 (office) 

(214) 692-6255 (facsimile) 

COUNSEL FOR JAMES FRINZI; FRINZI FAMILY TRUST; 

MULTIBAND GLOBAL RESOURCES, LLC 

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

In re: 

GOODMAN NETWORKS, INC.

 Debtor. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 

 Case No. 22-31641-mv-7 

 (Chapter 7) 

SCOTT M. SIEDEL, TRUSTEE; GNET 

ATC, LLC; MULTIBAND FIELD 

SERVICES, INC. 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

JAMES FRINZI; FRINZI FAMILY 

TRUST; MULTIBAND GLOBAL 

RESOURCES, LLC 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 ADVERSARY PROCEEDING 

 NO: 23-03036-mvl 

NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a status conference on Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw the 

Reference [ECF No. 32] will be held on January 16, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. CT, 14th Floor, Courtroom 

#2, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75242. 

Case 23-03036-mvl Doc 34 Filed 12/05/23 Entered 12/05/23 16:55:27 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE PAGE 2

Dated: December 5, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Jason M. Rudd 

Jason M. Rudd, Texas State Bar No. 24028786 

jason.rudd@wickphillips.com

Scott D. Lawrence, Texas State Bar No. 24087896 

scott.lawrence@wickphillips.com

Catherine A. Curtis, Texas State Bar No. 24095708 

catherine.curtis@wickphillips.com

Mallory A. Davis, Texas State Bar No. 24133121 

mallory.davis@wickphillips.com

Paul T. Elkins, Texas State Bar No. 24092383 

paul.elkins@wickphillips.com 

WICK PHILLIPS GOULD MARTIN, LLP 

3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 500 

Dallas, Texas 75204 

(214) 692-6200 (office) 

(214) 692-6255 (facsimile) 

ATTORNEYS FOR JAMES FRINZI; FRINZI 

FAMILY TRUST; and MULTIBAND GLOBAL 

RESOURCES, LLC 

 

Case 23-03036-mvl Doc 34 Filed 12/05/23 Entered 12/05/23 16:55:27 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE PAGE 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on December 5, 2023, I caused a true and correct copy of this document 

to be served on counsel of record for all parties in this Adversary Proceeding via the method(s) 

indicated below: 

Davor Rukavina 

Thomas D. Berghman 

MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C. 

500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3800 

Dallas, TX 75201 

drukavina@munsch.com 

jvasek@munsch.com 

Counsel for the Scott Seidel, Chapter 7 

Trustee 

 Hand Delivery 

 Regular Mail 

 Facsimile 

 X E-mail 

 X CM/ECF 

/s/ Jason M. Rudd 

Jason M. Rudd 

Case 23-03036-mvl Doc 34 Filed 12/05/23 Entered 12/05/23 16:55:27 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
Alejandro BAEZ-GARCIA, DOC #H41234, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1355

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JASON DAYE SLAWSON,

Petitioner,

VS.

CHUCK KEATON, ET AL.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:05-CV-0625-G

)

)

)

ORDER

After reviewing the objections to the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation (“Findings”) of the United States Magistrate Judge and conducting

a de novo review of those parts of the Findings to which objections have been made, I

am of the opinion that the Findings of the magistrate judge are correct and they are

accepted as the Findings of the court, except for the following: (1) on page 2, line 13,

the word “federal” should be capitalized; and (2) on page 3, line 12, the word

“Questionw” should be replaced with “Questions.”

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00625-G Document 14 Filed 06/06/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 41
- 2 -

With the exceptions noted, the Findings of the Magistrate Judge are

ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the court.

SO ORDERED.

June 6, 2005.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00625-G Document 14 Filed 06/06/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 42
----

| (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the    Report. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | MAY      15, 2008 |                                            |
|--------|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   |              |                                            |
|   |              | /s/      MICHAEL GOLDBERG                       |
|   |              | MICHAEL      GOLDBERG                           |
|   |              | ACTING      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER             |
|   |              | (PRINCIPAL      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL |
|   |              |  FINANCIAL      AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER)    |
*The HONORABLE THOMAS M. REAVLEY, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. ___________ No. 95-1311

___________ Otto Jones, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * v. * * Dave Parkman, Sheriff; Unknown * Deputies of St. Francis County, * Appeal from the United States Arkansas; George Hutcherson, * District Court for the B. McCollum, Regan Hill, Issac * Eastern District of Arkansas. Whitaker, Phyllis Ellis, * William Wise, Hank Delaney, * [UNPUBLISHED] Paul Spears, Earl Gore, Arthur * Witherspoon, Cliff Wise, * Members of the St. Francis * County Quorum Court, * * Defendants - Appellants. *

___________ Submitted: January 12, 1996 Filed: February 23, 1996

___________ Before LOKEN, REAVLEY, * and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
Otto Jones brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that, when he and Sheriff Dave Parkman were rival candidates for Sheriff of St. Francis County in the November 1992 general election, Parkman and his deputies arrested Jones under a void Clay County warrant for the purpose of embarrassing Jones with the electorate. St. Francis County, by the members of its Quorum-2- Court, was joined as defendant for failing to train Parkman and for ratifying his unconstitutional conduct. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The district court denied that motion, commenting:
Parkman suggests that the 1992 arrest was at the urging of Darwin Stow, Sheriff of Clay County, Arkansas. The affidavit of Sheriff Stow furnished by plaintiff suggests otherwise, and specifically indicates that Parkman called him inquiring about obtaining a copy of the 1987 warrant for plaintiff's arrest. Plaintiff's affidavit also contradicts Parkman's in a number of respects. From all the affidavits presented, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that Parkman and the unknown deputies were reasonable in believing the 1992 arrest of plaintiff to be lawful.
On appeal, defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Sheriff Parkman and his deputies acted pursuant to a facially valid warrant in arresting Jones. However, "a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified-immunity defense, may not appeal a district court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a 'genuine' issue of fact for trial." Johnson v. Jones , 115 S. Ct. 2151, 2159 (1995). Nor do we have jurisdiction to consider, in an interlocutory appeal, defendants' assertion "that the Quorum Court members had absolutely nothing to do with" Jones's arrest and incarceration. See Swint v. Chambers County Comm'n , 115 S. Ct. 1203, 1211-12 (1995). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Kincade v. City of Blue Springs , 64 F.3d 389, 394-95 (8th Cir. 1995).

A true copy.

Attest:-3- CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case 3:00-cv-02122-D Document 1 Filed 09/28/00 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1
Case 3:00-cv-02122-D Document 1 Filed 09/28/00 Page 2 of 5 PageID 2
Case 3:00-cv-02122-D Document 1 Filed 09/28/00 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3
Case 3:00-cv-02122-D Document 1 Filed 09/28/00 Page 4 of 5 PageID 4
Case 3:00-cv-02122-D Document 1 Filed 09/28/00 Page 5 of 5 PageID 5
# C_2017357EN.01000401.xml

| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 8 August 2017 — Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank v D. Balandin and Others

(Case C-477/17)

(2017/C 357/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

Applicant:

Defendant: D. Balandin, I. Lukachenko, Holiday on Ice Services B.V.

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 1 of Regulation No 1231/2010 (1) be interpreted as meaning that third-country nationals, who live outside the European Union, but who work in various Member States on a temporary basis for an employer who is established in the Netherlands, may invoke (Title II of) Regulation No 883/2004 (2) and Regulation No 987/2009 (3)?

1

2

3

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality (OJ 2010 L 344, p. 1).

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

2

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).

3

---
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THE APPELLATE COURT PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE : : : : : : NO. 268 APPELLATE COURT RULES DOCKET

**ORDER PER CURIA** **M AN**  **D NOW**  , this 12 th day of April, 2017, the Honorable Patricia A. McCullough is hereby designated as Chair, and Robert M. Palumbos , Esquire, is designated as Vice Chair, of the Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee , commencing June 30, 2017.
Dwayne WIMBERLY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2465

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:05-cv-00050-B Document 5 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 35
STATE of Louisiana v. Patrick COBB

NO. 2018-KK-0057

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 2018

Not Considered, not timely filed. See La.S.Ct. Rule X, § 5 (a).
No. 07-13-00235-CR

Aaron Edward Bell From the 372nd District Court

 Appellant of Tarrant County

v. February 26, 2014

The State of Texas Opinion by Per Curiam

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

§

§

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated February 26, 2014, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those which

may have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
Angie Avery COLLINS v. James Thomas COLLINS

2160794

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-2012V

UNPUBLISHED

THOMAS JEFFREY MICKLES,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: November 6, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Nancy Routh Meyers, Turning Point Litigation, Greensboro, NC, for petitioner.

Jennifer Leigh Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On December 31, 2019, Thomas Jeffrey Mickles filed a petition for compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”) 

caused by the influenza vaccine he received on October 16, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 20. 

The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 23, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at

1, ECF No. 24. Specifically, Respondent states “[i]t is [his] position that [P]etitioner has 

satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications 

and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”).” Id. at 4. 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs January 10, 2001

PAUL FREEMAN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Madison County

No. 00-005 Roger A. Page, Judge

No. W2000-00943-CCA-R3-PC - Filed February 21, 2001

JOE G. RILEY, J., dissenting. 

As noted in the majority opinion, the appellant does not contend the City Court did not advise

him of his constitutional rights. The sole issue in this case is whether the appellant was impaired to

the degree that he did not voluntarily enter his guilty plea. 

The trial judge heard testimony from two witnesses concerning the procedure followed by

the City Court judge prior to accepting guilty pleas. The trial judge heard testimony from an officer

who was present at the time of the guilty plea, and he testified there was no indication that the

defendant was under the influence of an intoxicant at the time of the plea. The trial judge also was

able to observe the demeanor and determine the credibility of the defendant who also testified. 

The trial judge entered a three-page order detailing his findings. The trial judge specifically

noted that it considered “the credibility of the witnesses in open court.” I take that to mean he was

not impressed with the credibility of the defendant. The trial judge specifically found that the

“petitioner was not impaired at the time of his guilty plea” and concluded as a matter of law that the

“decision to plead guilty was freely, voluntarily and intelligently made.” (Emphasis added). 

Since questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight and value to be given

their testimony are resolved by the trial court, not this court, I am unable to conclude that the

evidence preponderates against the findings of the trial court. See State v. Burns, 6 S.W.3d 453, 461

(Tenn. 1999). For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. 

___________________________________ 

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge

1

for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2957

___________

Dara Gen Neal, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 * Appeal from the United States

City of Springfield, a * District Court for the

Corporation, broken down as to * Western District of Missouri.

departments and/or offices *

involved: Health Department, * [UNPUBLISHED]

City Prosecutor’s Office, *

Springfield Police Department, *

Rabies Control, *

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: May 5, 1997

 Filed: May 8, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dara Gen Neal appeals from the district court's order dismissing her 1

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and pendent state law claims, which arose out of

an alleged dog-bite incident; she also appeals from the court's subsequent

order refusing to grant her relief from the judgment. Having reviewed the

record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the district court

correctly
-2-

denied relief, and that an extended discussion is not warranted.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of Registrant

The following subsidiaries are direct or indirect subsidiaries of the Company:


     Affinity Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     VBI Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Golf Card International Corp., a Delaware corporation
     Venture Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Camp Coast to Coast, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Golf Card Resort Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     TL Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Golf Card Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation
     GSS Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     National Association for Female Executives, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Woodall Publications Corporation, a Delaware corporation
     AGI Properties of Colorado, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Affinity Bank, a California corporation
     Affinity Insurance Group, Inc., a Colorado corporation
     Affinity Group Thrift Holding Corporation, a Delaware corporation
     Affinity Road and Travel Club, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Affinity Brokerage, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     ART Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation
     Camping Realty, Inc., a Kentucky corporation
     Camping World, Inc., a Kentucky corporation
     CWI, Inc., a Kentucky corporation
     CW Michigan, Inc., a Delaware corporation
     Ehlert Publishing Group, Inc., a Minnesota corporation.
     Exposition Group, Inc., a Minnesota corporation



                                       101