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

PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES
OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                           |  |                       
|------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                         |  | STATE OF INCORPORATION
|                                           | 
|Perfumania, Inc.                           |  | Florida               
|                                           | 
|Magnifique Parfumes and Cosmetics, Inc.    |  | Florida               
|                                           | 
|Perfumania Puerto Rico, Inc.               |  | Puerto Rico           
|                                           | 
|Ten Kesef II, Inc.                         |  | Florida               
|                                           | 
|perfumania.com, inc.                       |  | Florida               
|                                           | 
|Perfumania International Franchising, Inc. |  | Florida               
|                                           | 
|Quality King Fragrance, Inc.               |  | New York              
|                                           | 
|Five Star Fragrance Company, Inc.          |  | New York              
|                                           | 
|Scents of Worth                            |  | Florida               
|                                           | 
|Model Reorg Acquisition, LLC               |  | Delaware
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00112-CR

JOEY ABRAHAM MOOSO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District 

Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1550423D)

October 24, 2019

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
#### Ellen Eldredge, Respondent, v. J. Briggs Stanton, Appellant.

—Motion for reargument denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

GENAERA CORPORATION

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 Annual Report of Genaera Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Skolas, Executive Vice President and 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John A. Skolas                                                               
|John A. Skolas Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer March 6, 2006
#### AMBER B. NANCE v. HUGH N. PACE.

(Filed 22 May, 1935.)

Appeal by defendant from *Qrady, J.,*at December Term, 1934, of New HaNOveb.

No error.

This is an action to recover of the defendant the sum of $3,000, the proceeds of a policy of insurance on the life of plaintiff’s deceased husband, which the defendant had collected for the plaintiff.

After the action was begun, the defendant paid to the plaintiff the sum of $2,000, retaining the sum of $1,000, which he contended plaintiff had agreed to pay him for his services in collecting from the insurance company the amount due under the policy.

The issues submitted to the jury were answered as follows:

“1. Was there an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant would handle the collection of the $3,000 insurance policy without charge, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: 'Yes.’

*832“2. If not, wbat amount, if any, is tbe defendant entitled to retain out of tbe recovery in question for services performed by bim in bebalf of tbe plaintiff ? Answer: .

“3. In wbat amount, if any, is tbe defendant indebted to tbe iilaintiff on account of moneys collected by bim as ber attorney ? Answer: ‘$1,000, witb interest from 9 June, 1934.’ ”

From judgment tbat plaintiff recover of tbe defendant tbe sum of $1,000, witb interest from 9 June, 1934, and tbe costs of tbe action, tbe defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

*R. M. Kermon and Kellum & Humphrey for plaintiff.*

*Herbert McGlammey and W. F. J ones for defendant.*

Pee OueiaM.

"We find no error in tbe trial of tbis action.

Tbe evidence introduced by tbe plaintiff was sufficient to support an affirmative answer to tbe first issue. Tbe answer to tbis issue is determinative of tbe action. Having agreed to handle tbe collection of tbe amount due plaintiff under tbe policy of insurance without charge, tbe defendant is not entitled to recover any sum of tbe plaintiff for bis services in handling tbe collection. Tbe judgment is affirmed.

No error.
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5385 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 55 Grasso Plaza in St. Louis, Missouri, as 

the ‘‘Sgt. Amanda N. Pinson Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5385 EH

1 SECTION 1. SGT. AMANDA N. PINSON POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 55 Grasso Plaza in St. Louis, 

4 Missouri, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sgt. 

5 Amanda N. Pinson Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sgt. Amanda N. 

10 Pinson Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5385 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Louis, Missouri, as the ‘‘Sgt. Amanda N. Pinson al Service located at 55 Grasso Plaza in St.
|  | Salte al contenido      Seguro Social en línea | Calculadora de beneficios |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|

| www.segurosocial.gov | Portada  ¿Preguntas?  Contáctenos  Búsqueda  | **Buscador**  |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|

|  | Calculadora Rápida del Seguro Social |
|--|---------------------------------------------|
#### Solomon Longyor, Respondent, v. The United States Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed on the opinion of the-referee and of the court in the case of King v. Same, Defendant.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersignedofficers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of his knowledge, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  November 7, 2005 |                                   |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                         |                                   |
|                         |                                   |
|                         | /s/ Paul  Pluschkell                   |   |
|                         | Paul Pluschkell                        |
|                         | President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|                         |                                   |
| Date:  November 7, 2005 |                                   |
|                         |                                   |
|                         | /s/ Randall J.  Frapart                |   |
|                         | Randall J.  Frapart                    |
|                         | Chief Financial  Officer               |

 

This certificationaccompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. forpurposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 has been provided to HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. and will beretained by HyperFeed Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Family Members

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						D2: The current spouse benefit is based on 50 percent of the PIA of the other spouse. Reduce this percent each year by 1 percentage point beginning with newly eligible spouses in 2024, until the percent reaches 33 in 2040.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 -0.10 -0.14 -3% -3%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

September 15, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: B5.11. Beginning for those newly eligible in 2024, reconfigure the special minimum 

benefit: (a) The number of years of work (YOWs) is determined as total quarters of coverage divided by 4, 

ignoring any fraction. Childcare years are granted to parents who have a child under 6, with a limit of 5 

such years. (b) For beneficiaries becoming newly eligible in 2024, set the initial special minimum benefit for 

30+ YOWs equal to 100 percent of the monthly HHS poverty level for 2023. For beneficiaries becoming 

newly eligible after 2024, the initial special minimum benefit is indexed by the AWI. For workers between 11 

and 29 YOWs, reduce the special minimum by 3 1/3 percentage points per YOW so that at 29 YOWs the 

minimum would be 96 2/3% of poverty, ..., down to 11 YOWs at 36 2/3% of poverty. No minimum for 10 or 

fewer YOWs.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
## Actuarial Notes

- Office of the Chief Actuary
-   
- Actuarial publications

Actuarial Studies

Make a selection & click the "Go" buttonSelect Recurring Note#1 Unfunded Obligation and Transition Costs for the OASDI Program#2 Unisex Life Expectancies at Birth and Age 65 #3 Scaled Factors for Hypothetical Earnings Examples #4 Illustrative Benefits for Retired Workers, Disabled Workers, and Survivors #5 Internal Real Rates of Return Under the OASDI Program for Hypothetical Workers#6 Disability and Death Probability Tables for Insured Workers#7 Moneys Worth Ratios for Hypothetical Workers#8 Disaggregation of the Long-Range Actuarial Balance for the OASDI Program Since 1983 #9 Replacement Rates for Hypothetical Retired Workers#10 Employment Projections in the Social Security Trustees Report
Special Topic Actuarial Notes

Select a Decade & click the "Go" buttonSelect a Decade2020-2029  notes #160 - #1632010-2019  notes #149 - #1592000-2009 notes #143 - #1481990-1999 notes #132 - #142 1980-1989 notes #99 - #1311970-1979 notes #64 - #981960-1969 notes #1 - #63
Footer menu
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3258 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3258

 To conduct or support further comprehensive research for the creation 
           of a universal influenza vaccine or preventative.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2021

Mr. Markey (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Blumenthal, 
and Ms. Smith) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To conduct or support further comprehensive research for the creation 
           of a universal influenza vaccine or preventative.

    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 ``Flu Vaccine Act''.

SEC. 2. RESEARCH FOR THE CREATION OF A UNIVERSAL INFLUENZA VACCINE OR 
              PREVENTATIVE.

    (a) In General.--The Director of the National Institute of Allergy 
and Infectious Diseases shall conduct or support comprehensive research 
for the creation of a universal influenza vaccine or preventative.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this section, 
there are authorized to be appropriated $200,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2022 through 2026.
                                 <all>
```
Order filed September 27, 2011 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-00925-CR

____________

JECARRA TREMAIN LANE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1177107

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(f) and 

34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State Exhibit 32.

The clerk of the 177th District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this court the original 

of State Exhibit 32, on or before October 7, 2011. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, 

maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their 

inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State Exhibit 32, to the clerk of 

the 177th District Court.

PER CURIAM
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6597

ROBERT ANTWAIN STANBACK , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. FAYE DANIELS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Joe L. Webster, Magistrate Judge. ( 1:16

- cv
- 01301

- CCE

- JLW )

Submitted : July 2 7 , 2017 Decided: August 1, 2017

Before AGEE and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Robert Antwain Stanback, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Robert Antwain Stanback seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report recommending that the district court dismiss Stanback’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition . This court may exercise juri sdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The
order Stanback seeks to appe al is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentio ns are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

SEDA-COG JOINT RAIL AUTHORITY

v.

CARLOAD EXPRESS, INC., 

SUSQUEHANNA UNION RAILROAD 

COMPANY, AND NORTHERN PLAINS 

RAILROAD, INC.

PETITION OF: CARLOAD EXPRESS, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 75 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

SEDA-COG JOINT RAIL AUTHORITY

v.

CARLOAD EXPRESS, INC., 

SUSQUEHANNA UNION RAILROAD 

COMPANY, AND NORTHERN PLAINS 

RAILROAD, INC.

PETITION OF: CARLOAD EXPRESS, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 76 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
[75 MAL 2022 and 76 MAL 2022] - 2

The joint application to amend Carload Express Inc.’s petition for allowance of 

appeal and to withdraw the Seda-Cog joint Rail Authority’s answer to Carload Express’s 

petition for allowance of appeal is GRANTED.
#### ROY R. WINSTEAD v. I. D. THORP.

(Filed 14 September, 1932.)

Appeal by defendant from *Crammer, J.,*at February Term, 1932, of Nash.

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury arising out of a collision between defendant’s automobile, driven at tbe time by defendant’s wife, and a truck, owned by John 0. Cobb and operated by tbe plaintiff.

Tbe usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages were submitted to tbe jury and answered in favor of tbe plaintiff.

From a judgment on tbe verdict, tbe defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Alexander & Gold and Cooley & Bone for plaintiff.*

*Spruill & Spruill for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

Although it appears that the truck, operated by the plaintiff, and the defendant’s automobile approached an intersection at right angles, and the truck ran into the side of the defendant’s ear, striking it with considerable force, nevertheless, on conflicting evidence, the jury has exculpated the plaintiff from blame and found the defendant guilty of negligence which resulted in the collision. A different verdict might well have been rendered. Indeed, the owner of the truck, after investigating the matter, was satisfied of bis liability, and has settled with the defendant for the injury done to bis car. But it is not pleaded that the plaintiff participated in this settlement so as to bar bis right of action. Tbe record contains no valid exceptive assignment of error.

No error.
#### STATE v. CLAY SHEPHERD.

(Filed *7*December, 1932.)

1. Criminal Law I j — Directed verdict on conflicting evidence is error.

Where in a criminal prosecution the evidence is conflicting or equivocal a charge directing a verdict against the defendant is error.

2. Criminal Law L e.

Where a new trial is granted on appeal for error in the charge an exception to the form of the judgment need not be considered.

Appeal by defendant from *Moore, J.,*at March Term, 1932, of WlLKES.

Criminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendant with forcible trespass.

The prosecuting witness and the father of the defendant are adjoining-landowners, the true dividing line between the properties being in dispute. The prosecuting witness set a number of posts preparatory to erecting- a fence along the dividing line. These were removed by the defendant, at the instance of his father, under a claim of right — both parties claiming to be in the rightful possession of the property where the posts were erected.

The court charged the jury that if they believed the evidence to return a verdict of guilty. Exception.

Verdict: Guilty.

Judgment: “That defendant pay a fine of $25.00 and costs, and pay R. F. Brown $5.00 for damage to the fence.”

Defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Attorney-General Brummilt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.*

*A. H. Casey for defendant.*

*647Stacy, C. J.

It is conceded by tbe Attorney-General that error was committed in directing a verdict on conflicting or equivocal evidence. *S. v. Singleton,*183 N. C., 738, 110 S. E., 846; *S. v. Estes,*185 N. C., 752, 117 S. E., 581. Belief in the defendant’s guilt is not enough. This must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. *S. v. Boswell,*194 N. C., 260, 139 S. E., 374.

The defendant also excepts to the form of the judgment, but as a new trial must be awarded for error in the charge, which necessarily vacates the judgment, consideration of this exception is omitted.

New trial.