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



EXHIBIT 21.1
 
 Jurisdiction of OrganizationPanda Ethanol Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Haskell Ethanol, L.P.
    
    DelawarePanda Haskell Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Haskell I, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Haskell II, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Hereford Ethanol, L.P.
    
    DelawarePHE I, LLC
    
    DelawarePHE II, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Hereford Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawarePEI Lincoln Ethanol, L.P.
    
    DelawarePanda Lincoln Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawarePEI Lincoln I, LLC
    
    DelawarePEI Lincoln II, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Sherman Ethanol, L.P.
    
    DelawarePanda Sherman I, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Sherman II, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Sherman Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Yuma Ethanol, L.P.
    
    DelawarePanda Yuma I, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Yuma II, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Yuma Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Muleshoe Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Muleshoe Ethanol, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Ethanol Management, LLC
    
    DelawarePGS Ethanol Holdings, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Global Services Haskell, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Global Services Hereford, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Global Services Lincoln, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Global Services Muleshoe, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Global Services Sherman, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Global Services Yuma, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Grain, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Transportation Company, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Ethanol Pool, LLC
    
    DelawarePanda Ethanol Acquisitions, LLC
    
    Delaware
The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 96-1290

___________

Michael R. Ford, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Arkansas. 

University of Arkansas Medical *

Sciences; Service Master, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

____________

 Submitted: September 25, 1996

 Filed: October 2, 1996

____________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Ford appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 1

employment discrimination action for failure to comply with a court order.

The district court ordered Ford three times to respond to discovery

requests, provided him an extension on each occasion, and expressly warned

Ford in the second and third orders that a failure to respond by the

designated deadline would result in the dismissal of his action. Thus, we

conclude Ford's conduct demonstrated a clear pattern of intentional delay

and unfairly prejudiced defendant's ability to complete discovery and

prepare for trial. See First Gen. Resources Co. v. Elton Leather Corp.,

958 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1992).
2

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

ATTEST:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Robert W. Holley Center for Agriculture & Health: Ithaca, NY
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        Plant, Soil and Nutrition Research
                                    Emerging Pests and Pathogens ResearchSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Ithaca, New York Robert W. Holley Center for Agriculture & Health Docs





- Plant, Soil and Nutrition Research Unit
- Biological Integrated Pest Management Research
- Plant-Microbe Interaction Research
- Location Support Unit
- Directions to the Holley Center
- Center Dedication
- Holley Biography

Northeast Symposium on Proteomics and Protein Chemistryheadline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### MILGRIM et al., Appellants, v. FEUER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sécond Department.

October 23, 1907.)

Action by Max Milgrim and another against William Feuer.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Wayne LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6356.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

Ronald Wayne Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Brandon Michael Santos, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Wayne Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying in part his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lewis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 The court granted the § 2255 motion in part and entered an amended judgment reducing Lewis' supervised release term from five years to three years.
[No. 20257-3-II.

Division Two.

September 19, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Leroy Bruce Hage, *Respondent,*and Elyce K. Hage, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 94-3-00240-1, James E.F.X. Warme, J., entered November 28, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Bridgewater, A.C.J., and Morgan, J.
#### CONNOR, Appellant, v. ORR et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 19, 1907.)

Action by Cora Stryker Connor against Robert B. Orr and others.

PER CURIAM.

Order amended, so as to direct that there be stricken from the third defense the words, “realleges all the allegations hereinbefore set forth in the first and second defenses to the complaint herein, the same as though fully set forth herein,” and, as so amended, affirmed, without costs, with leave to plaintiff to make a separate motion for bill of particulars. ■ , ,

McLENNAN, P. j., not sitting. ■
#### In the Matter of Marlene S. Filosa, Respondent, v Michael J. Donnelly, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 671]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffmann, J.), dated May 23, 2011, which, inter alia, denied his objections to an order of the same court (Livrieri, S.M.), dated March 25, 2011, which, after a hearing, and upon the denial of the father’s application to dismiss the petition as jurisdictionally defective, granted the mother’s petition, in effect, for an award of college tuition expenses for the parties’ child and apportioned 50% of those expenses to him.

Ordered that the order dated May 23, 2011, is affirmed, with costs.

Since the record is clear that all parties viewed the petition as an “enforcement proceeding,” and the father’s substantial rights were not prejudiced by any alleged defect, the Family Court properly denied the father’s application to dismiss the petition as jurisdictionally defective *(see*CPLR 2001; *Yeshiva Chasdei Torah v Dell Equity, LLC,*90 AD3d 746 [2011]).

“The terms of a separation agreement incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce operate as contractual obligations binding on the parties *(see Colucci v Colucci,*54 AD3d 710, 712 [2008]). A matrimonial settlement is a contract subject to principles of contract interpretation, and a court should interpret the contract in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning” *(Matter of Cricenti v Cricenti,*60 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2009]). “Where such an agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face, the parties’ intent must be construed from the four corners of the agreement, and not from extrinsic evidence” *(Herzfeld v Herzfeld,*50 AD3d 851, 851-852 [2008]).

Here, where the father failed to establish, in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement of divorce, that he was financially unable to pay for the child’s college tuition or that the mother did not comply with her obligation to encourage the child’s use of financial aid, scholarships, and available student loans, the Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the mother’s petition and apportioning 50% of those expenses to him *(see Matter of Cricenti*
      *761
      *v Cricenti,*60 AD3d at 1053; *see also Manno v Manno,*196 AD2d 488, 491 [1993]).

To the extent that the father argues that the child should have attended a less expensive college, that argument is without merit. The parties’ stipulation did not mandate parental consent to the child’s college choice, and it did not place a limit on the tuition amount for which the parties are responsible *(see Matter of Cricenti v Cricenti,*60 AD3d at 1053). Similarly, the father was not entitled to a credit toward his child support payment by virtue of the room-and-board component of the child’s tuition, as no such credit was contemplated by the parties’ stipulation of settlement *(see Colucci v Colucci,*54 AD3d 710, 712 [2008]). Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.
[WYNDHAM LETTERHEAD]








Certification of


Chief Financial Officer


of Wyndham International, Inc.





This certification is
provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 of Wyndham International, Inc. (the
Issuer).





I, Richard A. Smith, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer certify that to the
best of my knowledge:





| | (i) |  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




| | (ii) |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Dated: August 13, 2002./s/    RICHARD A. SMITHName:

Richard A. Smith Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer








Subscribed and sworn to before me


this 13th day of August 2002.








/S/    CAMALETA M.
ROSEMAN

[NOTARY PUBLIC SEAL]Name: Title:

Camaleta M. Roseman Notary Public








My commission expires:
05-24-04
Exhibit
31.1
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I, John
A. Hupalo, certify that:
 
 l.           I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
10-K of The National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3 (the “Exchange Act
periodic reports”);
 
 2.          Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4.          Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report
under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the
servicing agreement in all material respects
 
 5.          All
the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in
this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
10-K.
 In
giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National
Association, as Indenture Trustee and Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance
Agency.
 
 Date:
September 15, 2008
 
 
 /s/ John A. HupaloJohn
      A. HupaloChief
      Financial Officer and Treasurer(senior
      officer in charge of securitization)National
      Collegiate Funding LLC
#### ROSENBLATT et al., Appellants, v. PHILLIPS, Respondent, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Sigmond H. Rosenblatt and others against James Phillips, Jr., and Walter G. Newman. (Appeal No. 1.) No opinion. Appeal discontinued on consent, without costs. See, also, 147 App. Div. 912, 132 N, Y. Supp. 1144.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of

Chief Financial Officer

of Wyndham International, Inc.



This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and accompanies this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 of Wyndham International, Inc. (the Issuer).



I, Richard A. Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |       |  |                     
|---------------------- |  | ----- |  | --------------------
|Dated: August 6, 2004. |  |       |  |                     
|                       |  |       |  | /s/ Richard A. Smith
|                       |  | Name: |  | Richard A. Smith    



Subscribed and sworn to before me

this 6th day of August 2004.



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|       |  | /s/ Camaleta M. Roseman
|Name:  |  | Camaleta M. Roseman    
|Title: |  | Notary Public          



My commission expires: 05-24-08



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained by
the Issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit
      31.1**


**Certifications**





I,
      Dr.
      Ramesh Zacharias, certify that:





1.
      I
      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Med-Emerg International
      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.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
      and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
      Act
      Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 us 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 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 quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s third
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting.





5.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers 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:  November
      14, 2006,




/s/
            Dr.
              Ramesh ZachariasDr. Ramesh
              ZachariasChief Executive Officer
#### REILLY v. BURKELMAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Katherine Reilly against Charles Burkelman, as executor, etc. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 134 N. Y. Supp. 13.
#### BERENBROICK, Plaintiff, v. ST. LUKE’S HOSPITAL IN CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, and SAMUEL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November Term, 1897.)

Action by Frederick Berenbroiek against the St. Luke’s Hospital in the City of New York and Lewis S. Samuel.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 45 N. Y. Supp. 1134, and 48 N. Y. Supp. 363.
EXHIBIT 7.1


                            GROHE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

                   COMPUTATION OF COST OF SALES TO SALES RATIO

                          US GAAP FINANCIAL INFORMATION




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Year ended December 31,
                                                    -------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2003               2002               2001
--------------------------------------------------  -----------------  -----------------  -----------------
<S>                                                      <C>                <C>                <C>
Cost of sales                                            498,353            517,321            512,549

Divided by sales                                         884,756            898,262            880,781

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


Cost of sales to sales ratio                               56.3%              57.6%              58.2%
--------------------------------------------------  -----------------  -----------------  -----------------
</TABLE>
# 03-16314 Fernandez v. Stewart

Beezer, W. Fletcher, Fisher, CJJ

356.3894