alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit21**

 

Subsidiaries of the Company

 

CM Holding Trust, a Delaware business trust

 

CharterMac Equity Issuer Trust, a Delaware business trust

 

CharterMac Corporation, a Delaware corporation

 

Charter Credit Enhancement I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

 

Subsidiaries of CharterMac Equity IssuerTrust, a Delaware business trust

 

CharterMac Origination Trust I, a Delaware business trust

 

CharterMac Owner Trust I, a Delaware business trust

 

Subsidiaries of CharterMac Corporation

 

PW Funding, Inc. a Delaware corporation

 

CharterMacCapital Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

 

CharterMacGuarantor LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

 

Subsidiaries of CharterMac Capital Company

 

RelatedCapital Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

 

RelatedEquities Corporation, a Delaware corporation

 

RelatedCapital Partners Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

RelatedManager LLC

 

RCC CreditFacility LLC, , a Delaware limited liability company

 

Related AMIAssociates Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

Subsidiary of CM Guarantor LLC

 

RelatedCharter L.P., a Delaware

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11

                             CONTROL DEVICES, INC.
                       CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
               (Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                       Three Months Ended
                                                 March 31, 1998   March 31, 1997
                                                 --------------   --------------
<S>                                              <C>              <C>
Net income                                           $1,922          $1,536

Weighted Average Common Shares 
  Outstanding - Basic                                 6,630           6,618

Add-Dilutive effect of outstanding options
  (as determined by the application of the
  treasury stock method)                                377             150

Weighted Average Common Shares
  Outstanding - Diluted                               7,007           6,768
                                                     ======          ======

Earnings per share:

Basic                                                 $0.29           $0.23
                                                     ======          ======
Diluted                                               $0.27           $0.23
                                                     ======          ======
</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Dayton Wayne PITTER.

No. 640P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, for Dayton Wayne Pitter.

James P. Longest, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th day of December 2006 by Defendant 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."
STATE v. Dane LOCKLEAR, Jr.

No. 578A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 12, 2006.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of June 2006 by Defendant to Extend Time to Investigate and Prepare Transcript:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 27th day of July 2006 to investigate and prepare transcript.

*469By order of the Court in conference this the 12th day of June 2006."
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


As
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the


Sarbanes
      - Oxley Act of 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of PLM Income Fund I (the “Fund”), on Form
      10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the
      President of the Manager and of the Fund, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      that:





(1)  the
      Report of the Fund filed today fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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











/s/
      Paul M. Leand


Paul
      M.
      Leand


President
      of PLM Financial Services, Inc.


May
      11,
      2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>               9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          76,320
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                38,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,235,283
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          66,786
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            69,171
<LOANS>                                      1,297,032
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (24,779)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,735,032
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,070,831
<SHORT-TERM>                                   376,030
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,176,665
<LONG-TERM>                                    583,439
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           436
<OTHER-SE>                                     598,462
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,735,032
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 95,967
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              161,333
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,617
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               258,917
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              96,328
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             157,335
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          101,582
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      750
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               7,175
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 44,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 75,433
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      23,029
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,404
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.36
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.09
<LOANS-NON>                                      6,112
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   909
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    436
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                24,029
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               24,779
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         24,779
        


</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

PUBLIC PATENT FOUNDATION, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee, 

v.

UNITED STATES, 

Intervenor-Appellee.

__________________________ 

2012-1274

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 09-CV-5471, Judge 

Katherine B. Forrest. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION 

__________________________ 

Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

O R D E R

Case: 12-1274 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 05/03/2013
PUBLIC PATENT FOUNDATION, INC. v. MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 2

Public Patent Foundation, Inc. (PubPat) moves for 

summary affirmance. McNeil-PPC, Inc. (McNeil) responds. 

PubPat brought suit in June 2009 against McNeil for 

falsely marking and advertising certain products. In 

September 2011, Congress enacted the Leahy-Smith 

America Invents Act (AIA), which, among other changes, 

eliminated standing in false marking cases for third 

parties that have not suffered a competitive injury as a 

result of the false marking. The change was applied 

retroactively to pending false marking cases. As a result 

of the changes enacted by the AIA, the district court held 

that PubPat no longer had standing to pursue this case 

and dismissed the action. 

PubPat argues that this court’s decision in Brooks v. 

Dunlop Manufacturing Inc., 702 F.3d 624 (Fed. Cir. 2012), 

requires summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment. McNeil agrees that Brooks requires affirmance of 

the district court’s judgment, but raises concerns about 

PubPat’s previous arguments that this case is distinguishable from cases such as Brooks because of the timing 

of filing. 

Summary affirmance of a case “is appropriate, inter 

alia, when the position of one party is so clearly correct as 

a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the 

outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 

F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We find that summary 

affirmance is appropriate here. 

In Brooks, this court held that Congress’s retroactive 

application of the false marking provision of the AIA does 

not violate the Due Process Clause or the Intellectual 

Property Clause of the Constitution. Brooks, 702 F.3d at 

625-26. This court has also held that the AIA’s change to 

the false marking provision “appl[ies] to all cases, without 

Case: 12-1274 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 05/03/2013
3 PUBLIC PATENT FOUNDATION, INC. v. MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

exception, that are pending on, or commenced on or after, 

the date of the enactment” of the AIA. Hall v. Bed Bath & 

Beyond, Inc., 705 F.3d 1357, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting AIA, Pub. L. No. 112-29, §16(b)(4), 125 Stat. 284, 329 

(2011)). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The district court’s judgment is summarily affirmed. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) All other pending motions are moot. 

FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly

 Clerk

s24

Case: 12-1274 Document: 54 Page: 3 Filed: 05/03/2013
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

[LETTERHEAD OF KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP]


                         Independent Auditors' Consent
                         -----------------------------

The Stockholders and the
Board of Directors of Roslyn Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-41365 on Form S-8 of Roslyn Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 28,
1998, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of Roslyn
Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997,
which report is incorporated by reference to the December 31, 1997 Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Roslyn Bancorp, Inc.


                                          /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                          KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Jericho, New York
March 30, 1998
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50156

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARTIN BARCENAS-PATINO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:16-CR-567-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Barcenas-Patino appeals his sentence of 48 months of 

imprisonment and three years of supervised release for illegal reentry after 

deportation. He argues that the district court erroneously determined that his 

sentence was subject to an enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He asserts 

that his indictment did not allege that he had a prior conviction and that,

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50156 Document: 00514283331 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2017
No. 17-50156

2

therefore, the enhancement violated his due process rights because his 

sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. 

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, asserting that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 

(1998), forecloses Barcenas-Patino’s argument. Barcenas-Patino concedes that 

his argument was rejected in Almendarez-Torres and explains that he raises it 

to preserve it for further review; thus, summary affirmance is appropriate. See 

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED. The judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative 

motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

 Case: 17-50156 Document: 00514283331 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2017
Order entered August 16, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-18-00930-CV

IN RE JOSEPH STROFFOLINO, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 219th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 219-00125-2018



### ORDER Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s August 15, 2018 “petition

for writ of habeas corpus and dissolution of warrant.”

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
CHARLES S. HONACHER and CATHERINE M. HONACHER v. DAVID K. EVERSON and PATRICIA M. EVERSON.

No. 174P06-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina

August 17, 2006

**ORDER**

> "Defendant-Petitioners' Pro Se Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Declaratory Ruling is dismissed with a special order pursuant to Rule 34 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure as a frivolous filing. Defendant-Petitioners are no longer allowed to file pro se in this civil matter before the Court. Any future filing in this matter by Plaintiff-Petitioner which is not accompanied by a certification signed by a licensed North Carolina attorney, who is in good standing with the North Carolina State Bar, verifying Defendant-Petitioners' claims are of merit and not frivolous, will not be processed.

> Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 34, we remand this matter to Rockingham County for a hearing to determine sanctions, if appropriate. By order of the Court in Conference this the 17th day of August 2006.
Exhibit 32(ii)



Certification



STATEMENT OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER

OF ATMOSPHERIC GLOW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Annual Report of Atmospheric Glow Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Sharon L. Draper, Chief Accounting
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                           
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: June 29, 2004 |  | /s/    Sharon L. Draper                   
|                    |  | Sharon L. Draper, Chief Accounting Officer
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1029/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1029/2013 of 23 October 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in VI and VII; EU            and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1029/2013                     

# of 23 October 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in VI and VII; EU and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII                        and XIV by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 39/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for                              certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements(2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2013.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 October 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 1.
George M. WASHINGTON, Jr. v. Boyd BENNETT, Director of Prisons, Maury Correctional Trust Fund Account.

No. 568P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

George M. Washington, Jr., Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 1st day of November 2006 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Greene County:

"Denied by order of the Court in Conference this the 16th day of November 2006."
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 26, 2015

t0623

Order 

Clerk

June 26, 2015

150396

SHERYL L. SPIGNER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150396

COA: 315616

Macomb CC: 2011-002037-NO

YARMOUTH COMMONS ASSOCIATION and

KRAMER-TRIAD MANAGEMENT GROUP,

LLC,

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

Defendants-Appellants, 

and

W & D LANDSCAPING & SNOW

PLOWING, INC.,

Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.