alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21.1
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   SUBSIDIARY                                      STATE OF INCORPORATION     DOES BUSINESS AS
------------------------------------------------   -------------------------- ------------------------
<S>                                                <C>                        <C>
   Arch Canada Inc.                                 Ontario, Canada
   Arch Wireless Communications Enterprises LLC     Delaware                  Arch Wireless Holdings
   Arch Wireless Communications, Inc.               Delaware
   Arch Connecticut Valley, Inc.                    Massachusetts             Arch Wireless Holdings
   Arch Wireless Holdings, Inc.                     Delaware                  Arch Wireless Holdings
   Benbow Investments, Inc.                         Delaware
   MobileMedia Communications, Inc.                 Delaware
   MobileMedia Communications Corporation of
     America, Inc.                                  Delaware                  Arch Wireless Holdings
   MobileMedia License Co., LLC                     Delaware
   Paging Network, Inc.                             Delaware
   PageNet SMR Sub, Inc.                            Delaware
   Paging Network Canadian Holdings, Inc.           Delaware
   PageNet, Inc.                                    Delaware                  PageNet
   Paging Network of America, Inc.                  Delaware
   Paging Network of Colorado, Inc.                 Delaware                  PageNet
   Paging Network of Northern California, Inc.      Delaware
   Paging Network of Michigan, Inc.                 Delaware                  PageNet
   Paging Network Finance Corp.                     Delaware
   Paging Network International, Inc.               Delaware
   Paging Network of San Francisco, Inc.            Delaware                  PageNet
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

PENNZOIL QUAKER STATE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-13766

BLC REAL ESTATE, L.L.C., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER (1) SETTING DEADLINE FOR INITIAL DISCLOSURES; (2) DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE; AND (3) SCHEDULING

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

On December 21, 2009, the court conducted a status conference in the abovecaptioned case with counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendants. During the conference,

the court discussed with the parties Defendants’ progress in producing initial-disclosure

documents. In its scheduling order, the court set a deadline of December 11, 2009 for

the production of these documents. In a letter of December 4, 2009, Plaintiff requested

eight categories of initial-disclosure documents, including documents concerning the

amount of oil purchased by and sold by Defendants. Defense counsel indicated that the

delay in producing many of these documents was due to the necessity of putting

handwritten-notes into a form that would be more legible and usable. The court will

therefore order Defendants to deliver the requested documents to Plaintiffs on or before

December 31, 2009. Defendants will also be ordered to file, on or before December 31,

2009, a notice of compliance stating that they have delivered the requested documents

pursuant to this Order. Finally, the court will conduct a telephone conference on

2:09-cv-13766-RHC-MAR Doc # 24 Filed 12/23/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 128
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-13766.Pennzoil.Schedul.Telep.Conf.wpd

2

January 11, 2010, to discuss the status of the initial disclosures and settlement

negotiations. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants shall produce the initial-disclosure documents

requested by Plaintiff in its December 4, 2009 letter on or before December 31, 2009. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDER that Defendants file, on or before December 31, 2009,

a notice of compliance stating that they have delivered the initial disclosure documents

to Plaintiff according to the terms of this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will participate in a telephone status

conference on January 11, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. The court will initiate the telephone call. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 23, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, December 23, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-13766-RHC-MAR Doc # 24 Filed 12/23/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 129
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ednah Mabie SULLIVAN, Administratrix of the Estate of Frank T. Sullivan, Deceased; The Marine Trust Company of Buffalo, a Corporation; The Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, a Corporation; Ednah Mabie Sullivan; Peter Mabie Sullivan, an Infant; Florence Sullivan McNeil and State Bank of Kenmore, Intervener, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 226.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 7, 1938.

George L. Grobe and R. Norman Kirchgraber, both of Buffalo, N. Y., and James H. Hanley, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

James Otis Porter, of Buffalo, N. Y., for defendant-appellee Ednah Mabie Sullivan, administratrix, etc.

Kenefick, Cooke, Mitchell, Bass & Letchworth, of Buffalo, N. Y. (Lyman M. Bass and Theodore G. Kenefick, both of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), far defendant-appellee Marine Trust Co. of Buffalo.

Moore & Norton, of Kenmore, N. Y., for defendant-appellee State Bank of Kenmore.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree, 19 F.Supp. 695, affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> 0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-10-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           7,858
<SECURITIES>                                    28,681
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,041
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   282
<PP&E>                                           6,559
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,507
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,431
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,063
<OTHER-SE>                                    (33,581)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,914
<SALES>                                         17,344
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,570
<CGS>                                            1,485
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,862
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 297
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    131
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                131
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       131
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
#### Janet R. LINEHAN, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Gerald J. LINEHAN, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 69380.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 7, 1997.

Paul H. Schramm, Daniel R. Schramm, St. Louis, for respondent-appellant.

Charles P. Todt, Christian *A.*Stiegemeyer, St. Louis, for petitioner-respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Husband appeals firom the judgment and order of the trial court granting his motion to modify the maintenance awarded to Wife. Husband alleges the trial court erred because the maintenance award, although lowered from $2500 per month to $2000 per month, was still excessive. We affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum detailing our reasons for affirming the judgment of the trial court. Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6053

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALHAKKA CAMPBELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cr-00124-HEH-1)

Submitted: April 14, 2022 Decided: April 19, 2022

Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alhakka Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6053 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/19/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Alhakka Campbell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First 

Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Upon review

of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that 

the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against compassionate release. See 

United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (providing standard of review and 

outlining steps for evaluating compassionate release motions), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 

(2021). Accordingly, we deny Campbell’s motion to remand and for a certificate of 

appealability and affirm the district court’s order. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6053 Doc: 9 Filed: 04/19/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                File No. 9007-93


                          CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                           ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                      OF
                             BOARDWALK CASINO, INC.


     Forrest J. Woodward, II, and Louis J. Sposato certify that:

     A.   They are the President and Secretary, respectively, of Boardwalk 
Casino, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Corporation").

     B.   Resolutions proposing and declaring advisable the following 
amendment to the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation were adopted by the 
Corporation's Board of Directors at a meeting held on October 3, 1996:

          1.   The Corporation's Articles of Incorporation be amended by 
amending Article III, Section 3.1 to read in its entirety as follows:

          "Section 3.1.  AUTHORIZED SHARES.  The aggregate number of shares 
     which the corporation shall have authority to issue is 65,000,000 shares, 
     consisting of:

          (a)  50,000,000 shares of a single series of common class, having a 
          par value of $.001 per share, each of which is entitled to one vote in
          all matters on which the stockholders of the corporation are required 
          or permitted to vote (the "Common Shares"); and

          (b)  15,000,000 shares of preferred class, having a par value of $.001
          per share (the "Preferred Shares")."

<PAGE>

     C.   The foregoing amendment to the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation
was approved on December 19, 1996 by the affirmative vote of stockholders 
owning 6,661,246 shares (92.7%) of the Corporation's 7,179,429 outstanding 
shares of capital stock entitled to vote.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we do hereby execute this Certificate of Amendment of 
Articles of Incorporation of Boardwalk Casino, Inc. on December 30, 1996.



                                         /s/ Forrest J. Woodward, II
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Forrest J. Woodward, II, President


                                         /s/ Louis J. Sposato
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Louis J. Sposato, Secretary


STATE OF NEVADA

COUNTY OF CLARK

     This instrument was acknowledged before me on December 30, 1996 by 
Forrest J. Woodward, II and Louis J. Sposato as President and Secretary of 
Boardwalk Casino, Inc.


                                         /s/ Esther L. Gallagher
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                                      Notary Public

                                 SEAL             ESTHER L. GALLAGHER
                                                 Notary Public - Nevada
                                               My appt. exp. Sep. 26, 2000
                                                      No. 92-3914-1

                                      -2-
#### PANAMA CANAL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Irvin H. MASON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-1235

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 1972.

*1121Irvin H. Mason,, pro se.

Dwight A. McKabney, Gen. Counsel, John L. Haines, Jr., Balboa Heights, Canal Zone, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Panama Canal Company sued in a Canal Zone Magistrate’s Court to eject defendant from one of plaintiff’s apartments which it provided to its employees in the Canal Zone. Defendant’s employment with plaintiff had been terminated, but defendant refused to move out of the apartment. The Magistrate’s Court rendered judgment for plaintiff, and defendant was ejected. Defendant appealed to the United- States District Court for the Canal Zone, and after trial *de novo*the District Court rendered judgment for plaintiff. Both parties state in their briefs that defendant has been deported from the Canal Zone' since the trial in the District Court.

Defendant’s original object in this case was to retain possession of the apartment. Since he is now outside the Canal Zone, a judgment in his favor at this point in time would have no effect.

The appeal is dismissed for mootness.

Dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18375]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RC07-4-003]


The North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of 
Filing

August 4, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 31, 2008, The North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation filed a response to the Commission's Orders 
issued on December 20, 2007, Direct Energy Services, LLC, et al., 121 
FERC ] 61,274 (2007) and April 4, 2008, Direct Energy Services, LLC, et 
al., 123 FERC ] 61,016 (2008).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dc9a998e9f93b2b0b5b2b98fa9acacb3aea89cbab9aebff2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="35737067767a5b595c5b50664045455a474175535047561b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 1, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-18375 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
---

|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 Quarterly Report of Endeavor
Explorations Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Belkis Jimenez Rivero, Chief Financial Officer of the Company
and a member of the Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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/ Belkis Jimenez Rivero
  Belkis Jimenez Rivero 
  Chief Financial Officer March 17,
2010

---
1 Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

* * Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30592

NIA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS WHITNEY NATIONAL BANK AND JERRY TANNER, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(97-CV-1903-E)

December 10, 1999 Before DAVIS, JONES and MAGILL 1 , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: **
After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s suit for the following reasons:
1. Nia’s § 1981 action is time barred;
2. The summary judgment record does not support Nia’s allegation s of discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). 3. Whitney’s March 5, 1996 letter notifying Nia of the2

denial of its applicati on for a line of credit was timely and adequate under the ECOA. 4. We have considered Nia’s remaining arguments and conclude that they have no merit.
AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4330 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4330

To amend titles 23 and 49, United States Code, relating to metropolitan 
                               planning.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 30, 1996

  Mr. Hefley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend titles 23 and 49, United States Code, relating to metropolitan 
                               planning.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS UNDER 
              HIGHWAY PROGRAM.

    (a) Percentage of Population Represented.--Section 134(b) of title 
23, United States Code, is amended in each of paragraphs (1), (4), and 
(5) by striking ``75 percent'' and inserting ``50 percent''.
    (b) Veto Power.--Section 134(b) of such title is amended in each of 
paragraphs (1), (5)(A), and (5)(B) by striking the parenthetical 
phrase.
    (c) Autonomy.--Section 134(e) of such title is amended by striking 
``and the State'' and all that follows through the period at the end 
and inserting the following: ``to ensure that the plans and programs 
required by this section are complied with. It is the responsibility of 
the State to provide oversight in the area with multiple metropolitan 
planning organizations.''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS UNDER 
              TRANSIT PROGRAM.

    (a) Percentage of Population Represented.--Section 5303(c) of title 
49, United States Code, is amended in each of paragraphs (1)(A), 
(4)(B)(i), and (5)(A) by striking ``75 percent'' and inserting ``50 
percent''.
    (b) Veto Power.--Section 5303(c) of such title is amended in each 
of paragraphs (1)(A), (5)(A), and (5)(B) by striking the parenthetical 
phrase.
    (c) Autonomy.--Section 5303(e)(3) of such title is amended by 
striking ``and the State'' and all that follows through the period at 
the end and inserting the following: ``to ensure that the plans and 
programs required by this section are complied with. It is the 
responsibility of the State to provide oversight in the area with 
multiple metropolitan planning organizations.''.
                                 <all>
```