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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                  Subsidiary                  Jurisdiction of Organization        Type of Entity
                  ----------                  ----------------------------        --------------
<S>                                                   <C>                    <C>    

ElderTrust Operating Limited Partnership               Delaware              Limited partnership
ET Sub-Phillipsburg, L.L.C.                            Delaware              Limited liability company
ET Sub-Windsor I, L.L.C.                               Delaware              Limited liability company
ET Sub-Windsor II, L.L.C.                              Delaware              Limited liability company
ET Sub-SMOB, L.L.C.                                    Delaware              Limited liability company
ET Sub-GENPAR, L.L.C.                                  Delaware              Limited liability company
ET Sub-Lopatcong, L.L.C.                               Delaware              Limited liability company
ET Sub-Heritage Woods, L.L.C.                          Delaware              Limited liability company
ET Sub-Pleasant View, L.L.C.                           Delaware              Limited liability company
ET Sub-Lacey I, L.L.C.                                 Delaware              Limited liability company
ET Sub-Willowbrook Limited Partnership, L.L.P.         Virginia              Limited liability partnership
ET Sub-Riverview Ridge Limited Partnership, L.L.P.     Virginia              Limited liability partnership
ET Sub-Highgate, L.P.                                  Pennsylvania          Limited partnership
ET Sub-Woodbridge, L.P.                                Pennsylvania          Limited partnership
ET Sub-Rittenhouse Limited Partnership, L.L.P.         Virginia              Limited liability partnership
ET Sub-Wayne I Limited Partnership, L.L.P.             Virginia              Limited liability partnership
ET Sub-Belvedere Limited Partnership, L.L.P.           Virginia              Limited liability partnership
ET Sub-Chapel Manor Limited Partnership, L.L.P.        Virginia              Limited liability partnership
ET Sub-Harston Hall Limited Partnership, L.L.P.        Virginia              Limited liability partnership
ET Sub-Pennsburg Manor Limited Partnership, L.L.P.     Virginia              Limited liability partnership
ET Sub-Silverlake Limited Partnership, L.L.P.          Virginia              Limited liability partnership
ET Sub-POB I Limited Partnership, L.L.P.               Virginia              Limited liability partnership
ET Sub-DCMH Limited Partnership, L.L.P.                Virginia              Limited liability partnership
ET Sub-Vernon Court, L.L.C.                            Delaware              Limited liability company
ET Sub-Heritage Andover, L.L.C.                        Delaware              Limited liability company

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,835
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,319
<INVENTORY>                                     62,734
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,725
<PP&E>                                          93,318
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 207,469
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,347
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           152
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,191
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   207,469
<SALES>                                        112,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               112,253
<CGS>                                           95,072
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   97,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,297
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 845
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,615
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,894
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,721
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,721
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6893

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus J. C. WACHACHA, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-92-66-2-V, CA-97-8-2-1) Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 4, 1999 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. C. Wachacha, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: J. C. Wachacha seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Wachacha , Nos. CR-92- 66-2-V; CA-97-8-2-1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 1998). We dispense withoral 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
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-3 (File Number 333-107792) and on Form S-8 (File Number 333-112109) of Boston Properties Limited Partnership of our report dated March 1, 2007 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 1, 2007
# Commission Implementing Decision of 28 April 2014 on the recognition of the legal and supervisory framework of Brazil as equivalent            to the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit rating agencies            (Text with EEA relevance) (2014/245/EU) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision

# of 28 April 2014

# on the recognition of the legal and supervisory framework of Brazil as equivalent to the requirements of Regulation (EC) No                        1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit rating agencies                     

# (Text with EEA relevance)

# (2014/245/EU) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1281 of 29 July 2019 repealing Implementing Decision 2014/245/EU on the recognition                                 of the legal and supervisory framework of Brazil as equivalent to the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the                                 European Parliament and of the Council on credit rating agencies (Text with EEA relevance.).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.4

                                  CERTIFICATION

         In connection with the periodic report of Glenborough Realty Trust
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Stephen R.
Saul, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

         (2)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: August 14, 2003                 /s/ Stephen R. Saul
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      Stephen R. Saul
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                      Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated

                                       42
STATE v. Steven Levon SWINT.

No. 553P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 25, 2007.

T. Brooks Skinner, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of October 2006 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 25th day of January 2007."
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

The undersigned officer of Boston Properties, Inc., the sole general partner of Boston Properties Limited
Partnership (the Company), hereby certifies to my knowledge that the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification shall not be deemed filed for any purpose, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

Date: March 16, 2006



/s/    DOUGLAS T. LINDEDouglas T. Linde Chief Financial Officer of Boston Properties, Inc., general partner of Boston Properties Limited
Partnership
IN RE J.M.N.-W.

No. COA06-588

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Wake (05J374).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each individual whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Charles A. Little, his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution and resubstitution,
for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ClubCorp, Inc. for the period ended June 12,
2001, together with any amendments thereto, and to file the same with all
exhibits thereto, and all documents in connection therewith, with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full
power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorney-in-fact and agent or his substitute or substitutes, may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Pursuant to the requirements
of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, this Power of Attorney has been
signed by the following person in the capacity and on the date indicated:




Signature  /s/ James M. Hinckley
           ------------------------------------

           James M. Hinckley
Title:     Chief Operating Officer and Director
Date       July 24, 2001
STATE v. Russell William TUCKER.

No. 113A96-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 5, 2006.

Robert L. McClellan, Greensboro, for Tucker.

Danielle Marquis, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of September 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of September 2006."
PINEVILLE FOREST HOMEOWNERS ASS'N v. PORTRAIT HOMES CONST. CO.

No. COA06-790.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 17, 2007.

Certification Date August 6, 2007.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (04CVS14862).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. CLENDENIN

No. COA05-1674

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Guilford (04CRS83342, 04CRS83344).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
IN RE C.C.

No. COA07-535.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 16, 2007.

Certification Date November 5, 2007.

Appeal from Cabarrus (05JA12, 05JA13).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Order entered January 22 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 01405 - CV GWENDOLYN (DILWORTH) BYARS, Appellant V. OTHO D. DILWORTH III , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. CC - 14 - 04374 - D 

### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s, January 20, 2015, second motion to extend time to file brief

. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER appellant to file her brief no later than February 20, 2015. We caution appellan t that no further extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances

. /s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Sean DOWNS.

No. 600P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 14, 2006.

Allen W. Boyer, Charlotte, for Downs.

Michael Youth, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 635 S.E.2d 518.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 27th day of November 2006 by Attorney General in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th day of December 2006."
STATE of North Carolina v. Larry Anthony FINNEY.

No. 93P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

David G. Belser, Joel B. Stevenson, Asheville, for Larry Anthony Finney.

Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

The Attorney General's petition for discretionary review is allowed for the limited purpose of remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration in light of the decisions of this Court in *State v. Blackwell,* 361 N.C. 41, 638 S.E.2d 452 (2006), and *State v. Hurt,* 361 N.C. 325, 643 S.E.2d 915 (2007).

By order of the Court in Conference, this 3rd day of May, 2007.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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; andc)
    
    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
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially effect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  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; andb)
    
    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: August 6, 2007By:
    
    /s/ James C. MastandreaJames C. MastandreaChairman of the Board, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and President(Principal Executive Officer)
PROGRESS ENERGY v. STRICKLAND.

No. 118A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 12, 2007.

Norman W. Shearin, Jr., Kitty Hawk, for Strickland.

Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., John C. Cooke, Raleigh, Elizabeth T. Smith, Garris Neal Yarborough, Fayetteville, for Progress Energy.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of April 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Strickland) shall have up to and including the 6th day of May 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 12th day of April 2007."
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KARINE MELKONYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74733

Agency No. A075-751-750

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

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

Karine Melkonyan, a native of the former Soviet Union and a citizen of

Uzbekistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order denying her motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

FILED

OCT 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74733

denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.

2003), and we deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Melkonyan’s motion to

reopen as untimely because she filed the motion to reopen almost five years after

the BIA’s April 8, 2003, order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Melkonyan failed

to establish that she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see

Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (stating that equitable tolling is available where

“petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as

the petitioner acts with due diligence”); cf. Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993,

1000 (9th Cir. 2007).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JESUS E. ELIZONDO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30307 

D.C. No. 

2:13-cr-00024-SEH-2 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submission Deferred February 7, 2018

Submitted August 6, 2018**

Seattle, Washington

Before: FISHER, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Elizondo appeals the district court’s denial of his motion pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for reduction of sentence based on retroactive Sentencing 

Guidelines Amendment 782. In light of Amendment 782 and Koons v. United 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

States, 138 S. Ct. 1783 (2018), Defendant was eligible for a sentence reduction 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because his sentence was “based on a sentencing 

range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). At the original sentencing, the district court calculated 

Defendant’s Guidelines range to be 121 to 151 months. It then noted that were it 

not for the Government’s U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion, the court “would have felt 

entirely obligated to impose a sentence at the upper end of that guideline range.” 

However, the court decided to “act favorably upon that motion” and sentenced

Defendant to a term of imprisonment below the upper end of the Guidelines range. 

The court did not believe that a sentence “less than the statutory minimum of 120 

months” would be adequate, so it sentenced Defendant to 120 months.

In light of the above, Defendant’s Guidelines range “played ‘a relevant part 

[in] the framework the [sentencing] judge used’ in imposing the sentence,” and 

thus, the sentence was “based on” that Guidelines range, making Defendant 

eligible for a sentence reduction. Koons, 138 S. Ct. at 1788 (alterations in original) 

(quoting Hughes v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1765, 1778 (2018)). Both parties 

agree that Defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. We vacate the sentence 

and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this 

disposition.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
STATE v. William DERBECK.

No. 203P05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of May 2007 by Defendant for "Notice of Appeal of a Writ of Certiorari to the N.C. Supreme Court":

"Motion Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of June 2007."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TIMOTHY P. MURRAY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 13 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of May, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
(August 9, 2005)

#### American Spray-On Corp., Respondent, v Austin Helle Company, Inc., Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 737]

The decision and order of this Court entered herein on June 30, 2005 (19 AD3d 326 [2005]) recalled and vacated, and the appeal deemed withdrawn. *(See*Motion No. 3259.) No opinion. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.