alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                       CAPSTAR BROADCASTING PARTNERS, INC.

                                  SUBSIDIARIES




                  ENTITY                                    JURISDICTION
                  ------                                    ------------
Capstar Acquisition Company, Inc.                             Delaware
Capstar Communications California, Inc.                       Delaware
Capstar Communications, Inc.                                  Delaware
Capstar Operating Corporation                                 Delaware
Capstar Radio Broadcasting Partners, Inc.                     Delaware
Capstar Radio Operating Company                               Delaware
Capstar Royalty I Corporation                                 Delaware
Capstar Royalty II Corporation                                Delaware
Capstar TX Limited Partnership                                Delaware
Jamboree in the Hills, Inc.                                   Delaware
Liberty Broadcasting of Albany Incorporated                   New York
Liberty Broadcasting of New York, Inc.                        New York
Music Hall Club, Inc.                                         West Virginia
Osborn Entertainment Enterprises Corporation                  Delaware
Parker Broadcasting Company                                   California
SBI Holding Corporation                                       Delaware
TBC Radio Acquisition Corp.                                   Delaware
WBAB, Inc.                                                    New York
WBLI, Inc.                                                    New York
WGBB, Inc.                                                    New York
WGNA, Inc.                                                    New York
WGNA-FM, Inc.                                                 New York
WHFM, Inc.                                                    New York




<PAGE>   2


  ENTITY                                                      JURISDICTION
  ------                                                      ------------
WHJJ, Inc.                                                    Rhode Island
WHJY, Inc.                                                    Rhode Island
WPYX, Inc.                                                    New York
WSNE, Inc.                                                    Rhode Island
WTRY, Inc.                                                    New York
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kevin WARD, Appellant.

No. 64903.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

June 6, 1995.

Raymond J. Capelovitch, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Michelle A. Freund, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, defendant was convicted of second degree murder, in violation of § 565.021 RSMo 1994, two counts of armed criminal action under § 571.015, assault in the first degree under § 565.050, and class C felony stealing under § 570.030. Defendant was sentenced to four life terms imprisonment, (the first two concurrent life terms to run consecutively with the second two concurrent life terms), and ten years *602imprisonment to run concurrently with the life terms. Defendant appeals the judgment and sentence. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postcon-viction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
---

---

Exhibit 15.1

The Board of Directors RiT Technologies Ltd. Tel-Aviv Israel.

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

| | We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of RiT
Technologies Ltd. on Form F-3 (File No. 333-118354) and in Registration Statements on
form S-8 (File Nos. 333-07510, 333-07512, 333-08206, 333-13656, 333-90750 and 333-117646)
of our report dated March 29, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
RiT Technologies Ltd. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in shareholders equity and comprehensive loss and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, which
report appears in the December 31, 2008, annual report on Form 20-F of RiT Technologies
Ltd.
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Somekh Chaikin Somekh ChaikinCertified Public
Accountants (Isr.)A Member Firm of KPMG
International

Tel Aviv, Israel

March 30, 2009



---

---
cc: Hon. Richard Wagner, District Judge 

Frederick Vonseydewitz 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Pershing County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A • 

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to

portions of the Report and Recommendation. See Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734,

739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Warren Simpson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Pizza Venture of Tucson, LLC, and Papa

John’s International, Inc., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 18-98-TUC-JAS (LCK) 

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge

Kimmins. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Kimmins recommends

granting a motion to dismiss. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation

appropriately resolved the motion, the objections are denied.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) Magistrate Judge Kimmins’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48) is accepted and

adopted.

(2) The motion to dismiss (Doc. 30) is granted, but Plaintiff is granted leave to amend,

within 20 days of the filing date of this Order, pursuant to the directions contained in the
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Report and Recommendation.

(3) This case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Kimmins for any further proceedings.

DATED this 9th day of August, 2019.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 on Form 10-K of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rolla P. Huff, Chief Executive 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, to my knowledge 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/   ROLLA P. HUFF       |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Rolla   P. Huff           |   |
| Chief   Executive Officer |   |
| March   1, 2011           |   |

 

----
#### Jewel L. REID, Shirley W. Reid, Gregory Reid, Epstein Reid, Leroy Reid, Jr. and Robert Reid, Plaintiffs, v. Vernon S. REID, Jr., Defendant/Appellant, Vernon S. Reid, Sr., Alice Leffridge, and Charles Reid, Jr., Defendants, Dubail Judge, P.C., Intervenor/Respondent.

No. 64096.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

July 26, 1994.

Alif Amon Williams, Whitfield, Montgomery & Staples, St. Louis, for appellant.

Nancy E. Emmel, Dubail Judge, P.C., St. Louis, for respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Vernon S. Reid, Jr., legatee of Churchill Carter, appeals from a judgment entered after a bench trial in favor of inter-venor law firm, Dubail Judge, P.C., on its claim for attorney’s fees and an attorney’s lien on 331⁄2 percent of the amount due respondent from the Estate of Churchill Carter after a settlement of a will contest case. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

On November 16, 1990 plaintiffs, Jewel L. Reid, Shirley W. Reid, Gregory Reid, Epstein Reid, Leroy Reid, Jr. and Robert Reid filed a petition in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County against respondent Vernon S. Reid, Jr. and defendants Vernon S. Reid, Sr., Alice Leffridge, and Charles Reid, Jr. to contest the Churchill Carter will which had been filed in the Probate Division of the *797circuit court. On August 20, 1991 Dubail Judge filed a motion to intervene in the mil contest case and moved for an award of attorney’s fees, expenses and an attorney’s lien against the assets of the Estate to be distributed to respondent. Respondent opposed the motion.

After a three day bench trial, from April 12 to April 14, 1993, the trial court entered judgment for Dubail Judge on its motion for an award of attorney’s fees. It further ordered that a lien be placed on the proceeds until the Estate was liquidated in whole or in part.

Reid appeals from this judgment. The record on appeal filed in this case, however, does not indicate that the court ever disposed of or entered judgment on the petition in the will contest case. Further, the record on appeal does not contain an order designating the trial court’s action on the motion for attorney’s fees and lien as final under Rule 74.01(b).

Although neither party raised the issue of appellate jurisdiction in their briefs or at oral argument, we must do so *sua sponte. Shelbina Veterinary Clinic v. Holthaus,*857 S.W.2d 551, 552 (Mo.App.1993). This court has jurisdiction only over final judgments. *Id.*A judgment, order, or decree of the trial court is final and appealable only when it disposes of all the issues for all the parties in the case and leaves nothing for future determination. *Id.*Rule 74.01(b) allows an appeal from a judgment or order which does not dispose of all the issues of a ease *if*the trial court expressly finds that “there is no just reason for delay.” Where the trial court does not resolve all of the issues or does not expressly designate the court’s action as final under Rule 74.01(b), the appeal must be dismissed. *Id.*Accordingly, the trial court’s order is not a final judgment and we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2512

_____________________________

JOSEPH EDWARD HUDSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John F. Simon, Judge.

May 21, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### The Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins. Co., Ltd., *v.*Wasserman, a Minor.

(No. 22818

Decided June 10, 1931.)

*Messrs. Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith S Hoadly*and *Mr. Henry B. Street,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Thos. L. Michie*and *Mr. Moses Bushin,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same hereby is, affirmed upon the reasoning of the opinion of the Court of Appeals. *[Wasserman, a Minor,*v. *The Zurich General Accident & Liability Ins Co., Ltd.,*39 Ohio App., 33. — Reporter.]

*Judgment affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.
NO. 07-09-0033-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	MARCH 13, 2009

	______________________________

	In the Interest of I.M.F., A Child

			     _________________________________

	FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY;

	NO. 16,780; HON. BILL BACHUS, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Memorandum Anders Opinion

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

	Appellant Morgan Banda had her parental rights to I.M.F. terminated and has appealed from that order.  Her appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that the appeal is without merit.  Along with his brief, appellate counsel has  attached a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of her right to file a response pro se.  By letter dated January 30, 2009, this court also informed appellant of her right to tender her own response and set March 2, 2009, as the deadline to do so.   To date, we have not received a response.

	In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s statutory findings as a basis for termination and the finding that termination is in the best interest of the child.  However, he has also explained why the evidence is sufficient to support those findings.  Moreover, we note that no statement of points on appeal or motion for new trial was filed; so little, if anything, was preserved for appeal.  See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §263.405(i) (Vernon 2008).  We have also conducted our own review of the record to uncover any reversible error and have found none. 

	Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

							Brian Quinn 

						          Chief Justice
Exhibit
13.2




CERTIFICATION


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





InconnectionwiththeAnnualReportofChinaSouthernAirlinesCompanyLimited(the“Company”)onForm20-FfortheyearendedDecember31,2009asfiledwiththeSecuritiesandExchangeCommissiononthedatehereof (the “Report”), I,
Xu Jie Bo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.





Date:
      May 28, 2010
              By:
              /s/
      Xu Jie BoName:
      Xu Jie BoTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer




* This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




* A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
#### In re MARRIAGE OF Linda S. KAHN and Farrell Kahn. Linda S. KAHN, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Farrell KAHN, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 66001.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

March 28, 1995.

Rehearing Denied April 26, 1995.

John A, Klobasa, Alan C. Kohn, Kohn, Shands, Elbert, Gianoulakis & Giljum, St. Louis, for appellant.

Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Stone, Leyton & Gershman, Clayton, for respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Husband appeals from a judgment entered after remand in *Kahn v. Kahn,*846 S.W.2d 219 (Mo.App.1993). The trial court ordered husband to pay wife $122,015.88 in attorney’s fees incurred by wife as a defendant in a Kentucky lawsuit.

The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

[Letterhead of BDO Seidman, LLP] 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. 

West Point, Ga. 

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-101537), Form S-8 (File No. 333-101007), Form S-8 (File No. 333-49034), Form S-8 (File No. 333-62773) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-111329) of ourreports dated March 30, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of ITC^DeltaCom, Inc. and Subsidiaries appearing in the company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/  BDO Seidman, LLP 

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 30, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29544-29545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14662]



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

[[Page 29545]]


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-252-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

June 5, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 31, 1996, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing changes in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1.
    Northern states that the filing revises the current Stranded 
Account No. 858 and Stranded Account No. 858-Reverse Auction 
surcharges, which are designed to recover costs incurred by Northern 
related to its contracts with third-party pipelines. Therefore, 
Northern has filed Twenty First Revised Sheet Nos. 50 and 51 and 
Thirtieth Revised Sheet No. 53 to be effective July 1, 1996.
    Northern states that copies of this filing were served upon the 
Company's customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. All 
protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve 
to make protestant a party to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14662 Filed 6-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Scott Daniel Warren,

Defendant.

CR-18-00223-TUC-RCC (DTF)

ORDER 

The Defendant having been acquitted following a jury verdict of Not Guilty and 

good cause appearing; 

IT IS ORDERED Pretrial Services shall immediately release the passport to the 

defendant, Scott Daniel Warren, or to his counsel, Gregory Kuykendall, Esq. or Amy 

Knight, Esq.

Dated this 21st day of November, 2019.

cc: PTS

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 411 Filed 11/21/19 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                   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


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of AFC Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended December 25, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certifies 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
Corporation.

Date: March 8, 2006


                                         /s/ H. MELVILLE HOPE, III
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         H. Melville Hope, III
                                         Chief Financial Officer
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 17

- 00078

- CR

FLORENCIO BARGAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 3

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR

- 2016

- 07928

- A

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Florencio Bargas has filed a motion to dismiss th is appeal. 1 The motion was signed by

both Bargas and his appellate counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2(a), we g rant the

motion. See id.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

D a te Submitted: July 17, 2017

Date Decided: July 18, 2017

Do Not Publish

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West 2013). We are unaware

of any conflict between prec edent of the Second Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 41.3.