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

 

Subsidiaries of theRegistrant (a)

 

SupremeCorporation, a Texas corporation

 

SupremeIndiana Operations, Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

SupremeIndiana Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

SupremeCorporation of Texas, a Texas corporation

 

SupremeTruck Bodies of California, Inc., a California corporation

 

SupremeSTB, LLC, a California limited liability company

 

SupremeMid-Atlantic Corporation, a Texas corporation

 

SupremeNorthwest, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company

 

SilverCrown, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

 

SCTower Structural Laminating, Inc., a Texas corporation

 

SupremeInsurance Company, Inc., a Nevada corporation

 

SupremeProperties North, Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

SupremeProperties South, Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

SupremeProperties East, Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

SupremeProperties West, Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

Supreme/MurphyTruck Bodies, Inc., a North Carolina corporation

 

----

(a)           All subsidiaries are 100% owned by the Registrant.

 

----
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DONALD C. MORINGIELLO, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D20-1167 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 2, 2020. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee County, Nicholas R. Thompson, Judge. Donald C. Moringiello, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rochester, Syracuse and Eastern Railroad Company, Appellant, *v.*Daniel Moroney et al., Constituting the Board of Assessors of the Town of Montezuma, Respondents.

(Submitted September 30, 1918;

decided October 8, 1918.)

Motion for re-argument or to amend remittitur. (See 224 N. Y. 114.)

Motion denied, except that the remittitur be recalled and amended by adding thereto after the words “ costs in all courts,” the words *“*against the Town of Montezuma, County of Cayuga, being the tax district represented by the defendants as the Board of Assessors thereof.”
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 25-2 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 1 of 7
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 25-2 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 2 of 7
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 25-2 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 3 of 7
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 25-2 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 4 of 7
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 25-2 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 5 of 7
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 25-2 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 6 of 7
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS Document 25-2 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 7 of 7
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). JLA / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T NO R MAN D J UA NA , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 73255 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 566- 536 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary16, 2010 ** B e f o r e : F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an dM . S M I T H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . N orm an Dj uana, nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f I nd on es i a, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of a B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. W e ha ve ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w th e B I A ’s d e c is io n o n am o tio n to 

# FI LED FEB 23 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSJ LA/ Res ea r ch 07- 73255 2 r e o p e n f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . Mem breno v. G on zales , 4 2 5 F .3 d1 2 2 7 , 1 2 2 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( e n b a n c ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n con clud i ng thatthe new evi dence Dj ua nas ubm i tt e d di d nots how pr i m af a c i e e l i gi bi l i tyf

orr e l i e f be c aus e the e v id e n c e o n lye s tab lis h e dth e r e w a s o n - g o in g g e n e r a l s tr if e in I n d o n e s iaa n dd id n o t s h o w a n yin d iv idu a liz e dr is kto Dju an a . See Ko n s ta n t i n o v a v . I NS , 195 F . 3d 52 8, 53 0 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). W e r e je c t Dju a n a ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e B I A u s e dth e w r o n g s tan d ar din denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen, and w e r ej ec thi s c on t ent i on thatthe B IA re qu i re d h i m t o sub m i taffi d av i t s. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### ROGERS v. ROGERS

No. 106 PC.

Case below: 35 N.C. App. 577.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1978. Appeal by defendant dismissed ex mero motu 8 May 1978.
Case 2:05-cv-09559-VM-HBP Document 1 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-09559-VM-HBP Document 1 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-09559-VM-HBP Document 1 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-09559-VM-HBP Document 1 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-09559-VM-HBP Document 1 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:05-cv-09559-VM-HBP Document 1 Filed 11/14/2005 Page 6 of 6
Exhibit 32



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 Annual Report of Telos Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), I, John
B. Wood, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Michele Nakazawa, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) to my knowledge, 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.



Date: April 15, 2005/s/ John B. WoodJohn B. WoodChief Executive OfficerDate: April 15, 2005/s/ Michele NakazawaMichele NakazawaChief Financial Officer




Page 60 of 60
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 30 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 30 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 30 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 3 of 3
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.29 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### STATE v. NICKERSON

No. 615PA82.

Case below: 59 N.C. App. 236.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 7 December 1982. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of significant public interest denied 7 December 1982.
<PAGE>

                                                              Exhibit 23(a)

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
GREASE MONKEY HOLDING CORPORATION:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 
33-80376) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 33-79616) on Form 
S-3 of Grease Monkey Holding Corporation of our report dated March 15, 1999, 
except as to Note K, which is as of March 27, 1999, relating to the 
consolidated balance sheets of Grease Monkey Holding Corporation and 
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated 
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of 
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report 
appears in the December 31, 1998, annual report on Form 10-KSB of Grease 
Monkey Holding Corporation.


                                       KPMG LLP


Denver, Colorado
April 15, 1999
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRAIG S. SLAVIN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

REBECCA MONET; LAURENCE F. HAINES,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 55549

D.C. No.

3:19

- cv

- 01786

- JM

- MDD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2021 * *
Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Craig Slavin appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for

failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* 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

MAR 5 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

1. The district court correctly determined that Slavin failed to state a

claim for malicious prosecution under California law because the defendants in this

matter had probable cause to pursue their libel claim against Slavin in the prior

proceedings. See Roberts v. McAfee , 660 F.3d 1156, 1163 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting

that the second element of a California malicious prosecution claim is that the prior

proceedings were brought without probable cause). “Probable cause is present

unless any reasonable attorney would agree that the action is totally and

completely without merit.” Roberts v. Sentry Life Ins.

, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 408, 412

( Ct. App. 1999) (citation and emphasis in original omitted). That some of the

factual allegations in the prior libel complaint were later disproved does not vitiate

the probable cause to continue the claim supported by the other factual allegations

in the prior complaint. Slavin’s argument to the contrary is not supported by the

legal authority to which he cites

.

2. The district court properly determined that Slavin failed to adequately

allege the malice element of a malicious prosecution claim against Defe ndant

Haines. To state a California malicious prosecution claim, “[t]he plaintiff must

plead and prove actual ill will or some improper ulterior motive,” ranging

“anywhere from open hostility to indifference.” Downey Venture v. LMI Ins. Co.

,

78 Cal. Rptr . 2d 142, 151 ( Ct. App. 1998) ( citations and emphasis in original

omitted). Although Slavin’s complaint alleges Monet demonstrated malice by3

filing the libel suit to harass Slavin and gain an unfair business advantage over

him, it fails to specifically al lege Haines’ ill will or other improper motive.

AFFIRMED

.
#### STATE v. TILLMAN

No. 577P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 821.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 November 1982.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

February 6, 2013

t0130

Order 

February 6, 2013

146047-8 & (44)

DEBRA L. HAGERTY, Personal

Representative of the ESTATE OF DEBRA

LOUISE HAGERTY-KRAEMER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146047-8

COA: 304369, 304439 

Manistee CC: 10-014081-NI

BOARD OF MANISTEE COUNTY

ROAD COMMISSIONERS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the September 11, 2012 judgment of the 

Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REVERSE that portion of the Court of Appeals judgment which held 

that the defendant is not entitled to the protection of governmental immunity, and we 

VACATE the remainder of the court’s analysis because it is unnecessary to the 

disposition of the case. The plaintiff’s decedent was fatally injured when the vehicle she 

was driving left an unpaved road in Manistee County and hit a tree. The plaintiff alleged 

that this accident occurred when an oncoming motorist caused a cloud of dust to rise 

from the roadway, causing the decedent to lose her orientation, drive into soft sand on the 

edge of the road, and veer off the roadway. This theory of causation failed to point to a 

condition of the highway in need of repair. A dust cloud rising from an unpaved road is 

not a defect in the physical structure of the roadbed, as required for liability to arise under 

the Governmental Tort Liability Act highway exception, MCL 691.1402(1). Nawrocki v 

Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143, 176-177 (2000). Moreover, a plaintiff cannot 

recover in a claim where the sole proximate cause of the injury is a natural substance that 

has accumulated over a highway. See Haliw v Sterling Heights, 464 Mich 297, 311 

(2001). An accumulation of gravel, whether natural or otherwise, does not implicate the 

defendant’s duty to maintain the highway in “reasonable repair.” Paletta v Oakland Co 

Rd Comm, 491 Mich 897 (2012); Estate of Buckner v City of Lansing, 480 Mich 1243 

(2008). We REMAND this case to the Manistee Circuit Court for entry of an order 

granting summary disposition to the defendant pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7).
#### JACOBS v. SHERARD

No. 133 PC.

Case below: 36 N.C. App. 60.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 14 July 1978.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## News Release

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Soldier Accounted For From Korean War (Collins, G.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
#### STATE v. AARON

No. 203 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 582.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 September 1976.
<PAGE>   1


                                   EXHIBIT 11
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                        FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                      (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           1996             1995              1994
                                                           ----             ----              ----
<S>                                                        <C>              <C>             <C>   
Primary:
    Weighted average shares outstanding                    20,814           20,746          20,596
                                                         ========         ========        ========
    Net income                                           $ 94,503         $ 72,260        $ 56,544 
    Less convertible preferred stock dividend               3,115             --              --
                                                         --------         --------        --------
    Adjusted net income                                  $ 91,388         $ 72,260        $ 56,544
                                                         ========         ========        ========
    Per share amount:
        Net income                                       $   4.39         $   3.48        $   2.74
                                                         ========         ========        ========
Fully diluted:

    Weighted average shares outstanding                    20,814           20,746          20,596
    Assumed conversion of convertible                    
        preferred stock, subordinated debentures
        and stock options                                   1,151               77              17
                                                         --------         --------        --------
            Total                                          21,965           20,823          20,613
                                                         ========         ========        ========
    Net income                                           $ 94,503         $ 72,260        $ 56,544
    Add convertible debenture interest, net of           
        federal income tax effect                             228              260            --
                                                         --------         --------        --------
    Adjusted net income                                  $ 94,731         $ 72,520        $ 56,544
                                                         ========         ========        ========
    Per share amount:
                                                         --------         --------        --------
    Net income                                           $   4.31         $   3.48        $   2.74
                                                         ========         ========        ========
</TABLE>





                                      E-1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

NOVA MUD, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

SANDRA H. STALEY, Individually, As

Independent Executrix of THE ESTATE

OF GEORGE G. STALEY, Deceased, and

as Trustee of the TAX FREE TRUST FOR

SANDRA H. STALEY,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 17

- 00147

- CV

Appeal from the

109th District Court

of Winkler County, Texas

(TC# 15,683

- B)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.5 , on the judgment and all

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Rodriguez, J., Palafox, J., and Larsen, Senior Judge

Larsen, Senior Judge (Sitting by Assignment)
#### STATE v. GRAHAM

No. 58 PC.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 591.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 May 1975.