alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                 EXHIBIT 21.01

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


1. Crescent Real Estate Funding I, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 

2. Crescent Real Estate Funding II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 

3. Crescent Real Estate Funding III, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 

4. Crescent Real Estate Funding IV, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 

5. Crescent Real Estate Funding V, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 

6. Crescent Real Estate Funding VI, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 

7. Crescent Real Estate Funding VII, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 

8. Crescent Entertainment Company, L.P., a Texas limited partnership 

9. Crescent Entertainment Management L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company 

10. CEC Management, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company 

11. Crescent Duddleston Hotel Partnership, L.P., a Texas limited partnership 

12. CresCal Properties, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 

13. Woodlands Office Equities - '95 Limited, a Texas limited partnership 

14. Woodlands Retail Equities - '96 Limited, a Texas limited partnership 

15. CresWood Development, L.L.C. - a Texas limited liability company 

16. 301 Congress Avenue, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 

17. Crescent/301, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

18. Crescent Commercial Realty Holdings, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 

19. CresTex Development L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company 

20. G/C Waterside Associates LLC, a Texas limited liability company 

21. Crescent 1717 Main, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company 

22. Crescent E&M, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company 

23. Crescent Ervay & Main, L.P., a Texas limited partnership 

24. Main Street Partners, L.P., a Texas limited partnership 

25. Main Street Partners Management Company, L.P., a Texas limited partnership. 

26. Spectrum Mortgage Associates, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 

27. Crescent Washington Harbour, LLC, a Delaware limited partnership 

28. Crescent Potomac Harbour, LLC, a Delaware limited partnership 

29. Crescent Costa Mesa, LLC, a Delaware limited partnership 

30. Crescent Woodfield, LLC, a Delaware limited partnership 

31. Hudson Bay Partners II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership 

32. Hudson Bay Partners IV, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2531

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 255.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 10, 2000

Mrs. LINCOLN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 255.

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

3 SECTION 1. PIGMENT RED 255.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.28 Pigment Red 255

(CAS No.

54660–00–3)

(provided for in

subheading

3204.17.6085) ... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2003 ’’.
2

•S 2531 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the

4 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit
32(a)





Certification
of


Chief
Executive Officer


Of
99¢ Only Stores





This
certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the "Report") for the
period ended March 29, 2008 of 99¢ Only Stores (the "Issuer").





I, Eric
Schiffer, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer certify that to the best of
my knowledge:





(i) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));
and





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




Dated:
June 10, 2008








By:  /s/ Eric
  SchifferName:  
      Eric SchifferTitle:   
       Chief Executive Officer
#### Wauneta Telephone Co. et al., appellants, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee.

471 N.W.2d 754

Filed July 12, 1991.

Nos. 90-821 through 90-837.

Paul M. Schudel and Nana G.H. Smith, of Woods & Aitken, for appellants.

Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and L. Jay Bartel for appellee.

Hastings, C.J., Boslaugh, White, Caporale, Shanahan, Grant, and Fahrnbruch, JJ.

*634Per Curiam.

These are appeals from the findings and order of the State Board of Equalization and Assessment dated August 15, 1990, denying the appellants’ claims for property tax relief. The appellants in these cases are public service entities within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-801.01 (Reissue 1990) and own, maintain, and operate telecommunications systems in Nebraska. The appellants’ property is centrally assessed for property tax purposes pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 77-801 et seq. (Reissue 1990).

The issues raised in these appeals are disposed of by *MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline v. State Bd. of Equal., ante*p. 565, 471 N.W.2d 734 (1991). In light of our decision in that case, the causes are remanded to the State Board of Equalization and Assessment for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in *MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline, supra,*and the relief requested by the appellants.

Reversed and remanded for

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

Shanahan, J.,

concurring in part, and in part dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in my concurrence and dissent filed in *MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline v. State Bd. of Equal., ante*p. 565, 471 N.W.2d 734 (1991), I also concur in part and dissent in part concerning the majority’s opinion filed in this appeal.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1928 Filed: 05/08/19 Entered: 05/08/19 15:17:50 Page 1 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1928 Filed: 05/08/19 Entered: 05/08/19 15:17:50 Page 2 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1928 Filed: 05/08/19 Entered: 05/08/19 15:17:50 Page 3 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1928 Filed: 05/08/19 Entered: 05/08/19 15:17:50 Page 4 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1928 Filed: 05/08/19 Entered: 05/08/19 15:17:50 Page 5 of

5
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2115    Filed: 05/20/19    Entered: 05/20/19 15:56:39    Page 1 of4

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2115    Filed: 05/20/19    Entered: 05/20/19 15:56:39    Page 2 of4

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2115    Filed: 05/20/19    Entered: 05/20/19 15:56:39    Page 3 of4

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2115    Filed: 05/20/19    Entered: 05/20/19 15:56:39    Page 4 of4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6937

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DENNIS SCOTT MCCULLOUGH,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00389-REP-1)

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Scott McCullough, Appellant Pro Se. Angela MastandreaMiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Dennis Scott McCullough appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006)

motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. United States v. McCullough , No. 3:06-cr-00389-
REP-1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2009). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 64th District Court of Castro County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on January 27,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Idelfonso Ramirez v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-14-00260-CR Trial Court Number: A3223-0905

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated January 27, 2015, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on April 14, 2015

.



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 230 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 230

 To amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to authorize the 
  use of clinical social workers to conduct evaluations to determine 
              work-related emotional and mental illnesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   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 Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to authorize the 
  use of clinical social workers to conduct evaluations to determine 
              work-related emotional and mental illnesses.

    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 ``Clinical Social Workers' Recognition 
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS FOR FEDERAL WORKER 
              COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

    Section 8101 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``and osteopathic 
        practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, and 
        clinical social workers''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and osteopathic 
        practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, and 
        clinical social workers''.
                                 <all>
```
#### JAMES WILEY, Respondent, *v.*ELISHA M. BRIGHAM, Appellant.

*Account stated*— what *constitutes*— powei- *of referee to allow amendment.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon tbe report of a referee.

The court at General Term said: “ This action is brought on a balance struck or account stated, and also for labor and services since the time when the account was stated. No question seems to be made as to these labors and services since the account stated. The question is, whether under the facts proved there was an account stated between the parties.

“ There is no dispute as to the fact that the plaintiff had worked for the defendant for some fifteen years. During that time, about the 3d of April, 1875, the parties had a settlement, and a note was given by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is proved that the defendant, through his clerk, Brewster, occasionally rendered statements to the plaintiff, taken from the defendant’s books. The defendant knew that his book-keeper was accustomed to render to workmen and jobbers statements of their accounts, if they called for them; and they did occasionally call for them. He knew that the plaintiff was in the habit of receiving such statements, from time to time, during all the twenty years he had worked for him. And the defendant regarded his book as containing a correct statement of his accounts with the men with whom he had dealings. The book-keeper testified that he rendered these two statements which were produced to the plaintiff, and that they were made from the books. These statements come down respectively to January, 1876, and to May 16, 1876. The second commences with the balance shown on the first. The book-keeper testifies that he was not authorized to agree on any balance.

“ About December 20, 1876, the book-keeper, at plaintiff’s request, delivered to him a statement of account, purporting to be the account between plaintiff and defendant. Part of this was prepared under the defendant’s personal direction. The first *107item in this account is the balance shown by the account of May, 1876, above mentioned. The plaintiff at once objected to certain items in this account last rendered.

“ Now we think that the referee was justified in holding, as a matter of fact, that under all the circumstances the rendering of the accounts and the acceptance of them made an account stated. The effect of this, as said, ‘is to establish *prima facie*the accuracy of the items without other proof, and the party seeking to impeach it is bound to show affirmatively the mistake or error alleged.’ *(Lockwood*v. Thorne, 18 N. Y., 285.)

The defendant asked leave to amend his answer by setting up a breach of contract by the plaintiff in 1874 and 1875. The referee declined to grant the motion, giving the defendant, however, the opportunity to make such motion at the Special Term. We see no error in this. *(Ford*v. *Fori,*35 How., 321.)”

*F. L.*Westbrook, for the appellant. *Van Ftten & Clearwater,*for the respondent.

Opinion

*per Curiam.*

Present — LeaRned, P. J., Bocees and Boardman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 1.1


                       CONSENT OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR


To the Board of Directors of
Cordiant Communications Group plc

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements No.
33-11622 and No. 33-41650, on Form S-8 of Cordiant plc filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 29, 1987 and July 15, 1991, respectively, and
of our report dated May 26, 1998,  1997 and 1996,  and the related  consolidated
statements of  operations,  shareholders'  deficiency  and other share  capital,
total  recognised  gains and  losses and cash flows for each of the years in the
three year period ended December 31, 1997,  which report appears in the December
31, 1997 annual report on Form 20-F of Cordiant Communications Group plc.



                                            /s/ KPMG Audit Plc
                                            ------------------------------
                                            KPMG Audit Plc
London, England                             CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
June 26, 1998                               REGISTERED AUDITOR
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         101,811
<SECURITIES>                                     8,322
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,449
<ALLOWANCES>                                       927
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,049
<PP&E>                                         235,320
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 342,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,194
<BONDS>                                        142,351
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           185
<OTHER-SE>                                     185,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   342,839
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,345
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,914
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   727
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,722
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,760)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,760)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,760)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.51)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 15 (Monday, January 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 3912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1225]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting 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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Molecular Mechanisms of Neurodegeneration.
    Date: January 27, 2010.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Lawrence Baizer, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 4152, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-
1257, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a787b73607f68765a79696834747372347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="81e3e0e8fbe4f3edc1e2f2f3afefe8e9afe6eef7">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 15, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-1225 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 18 - 0543

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ALAN PETER TWARDOSKI,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Purs uant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable J ennifer B. Lint , Di s trict Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 17 2021

03/17/2021
Case Number: DA 18-0543
Exhibit
      23.1














Independent
      Registered Public Accounting Firm’s Consent








We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
      Netsmart Technologies, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-111389, 333-101474,
      333-96015, 333-133031, 333-133030 and 333-71549) and S-3 (File Nos.
      333-129265 and 333-104565) of our report dated March 7, 2007, except for Note
      16
      as to which the date is March 14, 2007, with respect to our audits of the
      consolidated financial statements of Netsmart Technologies, Inc. and
      Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 and for the years ended December
      31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 and our report dated March 7, 2007 with respect to
      our
      audit of management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
      financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
      reporting of Netsmart Technologies, Inc. as of December 31, 2006, which reports
      are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Netsmart Technologies, Inc.
      for the year ended December 31, 2006.





Our
      report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
      expressed an adverse opinion because of the existence of three material
      weaknesses.








/s/
      Marcum & Kliegman LLP








Marcum
      & Kliegman LLP


Melville,
      New York


March
      15,
      2007