alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

|Name                                         |  | State of Incorporation  
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|CompuCredit Funding Corp.                    |  | Nevada                  
|CompuCredit Funding Corp. II                 |  | Nevada                  
|CompuCredit Acquisition Corporation          |  | Nevada                  
|CompuCredit Acquisition Funding Corp.(1)     |  | Nevada                  
|CompuCredit Acquisition Funding Corp. III(1) |  | Nevada                  
|CompuCredit Services Corporation             |  | Nevada                  
|Citadel Group, Inc.                          |  | Florida                 
|CompuCredit Reinsurance Ltd.(2)              |  | Turks and Caicos Islands
|AspireCard.com, Inc.                         |  | Georgia                 
|Card Services, Inc.                          |  | Georgia                 
|CompuCredit Acquisition Corporation II(1)    |  | Nevada                  
|CompuCredit Acquisition Corporation III      |  | Nevada                  
|Fingerhut Receivables, Inc.(3)               |  | Delaware                
|FMT Services, Inc.(3)                        |  | Nevada                  
|CFC, LLC(4)                                  |  | Nevada                  
|CFC II, LLC(5)                               |  | Nevada                  
|Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC               |  | Georgia                 
|Aspire Financial Managerment, LLC            |  | Georgia                 
|Aspire Life, Inc.(6)                         |  | Nevada                  

---

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION 

 

I, Thomas Gutierrez, President and Chief Executive Officer of Xerium Technologies, Inc., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the “Registrant”); 

 

2. Basedon 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 withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial 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 Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 

 

4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant 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 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 proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 14, 2005 

 

/s/Thomas Gutierrez 

----
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



In connection with
the Quarterly Report of New Century Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patti M.
Dodge, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller 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 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.



/s/ Patti M. DodgePatti M. DodgeExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and ControllerMay 10, 2005




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.



The foregoing certification is being furnished with the Companys Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2005 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Section 302 Certification**

 

I, James L. Janik, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Douglas Dynamics, Inc.;

 

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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)) for the registrant 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 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; and

 

(c) 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 (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
|                    | By:      | /s/ JAMES L. JANIK                       |
|-------------------------|----------|------------------------------------------|
|                    |     | James L. Janik                           |
| * *                | * * | *President and**Chief Executive Officer* |
|                    |     |
| Dated: May 9, 2011 |     |

 

----
#### YELLOW TRANSPORTATION and Yellow Freight System, Petitioners, v. William GOLDEN, Sr., Respondent.

No. 1D03-0462.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 24, 2003.

*634Robert L. Teitler and Henry Suarez of Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson, Miami, for Petitioners.

Bill McCabe of Shepherd, McCabe &' Cooley, Longwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Yellow Transportation and Yellow Freight System’s petition for writ of cer-tiorari is denied without prejudice. Petitioners may raise the issue of the appropriateness of the striking the employer’s defenses on direct appeal.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ, concur.
STATE v. Rama Dion Benjamin CRUMP

151PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 8, 2019

Ann B. Petersen, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Crump, Ramar Dion Benjamin

James R. Glover, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill

Peter A. Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 4th of January 2019 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of January 2019."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 6th day of February 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
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 Autostrada  Motors,  Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  (the  "Quarterly
Report"),  We,  Douglas W. Fry,  President  and  director  and Travis T. Jenson,
Secretary,Treasurer, CFO and director of the Registrant, 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 Quarterkt Report 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


By/S/ Douglas W. Fry
-----------------
Douglas W. Fry
President and Director
Dated this 16th day of May, 2005


By/S/ Travis T. Jenson
-----------------
Travis T. Jenson
Secretary, Treasurer, CFO and Director
Dated this 16th day of May, 2005
STATE of North Carolina v. Salim Abdu GOULD

No. 91P14-5

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 17, 2018.

Salim Abdu Gould, William D. Spence, Attorney at Law, Kinston, for Gould, Salim Abdu.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kenneth A. Sack, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of September 2018 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of September 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 17th of September 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of September 2018."
Exhibit 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Excellency Investment Realty Trust, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2009, I, Richard Pelletier, Chief Financial Officer of Excellency Investment Realty Trust, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:
 
 1.           Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2009, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Excellency Investment Realty Trust, Inc.
 
 Dated: May 15, 2009.
 
 /s/ Richard PelletierRichard Pelletier, Chief Financial Officer ofExcellency Investment Realty Trust, Inc.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARION RAY CARVER

No. 7427SC916

(Filed 19 February 1975)

Appeal by defendant from *Tillery, Judge.*Judgment entered 22 July 1974 in Superior Court, Gaston County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 January 1975.

*'Attorney General Edmisten by Deputy Attorney General Andrew A. Vamore, Jr., for the State.*

*R. R. Friday for defendant appellant.*

BROCK, Chief Judge, PARKER and HEDRICK, Judges.

No error.
##### 



Exhibit 10.25
 
 Amendment Number Eight NC Mortgage NC Capital NC Financial Citigroup Agreement
 RECITALS
      Fees and Expenses




---



##### 



Defined Terms
 Representations
 Limited Effect
 GOVERNING LAW
 Counterparts
  -2-




---



##### 



CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS REALTY CORP.By:
    
    /s/ Bobbie TheivakumaranName: Bobbie TheivakumaranTitle:   Authorized AgentNC CAPITAL CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Karl WeissName: Karl WeissTitle:   SVPNEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Karl WeissName: Karl WeissTitle:   SVPNEW CENTURY FINANCIAL CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Kevin CloydName: Kevin CloydTitle:   EVPBy:
    
    /s/ Brad A. MorriceName: Brad A. MorriceTitle:   President and CEO
**2-3-15 Mr.** **Stephen Richardson** **#1795088 Wayne** **Scott Unit 6999** **Retrieve Rd.** **Angleton, Texas 77515** **COURT OF** **APPEALS Fourth** **Court of Appeals** **District Attn: Carmen De Leon** **CaQena-Reeves Justice** **Center 300** **Dolorosa, Suite** **3200 San** **Antonio. Texas** **78205-3037 Court** **of Appeals** **No. 04-12-00379-CR** **Trial Court Case** **No. 2010-CR-10629** **Styfcg: Richardson** **v. State** **Dear Clerk,** 

### could**you please** **tell me** **how much** **will it** **cost me** **to yet** **volume's (S)** 

## five**through (9)** **nine?. If** **need be my family** **and will** **try to** **purchase one** **volume at a** **time. Also** **if possible** **would like** **to yet** **a copy of my** **judgment sentencing** **paper's.**

## Any**and all** **help you** **can provide** **me with will be yreatly** **appreciated. Sincerly** 

### Mr.**StepKen Richardson** **#1795088 CO** **en**

# i/>/-e
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541. 

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On June 24, 2005, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of permit applications received. A permit was issued on October 12, 2005 to: Shane B. Kanatous, Permit No. 2006-015.                

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-20862 Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, REDWOOD 

NATIONAL PARK, Orick, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1444

Issued: May 22, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On June 17, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 9, 2019 decision of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned the 

appeal Docket 19-1444.

On August 1, 2018 appellant, then a 26-year-old forestry aid, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that in August 2010 he sustained multiple injuries while playing in a 

basketball game scheduled on a regular workday evening while in the performance of duty. The 

record as presented to the Board establishes that appellant has not been properly served with any 

documents in the development or adjudication of his claim. Therefore, the case shall be remanded 

for proper claim development and service of all documentation regarding the adjudication of the 

claim. 

Accordingly, the May 9, 2019 decision shall be set aside and the case remanded for further 

development to provide appellant an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in his claim.1 Following 

this and any other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo

decision.

 

1 See G.A., Docket No. 18-0266 (issued February 25, 2019).
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 9, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further action consistent with 

this order of the Board.

Issued: May 22, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
#### Aaron Shottenfeld, Plaintiff, *v.*Sonia Waist & Dress Co., Inc., and Another, Defendants.

Municipal Court of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Third District,

March 20, 1936.

*Morris & Samuel*Meyers, for the plaintiff.

*George R. Bregman [Thomas Pompilio*of counsel], for the defendants.

*778■ Winter, J.

Plaintiff is seeking a reargument of this court’s decision, striking this case from the jury calendar.

After careful consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that my original decision was proper and that the case was not properly on the jury calendar and that plaintiff’s demand was not timely and did not comply with section 118 of the Municipal Court Code.

That section requires that a demand for a trial by a jury may be made by either party *“*within three days after joinder of issue.” Plaintiff filed his demand on the fourth day after defendant had filed its answer and served the same on plaintiff by mail. Plaintiff claims, however, that the demand is nevertheless timely because the service by mail of the answer extended his time three days by virtue of section 164 of the Civil Practice Act. This contention is obviously not valid unless issue is joined under the Municipal Court Code by the service of the answer and not by its filing. In my opinion, however, plaintiff’s contention in this respect is not sound. The practice in this court is essentially different in this respect from that in the Supreme Court. Here the summons requires the defendant to appear in the court “ before the clerk of the said court at his office * * * within five days after the service of this summons upon you * * * and to make answer to the complaint,” etc., while the summons in the Supreme Court requires the defendant to serve his answer on the plaintiff within the prescribed time. Also section .78 of the Municipal Court Code compels issue to be joined “ within the time limited by the summons ” or within five days. Issue according to the summons is an appearance and answer in the clerk’s office. Nothing is required about serving the answer, and a default cannot be taken for non-service of the answer provided it is filed within the proper time after service of the summons. The Code will be searched in vain for any reference to joinder of issue by service of the answer. Service of papers in this court is a creature of the rules made by its judges' and not by the Legislature. This requirement is for the convenience of the bar, the court and the litigants, but it cannot overrule the plain provisions of the statute. In my opinion, issue in this action was joined when the answer was made in the clerk’s office and plaintiff was required to demand a trial by jury within three days thereafter whether he received any copy of the answer or not, or whether it was served on him personally or by mail. The service of the answer had nothing whatever to do with the joinder of issue any more than it would have affected the issue in any way if the answer had been made orally to the clerk and indorsed on the papers.

The motion should be denied.
#### Frances Turner WEST, on Behalf of Her Minor Son, Lamareo J. West, and Sherry Lambert West, on Behalf of Her Minor Children, Jamarea Lambert West and Beau Lambert West v. Johnnie WATSON, Beatrice Watson, Howard Watson, Specialty Risk and Associates, and Lloyd’s Underwriters at London, Jointly and in Solido.

No. 2003-C-1297.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re West, Frances Turner et al.; West, Sherry Lambert;—Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 451,745; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 37,100-CA.

Denied.