alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 21
                                                                                
                       SUBSIDIARIES OF ROSE HILLS COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Names                                                                 State of Incorporation
-----                                                                 ----------------------
<S>                                                                   <C>
RH Cemetery Corp.                                                     Delaware
RH Mortuary Corporation                                               Delaware
RH Satellite Properties Corp.                                         Delaware
A.L. Cemetery, Inc.                                                   California
Colton Funeral Chapel, Inc.                                           California
Custer Christiansen Covina Mortuary, Inc.                             California
Dimond Service Corporation                                            California
Glasband-Willen Mortuaries                                            California
Grove Colonial Mortuary, Inc.                                         California
Harbor Lawn Memorial Park, Inc.                                       California
Neel Funeral Directors, Inc.                                          California
Richardson-Peterson Mortuary, Inc.                                    California
San Fernando Mortuary, Inc.                                           California
White Funeral Home, Inc.                                              California
Workman Mill Investment Company                                       California
Glasband-Malinow-Weinstein Mortuary, Inc.                             California
Home of Peace Memorial Park and Mausoleum, Inc.                       California
</TABLE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 185

To establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the United

States Trade Representative.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BURNS, Mr.

BROWNBACK, Mr. GRASSLEY, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To establish a Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office

of the United States Trade Representative.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CHIEF AGRICULTURAL NEGOTIATOR.

4 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF A POSITION.—There is es5 tablished the position of Chief Agricultural Negotiator in

6 the Office of the United States Trade Representative. The

7 Chief Agricultural Negotiator shall be appointed by the

8 President, with the rank of Ambassador, by and with the

9 advice and consent of the Senate.
2

•S 185 IS

1 (b) FUNCTIONS.—The primary function of the Chief

2 Agricultural Negotiator shall be to conduct trade negotia3 tions and to enforce trade agreements relating to U.S. ag4 ricultural products and services. The Chief Agricultural

5 Negotiator shall be a vigorous advocate on behalf of U.S.

6 agricultural interests. The Chief Agricultural Negotiator

7 shall perform such other functions as the United States

8 Trade Representative may direct.

9 (c) COMPENSATION.—The Chief Agricultural Nego10 tiator shall be paid at the highest rate of basic pay payable

11 to a member of the Senior Executive Service.

Æ
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Chapter 63, Title 18 USC Section 1350 (A) and (B)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of F & M Bank Corp.;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 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 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.
 Dated:  November 13, 2009
    /s/ NEIL W. HAYSLETTNeil W. HayslettExecutive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
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 Annual Report of Bluefly, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kara B. Jenny,
Chief Financial 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; 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/ Kara B. Jenny
-----------------

Kara B. Jenny
-------------
Chief Financial Officer
-----------------------
March 27, 2008
--------------
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1734

STEPHEN EARL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

UNITED STATES V.A.; SLOAN D. GIBSON, Acting Secretary of 

V.A.; JAMES CRANDELL, VA Employee; DENNIS MCCLAINE, VA 

Employee; LONNIE HATTON, VA Employee; JOE SOVATOS, VA 

Employee; E. DOUGLAS BRADSHAW, JR., VA Employee; TISHA 

BALKNELL, VA Employee,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:14-cv-00115-F)

Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Cedric R. Perry, PERRY & ASSOCIATES, Rocky Mount, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States 

Attorney, G. Norman Acker, III, Kimberly A. Moore, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Earl appeals the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment to the Government on his action under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Earl v. United States, No. 5:14-

cv-00115-F (E.D.N.C. May 31, 2016). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           5
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1,000

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               8,323
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        7,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,315
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    18,748
<PP&E>                                               7,255
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (4,555)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      32,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                8,783
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               816
<OTHER-SE>                                          23,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        32,614
<SALES>                                             34,218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    34,218
<CGS>                                               11,289
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       57,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (33,729)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            82
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (33,811)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (33,811)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.16)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2000 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2000

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                                 An Act

 
                      For the relief of Guy Taylor.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR GUY TAYLOR.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Guy Taylor shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Guy Taylor enters the United States 
before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall be 
considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of enactment 
of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status are filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Guy Taylor, the Secretary of 
State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 183

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize certain disabled former

prisoners of war to use Department of Defense commissary and exchange

stores.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize certain

disabled former prisoners of war to use Department of

Defense commissary and exchange stores.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. USE OF COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE STORES

4 BY CERTAIN DISABLED FORMER PRISONERS

5 OF WAR.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 54 of title 10, United

7 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1064

8 the following new section:
2

•S 183 IS

1 ‘‘§ 1064a. Use of commissary stores by certain dis2 abled former prisoners of war

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Under regulations prescribed by

4 the Secretary of Defense, former prisoners of war de5 scribed in subsection (b) may use commissary and ex6 change stores.

7 ‘‘(b) COVERED INDIVIDUALS.—Subsection (a) applies

8 to any former prisoner of war who—

9 ‘‘(1) is separated from active duty in the armed

10 forces under honorable conditions; and

11 ‘‘(2) has a service-connected disability rated by

12 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs at 30 percent or

13 more.

14 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

15 ‘‘(1) The term ‘former prisoner of war’ has the

16 meaning given the term in section 101(32) of title

17 38.

18 ‘‘(2) The term ‘service-connected’ has the

19 meaning given the term in section 101(16) of title

20 38.’’.

21 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

22 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting

23 after the item relating to section 1064 the following new

24 item:

‘‘1064a. Use of commissary stores by certain disabled former prisoners of war.’’.

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 14, 2018

No. 04-18-00264-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.M.H. AND J.K.H., AND J.J.W.

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016PA02357

John D. Gabriel Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights, 

which must be disposed of by this Court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. 

TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. Appellant has filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s

brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on July 2, 2018.

Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for 

extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         680,190
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,413,748
<ALLOWANCES>                                    48,925
<INVENTORY>                                    259,489
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,404,444
<PP&E>                                          90,659
<DEPRECIATION>                                 264,354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,186,031
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,039,817
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,809
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,123,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,186,031
<SALES>                                      1,173,193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,689,747
<CGS>                                        2,334,839
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,642,265
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (112,364)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,623,144)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,623,144)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# Un ited Sta tes C ourt of A ppea ls For the S eventh Cir cuit Chicago, Illin ois 60604 August 12, 2002
Before Honorable JOEL M. FL

AUM, Chief Judge Honorable WIL

LI AM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge Honorable KENNETH F. RI PPLE, Circuit Judge

No. 01-4304
E BY - B ROWN C OMPANY LL C, ] Appeal f rom the Un

ited State s Plaintiff-Appellant , ] District Court for the ] Western District of Wisconsin. v. ] ] No. 3:00-C-0718-C W IS CONSI

N D EPART MENT OF A GRICULTURE , ] T RADE AND C ONSUMER P ROTECTI ON AND ] Barbara B. Crabb, ITS SECRETARY , J AMES H ARSDORF , ] Chief Judge.

Defenda nts-Appe llees. ] ]

O R D E R The opinio n issued by

this cour t on July 8, 2002 is a

mended a s follows. On the fourth page of the opinion, the fourth sentenc e of the first paragraph shall be mo dified to r

ead as f ollows: Since January of 1994, the state of Wisconsin has received over one hundred complaints that distributors were selling tobacco at a statutori ly p roscrib ed cost. On consideration of the petition for rehearing filed on July 19, 2002 by plaintiff-appellant, all of the judges on the origina l panel have voted to deny the pe ti ti on fo r r eh ea ri ng . A cc or di ng ly,
IT I S HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be , and the same is, hereby

DENIED.
#### John D. Sheehan *vs.*Judge of the District Court of Springfield.

Hampden.

September 22, 1932.

October 26, 1932.

Present: Rugg, C.J., Crosby, Wait, Donahue, & Lummus, JJ.

*Certiorari. Practice, Civil,*Certiorari proceedings, Appeal, Exceptions, Report.

Review by the full court of action taken by a single justice upon a petition for a writ of certiorari cannot be had by way of an appeal; the proper method is a bill of exceptions or a report.

Petition, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Hampden on May 19, 1932, and afterwards *468amended, for a writ of certiorari to review the respondent’s decision on a review of action by the board of park commissioners of the city of Springfield removing the petitioner from employment in the park department.

The petition was heard by *Sanderson,*J., and was ordered dismissed. The petitioner appealed.

The case was submitted on briefs.

*R. W. King,*for the petitioner.

*F. I. Gallagher & W. A. Swift,*for the respondent.

Crosby, J.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari. The return to the petition was made in due form by the respondent. The case came on to be heard before a single justice who entered an order reciting that the case came on to be heard and was argued and thereupon it was ordered dismissed. From this order the petitioner undertook to appeal to the full court.

It is familiar law that no appeal lies from such an order. The proper method of seeking review by the full court of a decision or ruling made by a single justice of this court in an action at law is by bill of ¡exceptions or by report. It cannot come before this court by appeal. *Channell*v. *Judge of the District Court,*213 Mass. 78. *Cote*v. *Judge of the District Court,*225 Mass. 123. *St. Nicholas Russian Benefit Society, Inc.*v. *Yaselko,*279 Mass. 81. The case therefore is not properly beford us.

It is not inappropriate to add that the record has been carefully examined on its merits and no error is disclosed. *Whitney*v. *Judge of the District Court,*271 Mass. 448, and cases cited.

*Appeal dismissed.*