alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21


                  THE TAUBMAN REALTY GROUP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



                                         JURISDICTION
NAME                                     OF FORMATION    DOING BUSINESS AS
----                                     ------------    -----------------

La Cienega Associates                      California    Beverly Center
Biltmore Shopping Center Partners          Arizona       Biltmore Fashion Park
Briarwood                                  Michigan      Briarwood
TL-Columbus Associates                     Michigan      Columbus City Center
Fairlane Town Center                       Michigan      Fairlane Town Center
The Falls Shopping Center Associates       Florida       The Falls
Taubman Auburn Hills Associates            Delaware      Great Lakes Crossing
          Limited Partnership                            (under construction)
Richmond Associates                        Michigan      Hilltop
La Cumbre Shopping Center Associates       California    La Cumbre Plaza
Lakeforest Associates                      Maryland      Lakeforest
Taubman MacArthur Associates               Delaware      MacArthur Center
          Limited Partnership                            (under construction)
TKL-East                                   Michigan      Marley Station
Taubman Western Associates No. 2           Michigan      Meadowood Mall
Katy-Gessner Associates Limited            Delaware      Memorial City Mall
          Partnership                                    (leased)
Paseo Nuevo Associates                     California    Paseo Nuevo
TRG - Regency Square Associates            Virginia      Regency Square
Short Hills Associates                     New Jersey    The Mall at Short Hills
Stoneridge Properties                      California    Stoneridge
Taub-Co Management, Inc.                   Michigan      N/A
The Taubman Company Limited Partnership    Delaware      The Taubman Company
Tuttle Crossing Associates                 Ohio          The Mall at Tuttle
                                                           Crossing
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This First  Amendment  to  Employment  Agreement,  made and dated as of
March 31,  1997,  by and  between  MFB  Financial  (formerly  Mishawaka  Federal
Savings), a federal savings bank ("Employer"),  and William L. Stockton,  Jr., a
resident of St.  Joseph  County,  Indiana  ("Employee"),  amends the  Employment
Agreement  entered into by and between the  Employer  and  Employee  dated as of
March 24, 1994 (the "Employment Agreement") as follows:

         1. Paragraph 3 of the Employment Agreement is amended to provide:

                  "3. The term of this Agreement  shall begin April 1, 1997 (the
         "Effective  Date")  and  shall  end on the date  which  is three  years
         following  such  date;  provided,  however,  that  such  term  shall be
         extended  for an  additional  month  on the  first  day of  each  month
         succeeding  April 1, 1997,  so as to continue to maintain a  three-year
         term and  shall  continue  to be so  extended  if  Employer's  Board of
         Directors  determines by resolution to extend this  Agreement  prior to
         each  anniversary  of the Effective  Date. If either party hereto gives
         written  notice to the other party not to extend this  Agreement in any
         given month or if the Board does not  determine to extend the Agreement
         prior to each  anniversary of the Effective Date, no further  extension
         shall  occur  and the term of this  Agreement  shall  end  three  years
         subsequent  to the first day of the month in which  such  notice not to
         extend is given or three  years  subsequent  to the  anniversary  as of
         which the Board does not elect to  continue  extending  this  Agreement
         (such term, including any extension thereof shall herein be referred to
         as the "Term").  Notwithstanding  the foregoing,  this Agreement  shall
         automatically terminate (and the Term of this Agreement shall thereupon
         end) without notice when Employee attains 65 years of age."

         2. All other terms of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and
effect and are unchanged by this Amendment to Employment Agreement.

         IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,   the  parties  have  caused  this  Amendment  to
Employment  Agreement to be executed and  delivered as of the day and year first
above set forth.


                                         MFB FINANCIAL

                                         By: /s/ Charles J. Viater
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Charles J. Viater, President

                                             "Employer"


                                             /s/ William L. Stockton,  Jr.
                                             ------------------------------
                                             William L. Stockton,  Jr.

                                             "Employee"
Octavious Lamar RHYMES, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 18-6674.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

*923Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District denied.
Exhibit 12.1




CERTIFICATION
 
 I, Shaike Orbach, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Silicom Ltd.;
 
 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4. The Company’s other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the Company 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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 (b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and
  
  5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of Company’s board of directors:
  (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 Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
  Date: November 23, 2010
 /S/ Shaike Orbach

Shaike Orbach, Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, William A. Priddy, Jr., Chief Financial Officer, Corporate VicePresident of Administration and Secretary of RF Micro Devices, Inc. (the"Company"), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)        the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 28, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/William A. Priddy, Jr.                                  William A. Priddy, Jr.     Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Vice      President of Administration and Secretary     August 7, 2008

                                                                              

                                                                              

                                                                              

** **

** **

** **

----

** **
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

JULIO HIPOLITO JUI HERNANDEZ

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 4:23-CR-00116

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY

The Court referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge for administration of 

a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge conducted a 

hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court accept 

Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant guilty on Count One of the Information.

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings.

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of 

the United States Magistrate Judge. The court also accepts Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance 

of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report.

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Julio Hipolito Jui 

Hernandez GUILTY of Count One of the Information, charging a violation of Title 21 U.S.C. § 

963 - Conspiracy to Manufacture and Distribute Cocaine Intending, Knowing, and with 

Reasonable Cause to Believe that the Cocaine will be Unlawfully Imported into the United States.

Case 4:23-cr-00116-SDJ-AGD Document 31 Filed 09/05/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 60
Leo Llowlyn SEED, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 18-6047.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               apr-30-1997            APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    Apr-30-1997            APR-30-1996
<CASH>                          0                     0
<SECURITIES>                    0                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0                     0
<INVENTORY>                     0                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0                     0
<PP&E>                          0                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  0                     0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           22,681                18,888
<BONDS>                         0                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0                     0
<PREFERRED>                     0                     0
<COMMON>                        1,500                 1,500
<OTHER-SE>                      (20,388)              (20,388)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    0                     0
<SALES>                         0                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0                     0
<CGS>                           0                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              168                   150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (3,793)               (367)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (3,793)              (367)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0                     0
<CHANGES>                       0                     0
<NET-INCOME>                    (3,793)              (367)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (.00)                (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0                     0
        

</TABLE>
Alma CALDAVADO, petitioner, v. NEW YORK.

No. 18-1273.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40308 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. SHPETIM KONCI, also known as Timi, also known as Kujtim Goxhaj ,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the East ern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09

- CR

- 193

- 3

Before KING, DAVIS and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Shpetim Konci has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Californ ia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Konci h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 20, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40308 Document: 00512505770 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2014No. 13

- 40308

Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40308 Document: 00512505770 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2014
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                   Exhibit 11


                                              WVS Financial Corp.
                                 Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings




                                                        Three Months Ended                 Six Months Ended
                                                          December 31,                       December 31,
                                                 ----------------------------      ----------------------------
                                                     1997             1996             1997             1996
                                                   ---------        ---------        ---------        ---------
<S>                                               <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding .       1,748,287        1,736,960        1,748,006        1,736,895

Average unearned ESOP shares ...............         (39,117)         (55,656)         (41,511)         (56,666)
                                                   ---------        ---------        ---------        ---------
Weighted average common shares used to
calculate basic earnings per share .........       1,709,170        1,681,304        1,706,495        1,680,229

Common stock equivalents (stock options)
used to calculate diluted earnings per share          64,450           60,768           63,183           58,594
                                                   ---------        ---------        ---------        ---------

Weighted average common shares and common
stock equivalents used to calculate fully
diluted earnings per share .................       1,773,620        1,742,072        1,769,678        1,738,823
                                                 ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========


Net income .................................     $   996,073      $   911,982      $ 1,930,764      $ 1,162,240
                                                 ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========

Earnings per share:
   Basic ...................................     $      0.58      $      0.54      $      1.13      $      0.69
   Diluted .................................     $      0.56      $      0.52      $      1.09      $      0.67


</TABLE>
J

- S29021

- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. DAVID EUGENE NARAD Appellant No. 1330 WDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order July 9 , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 65

- CR

- 0004077

- 2008

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. *
JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED MAY 20, 2015 Appellant, David Eugene Narad, appeals pro se 1 from the July 9, 2014 order, dismissing his petition for relief filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § § 9541

- 9546. After careful review, we dismiss this appeal. Generally, appellate briefs are required to conform to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “ This Court may ... dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirem ents set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” In re Ullman , 995 A.2d 1207,

____________________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Although this was Appellant’s first PCRA petition and the PCRA court appointed counsel, counsel was permitted to withdraw pursuant to Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988), Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) ( en banc ) , and their progeny.J

- S29021

- 15

- 2

-

1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied , 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 2011). Further, while this Court will construe pro se materials liberally, “ pro

se status confers no special benefit on an appellant.” Id. at 1211

- 1212. In this case, Appellant’s brief is woefully deficient. At the outset, we note that Appellant’s brief does not contain a copy of the order in question, a separate statement of the case , a statement of the questions presented, a summary of the argument, or a conclusion stating the relief sought, all of which are required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a), 2116, 2117, 2118. We further estimate that App ellant’s argument consists of approximately 200 handwritten pages, containing various reproductions of portions of the record, with very few citations to legal authority throughout the same, making it extremely difficult for this Court to discern the argum ents Appellant wishes to raise on appeal. We further note that Rule 2135 requires a party to file a certificate of compliance to show that the brief complies with the 14,000 word limit for opening briefs, when said brief exceeds 30 pages. Id. at 2135(a)( 1). Appellant has not included such a certificate. Based on the foregoing, we conclude the defects in Appellant’s brief are substantial and preclude this Court from engaging in meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we elect to exercise our discreti on pursuant to Rule 2101, and dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed.J

- S29021

- 15

- 3

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 5/20/2015
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 28822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10106]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR22-37-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.
    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2)+(: Petition 
for Rate Approval to be effective 5/2/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/2/22.
    Accession Number: 20220502-5245.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/2022.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-907-000.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Northern to 
Direct eff 5-1-2022 to be effective 5/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/4/22.
    Accession Number: 20220504-5128.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-908-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--BUG to 
Sunsea eff 5-4-22 to be effective 5/4/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220505-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-909-000.
    Applicants: Rager Mountain Storage Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Price Indice Update to be 
effective 6/4/2022.
    Filed Date: 5/5/22.
    Accession Number: 20220505-5040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 5, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10106 Filed 5-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Steven M. JACOB, petitioner, v. Scott R. FRAKES, Director, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services.

No. 18-5631.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.