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

EXHIBIT 22.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                             STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF
      EXACT NAME OF REGISTRANT AS                   INCORPORATION OR
       SPECIFIED IN ITS CHARTER                     ORGANIZATION
   ----------------------------------------  ------------------------------
   <S>                                                 <C>
   Blaya Inc                                           Delaware
   Oro Spanish Broadcasting Inc                        California
   Radio Unica Network, Inc.                           Delaware
   Radio Unica of Chicago, Inc                         Delaware
   Radio Unica of Chicago License Corp                 Delaware
   Radio Unica of Dallas, Inc                          Delaware
   Radio Unica of Dallas License Corp                  Delaware
   Radio Unica of Denver, Inc                          Delaware
   Radio Unica of Denver License Corp                  Delaware
   Radio Unica of Fresno, Inc.                         Delaware
   Radio Unica of Fresno License Corp                  Deleware
   Radio Unica of Houston License Corp                 Delaware
   Radio Unica of Los Angeles                          Delaware
   Radio Unica of Los Angeles License Corp             Delaware
   Radio Unica of McAllen, Inc.                        Deleware
   Radio Unica of McAllen License Corp                 Deleware
   Radio Unica of Miami, Inc                           Delaware
   Radio Unica of Miami License Corp                   Delaware
   Radio Unica of New York, Inc                        Delaware
   Radio Unica of New York License Corp                Delaware
   Radio Unica of Phoenix, Inc                         Delaware
   Radio Unica of Phoenix License Corp                 Delaware
   Radio Unica of San Antonio, Inc.                    Delaware
   Radio Unica of San Diego, Inc.                      Delaware
   Radio Unica of San Diego License Corp               Deleware
   Radio Unica of San Francisco Inc                    Delaware
   Radio Unica of San Francisco License Corp           Delaware
   Radio Unica Sales Corp                              Florida

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**
CERTIFICATION
     I, J. Barry Morrow, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CollegiateFunding Services, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004
By: /s/ J. Barry Morrow
Order filed September 3 , 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00357

- CR

____________ ERIK KUETHER , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 7

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1935745

ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was originally due June 1, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. This court granted the court reporter ’ s second request for
extension of time to file the record until August 31, 2015

. On August 28, 2015, the court reporter filed a third motion for extension of time to file the record, until September 30, 2015. Finding the court reporter has alleged exceptional circumstances, we GRANT the request and issue the following order.We order Sandra Powell , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal

on or before September 30, 2015

. No further extension will be entertained absent exceptional circumstances . The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring th at the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Sandra Powell does not timely file the record as ordered, the Court may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the
reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Aventine Renewable Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending March 31, 2007 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Ajay Sabherwal, Chief Financial Officerof Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|        | /s/ Ajay Sabherwal      |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Ajay Sabherwal          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | May 9, 2007             |

 

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20891

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JACK NOVOSELSKY,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-96-1916 (CR-H-91-59-25)

- - - - - - - - - -

Janurary 30, 1997

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We construe the notice of appeal filed by Jack Novoselsky,

federal inmate #42181-019, as a request for the issuance of a

certificate of appealability (COA). See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b);

United States v. Orozco, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Dec. 31, 1996,

No. 96-50402), 1996 WL 742530 at *4. IT IS ORDERED that COA is

GRANTED on Novoselsky’s claim that counsel rendered ineffective

assistance by misinforming Novoselsky of the plea agreement terms
No. 96-20891

- 2 -

and their effect. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). IT IS ALSO

ORDERED that COA is DENIED on the remaining issues. See id.

The district court’s summary denial of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion fails to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law

on this ineffective-assistance claim, a claim for which the

defendant may be entitled to relief in light of the record

containing the affidavit of trial counsel. See Gray v. Lucas,

677 F.2d 1086, 1102 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 910

(1983). Briefing by the Government is not necessary at this

time. See Dickinson v. Wainwright, 626 F.2d 1184, 1186 (5th Cir.

Unit B 1980).

Therefore, we vacate the district court’s order regarding

this one claim and remand for further proceedings. 

COA GRANTED ON ONE CLAIM. VACATED AND REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 501 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 501

To require that the poverty line determined for the State of Alaska be 
used for all the States and the District of Columbia, during a 6-month 
 period for the purpose of carrying out the Food and Nutrition Act of 
       2008 and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 14, 2009

   Mr. Baca introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Education 
 and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require that the poverty line determined for the State of Alaska be 
used for all the States and the District of Columbia, during a 6-month 
 period for the purpose of carrying out the Food and Nutrition Act of 
       2008 and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``America's Right-to-Eat Rescue Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY UNIFORM USE OF ALASKA POVERTY LINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION 
              OF CERTAIN NUTRITION PROGRAMS.

    During the 6-month period beginning on the 1st day of the 1st month 
that begins more than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, each reference to the poverty line applicable in--
            (1) the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et 
        seq.), and
            (2) the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 
        U.S.C. 1751 et seq.),
with respect to any of the several States or the District of Columbia, 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the poverty line then applicable 
under the Acts for such period with respect to the State of Alaska.
                                 <all>
```
#### George H. BORNSIDE and Bette B. Bornside v. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. d/b/a Memorial Medical Center (Formerly Mercy Hospital); Dr._Farhat (Believed to be David William Farhat, M.D.); Nicholas D. Pappas, M.D.; Rudolph M. Franklin, M.D.; and Jose L. Garcia-Oller, M.D.

No. 2003-CC-1235.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.

WEIMER, J., would grant the writ.
#### MSW DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C, Appellant, v. Eric Von HOFFMANN, et al., Respondents.

No. ED 81594.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

May 20, 2003.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court and Motion to Modify Denied July 14, 2003.

Matthew J. Fairless, St. Charles, MO, for appellant.

Charles W. Niedner, Claude C. Knight, St. Charles, for respondents.

Raymond & Kim Wallace, St. Louis, pro se.

*838Before MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

MSW Development, L.L.C. appeals a judgment denying its petition to establish a private road through Timberlaine Trails (“Subdivision”) subdivision pursuant to section 228.342 RSMo 2000. We find no error and affirm. In addition, we deny Subdivision’s request for attorney’s fees incurred in responding to this appeal.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(File No. 333-33730) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-75487, 333-91589 and 333-100515) of MetroCorpBancshares, Inc. of our report dated March 14, 2007 relating to the consolidated financialstatements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in thisForm 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPHouston, Texas
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Atlantic Coast Federal Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert J. Larison, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: November 15, 2004

/s/ Robert J. Larison, Jr.
-------------------------------------
Robert J. Larison, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer

                                 []PAGE []36[]
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60546-60547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20735]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis 
Panel, K22 Review.
    Date: December 5, 2005.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Division of Extramural Programs, National Library of 
Medicine, 6705

[[Page 60547]]

Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20892-7968, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Arthur A. Petrosian, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Programs, National Library of 
Medicine, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20892-7968, 
301-496-4253, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81d1e4f5f3eef2e8e0c1ece0e8edafefe8e9afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f5a59081879a869c94b598949c99db9b9c9ddb929a83">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, 
Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 6, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-20735 Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LONZO McKOY

No. 7912SC650

(Filed 8 January 1980)

Criminal Law § 18.1— failure to show jurisdiction of superior court — appeal dismissed

Where defendant was charged with the misdemeanors of destroying city property, using profanity, and assaulting a police officer who was discharging his duties, his appeal from conviction on the assault charge is dismissed where he failed to show how the superior court obtained jurisdiction of the case.

APPEAL by defendant from *Brewer, Judge.*Judgment entered 16 February 1979 in Superior Court, CUMBERLAND County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 4 December 1979.

Defendant was tried in the superior court on warrants charging him with destruction of city property, using “loud, vulgar and obscene language in the presence of two or more persons ... in a public place”, and assaulting a police officer while the officer was attempting to discharge a duty of his office, namely, arresting defendant for profanity. He pleaded not guilty to all charges. At the end of the State’s evidence, the court, upon motions made by defendant, dismissed the charges of destruction of city property and profanity. His motion to dismiss the charge of assaulting a police officer was denied, and the jury found him guilty as charged as to that offense. From a judgment imposing a prison sentence of 12 to 14 months, defendant appealed to this Court.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth C. Bunting, for the State.*

*Assistant Public Defender Rebecca J. Bosley for the defendant appellant.*

*517HEDRICK, Judge.

The warrants issued against defendant in this case charged misdemeanor offenses. The offense for which he was convicted is a violation of G.S. § 14-33(b)(4) (1977 Cum. Supp.), a misdemeanor. It is fundamental that the district courts of this State have exclusive original jurisdiction of misdemeanors. G.S. § 7A-272. The jurisdiction of the superior court is derivative and arises only upon an appeal from a conviction of the misdemeanor in the district court. *State v. Caldwell,*21 N.C. App. 723, 205 S.E. 2d 322 (1974); *State v. Parks,*20 N.C. App. 207, 200 S.E. 2d 837 (1973); *State v. Byrd,*4 N.C. App. 672, 167 S.E. 2d 522 (1969).

Although neither party has raised the question of jurisdiction, “[t]he Court of Appeals will take notice *ex mero motu*of the failure of the record to show jurisdiction in the court entering the judgment appealed from.” *State v. Parks, supra*at 208, 200 S.E. 2d at 838. The record before us discloses absolutely nothing of the proceedings, if any, in the district court. There is, thus, nothing in the record to disclose how the superior court obtained jurisdiction of the case.

It is the duty of the defendant appellant to see that the record on appeal is properly made up and transmitted to this Court. *State v. Parks, supra; State v. Marshall,*11 N.C. App. 200, 180 S.E. 2d 464 (1971). For the failure of the record in this case to show jurisdiction, the appeal must be dismissed. *State v. Byrd, supra.*

Appeal dismissed.

Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and WELLS concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-85978) of Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. of our report dated August
14, 2002 (except for Note 20, as to which the date is August 21, 2002), with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Fox Entertainment Group,
Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30,
2002.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Los Angeles, California

September 18, 2002
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BONNIE LEE DAYE

No. 7114SC690

(Filed 12 January 1972)

1. Criminal Law § 128 — motion for mistrial — discretion of court

A motion for a mistrial is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and the ruling thereon is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion.

2. Constitutional Law § 31 — identification of informer

Police officer in a possession of heroin prosecution was not required to disclose the identity of a confidential informer.

Appeal by defendant from *Hobgood, Judge,*12 April 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Durham County.

Defendant was convicted on bills of indictment charging felonious possession and sale of heroin. From the judgments entered the defendant appealed.

*Attorneyr General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Thomas W. Earnhardt for the State.*

*A. H. Borland and Ronald H. Ruis for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

[1] Defendant’s first assignment of error is that the court erred in failing to grant his motion for mistrial due to the prejudicial responses of a State’s witness and improper ques*436tioning by the solicitor. “As a general rule, a motion for a mistrial is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and the ruling thereon is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion.” *State v. Williams,*7 N.C. App. 51, 171 S.E. 2d 39. The record before us discloses no abuse of discretion. It suffices to say that, in almost every instance, the able trial judge ruled with the defendant when defendant elected to enter timely objections to the solicitor’s questions or moved to strike the responses now alleged to constitute prejudicial error.

[2] Defendant finally contends that the court erred in failing to require the police officer who purchased the heroin from defendant to disclose the identity of a confidential informer. At trial defendant did not contend, and there is nothing in this record to show, that the identity of the informer would be relevant or helpful to the defense. This assignment of error is overruled. *State v. Moore,*275 N.C. 141, 166 S.E. 2d 53. In the trial from which defendant appealed we find no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Brock and Britt concur.