alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                          ChoicePoint Inc. Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<S>                                                           <C>
Name of Subsidiary                                            Jurisdiction of Organization

Applied BioConcepts Inc.                                      Kansas

BTi Inc.                                                      Georgia

BTi Employee Screening Services, Inc.                         Texas

ChoicePoint Asset Company                                     Delaware

ChoicePoint Business and Government Services Inc.             Georgia

ChoicePoint Capital Corporation                               Delaware

ChoicePoint Direct Inc.                                       Illinois

ChoicePoint Health Systems Inc.                               Kansas

ChoicePoint Licensing Company                                 Delaware

ChoicePoint Public Records Inc.                               Georgia

ChoicePoint Services Inc.                                     Georgia

DataMart Processing Company                                   Georgia

EquiSearch Services Inc.                                      Georgia

Intellisys, Inc.                                              Georgia

I.R.S.C., Inc.                                                California

KnowX LLC                                                     Georgia

National Credit Audit Corporation                             Illinois

National Safety Alliance, Incorporated                        Tennessee

Optimum Graphics Printing, Inc.                               Illinois

Osborn Group Inc.                                             Delaware

Osborn Laboratories (Canada) Inc.                             Canada

Patlex Corporation                                            Pennsylvania

PRC Corporation                                               Georgia

Statewide Data Services, Inc.                                 Florida

WinShapes, Inc.                                               Washington
</TABLE>
Timothy Ryan HAMMOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5019

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 22, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Kendris WATTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2720

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Marvin Eugene PACE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1344

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 18, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Updated August 2023

JOY M RAGSDALE, Director

TBD - Vacant

REG FLEX TEAM

CARA GRAYER, ATTORNEY ADVISOR 

MIKE GUSSOW, ATTORNEY ADVISOR 

JOYCELYN JAMES, ATTORNEY ADVISOR

CHANA WILKERSON, SR ATTORNEY ADVISOR 

TBD - Vacant 

OUTREACH TEAM 

ANDREA BROWN, PROGRAM SPECIALIST 

LARRY HUDSON, OUTREACH SPECIALIST 

SHARON STEWART, OUTREACH SPECIALIST, Women

OUTREACH SPECIALIST - Vacant
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00421- CR
Jacob Sanchez, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR2013 -19 9, H ONO RAB LE DIB WALDRIP , JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
P ER CURIAM

Appellant filed his notice of appea l on J uly 3, 2014. His brief was due on November 6, 2014. On November 14, 2014, this Court informed appellant’ s reta ined counsel that appellant’ s brief was overdue and that we would ref er the matter to the trial court for a heari n g i f we d i d not
rec eive a response by

November

24, 2014. To date, appellant’ s brief has not been filed and his counsel has not responde d to our notice. We there fore abate the appea l. The trial court shall conduct a hear ing to deter mine whether appellant wishes t o p u rsue his appea l, whether appellant is indige nt, and if he is not indige nt, whether reta ined counsel has abandone d this appea l. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)( 2), (3). The court shall make appropr iate finding s and rec om m en d at i o n s . See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)( 2), (3). I f appellant still desires t o ap p ea l and the court finds that he is indige nt, the court shall makeappropr iate orders t o ensure that appellant is adequa tely repr esente d on ap p eal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8( b)(2) , (3). Following the hear ing, which shall be transcr ibed, the trial court shall orde r the appropr iate supplemental cler k’s and repor

ter’s rec ords, including copies of all finding s and order s and a transcr iption of the court repor ter’s notes, to be prepa

red and forwa

rded to this Court no later than Fe bruar

y 17, 2015. I t is so ordered this 16th day of January , 2015.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield Abated a nd Remanded Filed: January

16, 2015 Do Not Publish

2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-17-00275-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.S.B., et al., Children

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-PA-02146

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 26, 2017

DISMISSED

This is an appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights. By order 

dated June 30, 2017, this appeal was abated to the trial court for an abandonment hearing because 

appellant’s court-appointed attorney failed to file an appellant’s brief. The trial court was 

instructed to determine whether appellant desired to prosecute her appeal and whether appointed 

counsel had abandoned the appeal.

On July 10, 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing. After hearing the appellant’s 

testimony, the trial court signed an order finding appellant no longer desires to prosecute her 

appeal.
04-17-00275-CV

- 2 -

The appeal is reinstated on the docket of this court. Based on the trial court’s order finding 

appellant no longer desires to prosecute her appeal, the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

2, 42.1.

PER CURIAM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6064

JOHN BOWMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

PARKER EVATT, Commissioner; HUBERT CHAPMAN,

Correctional Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge;

Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-3017-3-BC)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Coleman Jones, BOGOSLOW &

JONES, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge, with further appeal to this court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),

(c)(3) (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order granting

Appellee's motion for judgment as a matter of law. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

decision of the magistrate judge. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.*

AFFIRMED
Fred ELLIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3559

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 21, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Makar, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Two Rivers Water Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Wayne Harding, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Dated:  May 14, 2010
By: /s/ Wayne HardingChief Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer
EX PARTE Latransezon MALLOY

1170011 (CR-16-0099)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
EX PARTE Samuel WELCH

CR-17-0045

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 6, 2017

Mand. pet. denied.
EX PARTE J.S.

(In re: The matter of H.D.S., a minor child)

2170316

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 31, 2018

Dismissed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE MARAVILLA, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CVS PHARMACY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-00070-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 17

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the court that they have agreed to a 

settlement of this cause, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this cause of action is dismissed 

without prejudice; provided, however that if any party hereto shall certify to this court, within 

ninety (90) days, with proof of service thereof, that the agreed consideration for said settlement 

has not been delivered over, the foregoing order shall stand vacated and this cause shall forthwith 

be restored to the calendar to be set for trial.

If no certification is filed, after passage of ninety (90) days, the dismissal shall be with prejudice. 

Dated: June 21, 2017

______________________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge
Case 4:17-cv-00011-DMR Document 1 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 5
Case 4:17-cv-00011-DMR Document 1 Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 5
Case 4:17-cv-00011-DMR Document 1 Filed 01/03/17 Page 3 of 5
Case 4:17-cv-00011-DMR Document 1 Filed 01/03/17 Page 4 of 5
Case 4:17-cv-00011-DMR Document 1 Filed 01/03/17 Page 5 of 5
Statement

Jill Long Thompson, Board Chair

Farm Credit Administration Board Meeting

March 13, 2014

I thank Debbie Wilson and Laura McFarland, as well as the Offices of Regulatory Policy and 

General Counsel, for their hard and expeditious work on this interim final rule. I also commend 

my colleague Lee Strom for taking on this issue several years ago when it was learned the 

Board of one of the institutions in the System had approved a compensation package whose 

total cost it did not fully comprehend.

The compensation rule we adopted in 2012 has merit and I was proud to support it. But, I 

completely respect the authorities of the United States Congress. And they have spoken. Title 

VI of the 2014 Appropriations Act prohibits FCA from using funds to implement or enforce this 

requirement. And the Farm Bill states very clearly that the oversight of compensation practices 

is the responsibility of the boards of directors, exclusive of but accountable to their 

shareholders. This interim final rule will make our regulation compliant with current law.

I am also pleased our action today will preserve the enhanced transparency of compensation 

disclosures, as well as the enhanced responsibilities of the compensation committee of the 

boards of directors.
STRENGTHENING THE 

AUTONOMY OF FEDERAL 

STATISTICS

Nancy Potok

CEO, NAPx Consulting and 

Former Chief Statistician of the US

October 25, 2022
Current 

Protections 

Insufficient • They are suggestions, not laws

• System developed norms over time, 

but norms can be ignored or broken

• Very easy to overturn OMB 

guidelines, memoranda, and 

statistical policy directives
Statutory 

Protections are 

Inconsistent

• 13 Recognized statistical agencies

• Over 100 units carrying out statistical 

activites across government

• 24 agencies required to have a Statistical 

Official by the Evidence Act

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

• Several agencies have no protections at all

• No consequences if a cabinet secretary or 

agency head ignores directives when 

supported by the White House
U.S. Chief Statistician Responsibilities

4

1

Coordinate 13 

designated statistical 

agencies, as well as 

115 other statistical 

programs, including 

budgets

2

Set data collection 

standards (e.g., race 

and ethnicity, MSAs, 

industrial and 

product 

classification)

3

Develop 

methodological 

guidance and 

promote 

innovation

4

Represent the US on 

UN Statistical 

Commission and 

OECD
Chief Statistician 

Authorities Need 

Strengthening

• All duties are in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act

• All authority in the Act resides in the 

OMB Director

• Chief Statistician works through 

delegated authority

• Can be overruled on all matters

• Weak input into agency budgets
Big Questions

Should all statistical agency heads be political and confirmed by the Senate, 

political and appointed by the White House, or career? (currently mixed)

Should the Chief Statistician be political or career?

Should the position of the Chief Statistician be elevated or moved out of 

OMB?
More Questions

Should more protections be put into statutes protecting the 

independence of statistical agencies? What about statistical units?

What should be the consequences for violating the independence of 

the statistical agencies?

How far should the statutes go in specifying the balance between 

independence and being subject to overall administration policies?

Should the qualifications for agency heads be specified in law?
International 

Models • Canada, UK and other countries have more 

independence but more centralized statistics

• U.S. was instrumental in creating international 

principles and practices

• International pressure can sometimes be brought 

to bear but difficult to influence the U.S.
Recommendation

Strengthen statutory 

protections and report 

regularly on agreed upon 

metrics
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6230

MARY CARTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MR. COOPER,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (5:10-ct-03133-D)

Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mary Carter appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint without 

prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Carter v. Cooper, 

No. 5:10-ct-03133-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2011). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00375

- CR

Gerald James Hon v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 221s t District Court of Montgomery County , Texas Trial Cause No. 16

- 03

- 03557

- CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. May 17, 2018
Bryan PIKE, Petitioner, v. Florida Department of Corrections, Secretary, Mark S. INCH, Respondent.

No. 1D18-4185

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 15, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 28, 2019

Bryan Pike, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

DISMISSED . *See**Baker v. State* , 878 So 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

Wetherell, Osterhaus, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
Jeffrey C. ABRAMOWSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3560

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 9, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
31.2





RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER








I, Joseph
R. Corrato, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Prudential Bancorp, Inc. of
Pennsylvania (the "Registrant");





2. Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report;





4. The
Registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:





(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)
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





(c)
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





5. The
Registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 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:  February
      14, 2008
            
            /s/
      Joseph
      R. CorratoJoseph
      R. CorratoExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
#### Filiberto Virrueta VIRRUETA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-70856.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*504Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 27, 2004.

Frank P. Sprouls, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration *&*Naturalization, Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew C. MacLachlan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Filiberto Virrueta Virrueta, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s ruling on the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *Carancho v. INS,*68 F.3d 356, 360 (9th Cir.1995), and we deny the petition.

Petitioner moved to reopen removal proceedings on grounds that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to timely file a petition for review of the BIA’s decision in this court. The BIA denied petitioner’s motion, concluding that counsel’s conduct did not provide a valid basis for reopening proceedings.

We deny the petition for review because the BIA’s decision was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” *See id.*

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 08a0037n.06

Filed: January 9, 2008

No. 07-5094

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

B & W RESOURCES, INC.; BEGLEY

PROPERTIES, LLC,

Defendants-Appellants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Before: MERRITT, ROGERS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Defendants B & W Resources, Inc. and Begley Properties, LLC

appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Travelers Property

Casualty Company of America. B&W purchased an all-risk insurance policy from Travelers to

insure a coal tipple. Thereafter, the tipple was destroyed when it collapsed onto a moving train.

Travelers denied coverage and brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it owes no duty to

provide coverage under the relevant policy. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the

applicable law, and hearing oral argument, this court determines that no jurisprudential purpose

would be served by a panel opinion and affirms the district court’s decision for the reasons stated

in Judge Caldwell’s October 26, 2006 opinion and order. The district court properly granted
No. 07-5094

Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. B&W Res., Inc.

- 2 -

summary judgment in favor of Travelers. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2



The Board of Directors
The WMF Group, Ltd. and subsidiaries:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-41613) on Form S-8 of The WMF Group, Ltd. of our report dated March 13,
1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of The WMF Group, Ltd. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated statements
of operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years
ended December 31, 1997 and December 31, 1995, and all related schedules, which
report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of The WMF
Group, Ltd.

                                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Washington, D.C.
March 30, 1998