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

Subsidiaries of FGX International Holdings Limited

|Name of Subsidiary                                          |  | Jurisdiction of
Organization |  | Fictitious Name
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | ---------------
|FGX International Limited                                   |  | British Virgin Islands       |  | None.          
|Envision Eyewear and Accessories (Shenzhen) Company Limited |  | China                        |  | None.          
|FGX International Inc.                                      |  | Delaware                     |  | None.          
|Quantum Optics, Inc.                                        |  | Delaware                     |  | None.          
|FGX Canada Corp.                                            |  | Nova Scotia, Canada          |  | None.          
|FGX Europe Limited                                          |  | United Kingdom               |  | None.          
|AAi/Joske's S. de R.L. de C.V. (joint venture)              |  | Mexico                       |  | None.          
|Foster Grant Hong Kong Limited                              |  | Hong Kong                    |  | None.          
|Fantasma Hong Kong Limited                                  |  | Hong Kong                    |  | None.          

---



QuickLinks
#### Larry Albert FORD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. CIRCUIT COURT OF BUENA VISTA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7342.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Larry Albert Ford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Larry A. Ford, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” Rose *v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Ford has not made the requisite showing. *See Ford v. Circuit Court of Buena Vista,*No. CA-02-898 (W.D.Va. Aug. 9, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *175and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Francis Walton et al., Plaintiffs in Error, *v.*William J. Stephenson et al. Defendants in Error.

ERROR TO JEEEERSOK

It is erroneous to sustain a general demurrer to a declaration having three counts, if a part of the counts are good, and one of them defective.

The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of the court. The judgment complained of was rendered by Marshall, Judge, at the September term, 1852, of the Jefferson Circuit Court.

R. F. Wingate, for plaintiffs.

R. S. Nelson and D. Baugh, for defendant.

Trumbull, J.

This was an action of assumpsit, containing three counts. The first attempts to charge the defendants for a lot of drags and medicines, sold by the plaintiffs to one Raymond, on the ground of a supposed liability incurred by a letter of introduction which the defendants gave said Raymond to the plaintiffs.

The second, is the common count for goods sold, alleging, in substance, that the plaintiffs on, &e., at the request of the defendants, sold and delivered to said Raymond drugs and medicines to the value of f>328.37, in consideration whereof the defendants on, &e., at, &c., promised to pay the plaintiffs said sum, and concluding with the usual breach.

The third, is also a common count, differing from the second, by alleging that in consideration that the plaintiffs, at the request of the defendants, would sell and deliver to one Raymond such drugs and medicines as he requested in his business, they, the defendants, undertook and promised to be accountable to the plaintiffs for such goods, &c., and then alleges a sale, &c., as in the second count.

The circuit court sustained a general demurrer to the whole declaration.

The first count is manifestly defective. The letter as therein set forth did not make the defendants liable in an action of assumpsit for the goods purchased by Raymond. If they can be held liable at all, it must be upon an entirely different state of case from that which is set forth in the first count. The second and third counts are, however, substantially good.

So far as appears from those counts, the defendants may *78have undertaken by a valid contract to pay for the goods purchased by Raymond, and if the declaration contained one good count, the demurrer was improperly sustained. It is probable that the attention of the circuit court was never called to any other than the first count.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

*Judgment reversed.*
EXHIBIT
32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Rafael Pinedo, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Chancery Resources, Inc. for the period ended May 31, 2011 (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 Chancery Resources, Inc.                                                         

Dated: July 20, 2011



| | /s/ Rafael Pinedo            
| | -----------------------------
| | Rafael Pinedo                
| | President and Director       
| | (Principal Executive Officer)
| | Chancery Resources, Inc.     

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Chancery Resources,
Inc. and will be retained by Chancery Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 34.1

             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
American Honda Finance Corporation:

We have examined American Honda Finance Corporation's (the Company) compliance
with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for Asset Backed Notes, Series 2006-1,
except for the servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv),
1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xiii),
and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined as being applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions
being serviced as of March 31, 2006 and for the four-day period from March 28,
2006 (the date of issuance of the Honda Auto Receivables 2006-1 Owner Trust)
through March 31, 2006. Management is responsible for American Honda Finance
Corporation's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on American Honda Finance Corporation's compliance based on
our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliance with
1122(d)(1)(i) and 1122(d)(1)(ii) applicable to American Honda Finance
Corporation during the four-day period ended March 31, 2006. There were no
policies and procedures instituted to monitor any performance or other triggers
and events of defaults in accordance with the transaction agreement. There were
no policies and procedures instituted to monitor third-party performance and
compliance with servicing activities.

In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance described in the third
paragraph, American Honda Finance Corporation complied, in all material
respects, with the aforementioned servicing criteria for the four-day period
ended March 31, 2006.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California

June 23, 2006
```
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 China Tel Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report"), I Carlos Trujillo, Chief, Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §. 1350, as adopted pursuant to §. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(i)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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







Date:  April 15, 2011
By: /s/ Carlos TrujilloCarlos Trujillo, Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COREY CAPEHART,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-884

Opinion filed November 2, 2016.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Corey Capehart, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied 

except as it relates to the trial court’s oral pronouncement prohibiting early 

termination of probation, which is hereby stricken. See Arriaga v. State, 666 So. 2d 

949 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Since this pronouncement was not reduced to writing, 

there is no need to remand for correction of the judgment and sentence or the order 

of probation.
2

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                         COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWHEQ, INC.
             CWHEQ REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-D
         REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2006-D


        The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby
further certify pursuant to Section 3.09 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement
for the above-captioned Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: REESTABLISHMENT OF THE

M AGISTERIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE

40 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

:

:

: NO. 468

MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

P ER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of May, 20 22 , upon consideration of the Petition to

Reestablish the Magisterial District s of the 40 th Judicial District ( Indiana County) of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that the

Petition, which provides for the reestablishment of the Magisterial Districts within Indiana

County as they currently exist, to be effective immediately, is granted.

Sai d Magisterial Districts will be reestablished as follows :

Magisterial District 40

- 2

- 01

Magisterial District Judge Guy B. Haberl Indiana Borough

White Township (Wards 4, 5 and 6)

Magisterial District 40

- 3

- 01

Magisterial District Judge Christopher S. Welch Cherry Tree Borough

Clymer Borough

Creekside Borough

Ernest Borough

Glen Campbell Borough

Marion Center Borough

Plumville Borough

Smicksburg Borough

Banks Township

Canoe TownshipCherryhill Township

East Mahoning Township

Grant Township

Green Township

Montgomery Township

North Mahoning Township

Pine Township

Rayne Township

South Mahoning Township

Washington Township

West Mahoning Township

White Township (Ward 1)

Magisterial District 40

- 3

- 02

Magisterial District Judge Susanne V. Steffee Homer City Borough

Shelocta Borough

Armstrong Township

Brush Valley Township

Buffington Township

Center Township

White Township (Wards 2, 3

- 1 and

3

- 2)

Magisterial District 40

- 3

- 03

Magisterial District Judge Robert S. Bell Armagh Borough

Blairsville Borough

Saltsburg Borough

Blacklick Township

Burrell Township

Conemaugh Township

East Wheatfield Township

West Wheatfield Township

Young Township
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23
                                                                      ----------

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                         -------------------------------

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-81044, 333-19753, 333-59902 and 333-74197) (pertaining to
the 1991 Qualified Stock Option Plan, the Amended and Restated 1993 Stock Option
and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan, the 1995 Amended and Restated Non-Employee
Director Stock Option Plan and the 1998 Non-Executive Employee Stock Option and
Restricted Stock Purchase Plan) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-95361, 333-33986,
333-37630, 333-45818, 333-49628, 333-59346, and 333-63514) of our report dated
January 29, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Electric Fuel Corporation for the three years ended December 31, 2001 included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                           /s/    Kost Forer & Gabbay
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                                  Kost Forer & Gabbay
                                         A Member of Ernst & Young International

Tel-Aviv, Israel
March 26, 2002
#### Martha J. O’Malley, Individually and as Trustee of Mary K. Kaufman, under the Last Will and Testament of Isaac C. Fenton, Deceased. Respondent, v. George R. Adams and William Fenton Adams, as Executors, etc., of Emma E. Adams, Deceased, Appellants, and Others.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
        THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
        INTERIM  CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT  OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTH
        PERIOD  ENDED  JUNE 30,  1999  AND THE  INTERIM  CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED
        BALANCE  SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
        REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000075679
<NAME>                        GCI, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         23,759
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  44,195
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,483
<INVENTORY>                                    2,382
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               73,289
<PP&E>                                         410,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                 94,939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 659,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          53,885
<BONDS>                                        345,037
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       230,549
<OTHER-SE>                                     (11,354)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   659,415
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144,997
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  62,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               68,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               2,296
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             16,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,833)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (803)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,030)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      344
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,374)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (23,740)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (23,740)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000916310
<NAME> PROTECTION ONE ALARM MONITORING, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,462
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,541
<INVENTORY>                                      1,920
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,346
<PP&E>                                          13,994
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,042
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 290,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,539
<BONDS>                                        220,372
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           129
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,698
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   290,075
<SALES>                                         73,457
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,457
<CGS>                                           24,093
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   108
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,649
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,697
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,744)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (247)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,745)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,745)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.40)
        

</TABLE>
#### Josephine Ofner, Respondent, v. Fernando M. Guinzburg, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Mo opinion.
#### Enos A. Phillips, Appellant, *v.*Sidney S. Coudon, Appellee.

APPEAL PROM UNION.

Where a bailment is gratuitous, the bailee is bound to extraordinary care.

This action was brought by Coudon against Phillips before a justice of the peace, to recover the value of a horse loaned by Coudon, and which died in the hands of Phillips. The suit was taken by appeal to the Circuit Court of Union county, and at September term, 1851, was heard before Denning, Judge, and a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to this court, and assigned errors.

John Dougherty, for appellant.

C. G. Simons, for appellee.

Trumbull, J.

The only decision of the court excepted to,

was its refusal to grant a new trial, and the propriety of that decision is the only question presented by the record.

The rule in reference to granting new trials on the ground that the verdict of the jury was contrary to evidence, has been so often announced by this court, that its reiteration at this time on a review of the mass of evidence contained in this record, would serve only to swell the volume of reports without any practicable benefit to the parties in this, or suitors in other causes.

The question was one of care by the bailee of a horse taken by the defendant to keep for his use, and which became diseased while in the bailee’s possession. The bailment, under the circumstances, was gratuitous, and bound the defendant to extraordinary care. Story on Bailment, sect. 219, 237.

The evidence showed that the horse was well when the defendant received him ; that he left his residence in the morning, the horse then being well, to go a distance of about twenty-two miles; that, at the end of the journey, the horse was discovered to be sick; that, without having done any thing for the horse, and while he was in this condition, the defendant on the same day started back, and went some ten miles, riding the horse, which was very much distressed at the time part of the way; and that he returned him to the plaintiff the next day, sick and stiff These circumstances, unexplained, were sufficient to warrant the finding of the jury.

*Judgment affirmed.*