alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21


                            CALTON, INC. SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                    State of
                   Company                                        Incorporation
                   -------                                        -------------
eCalton.com, Inc. (f/k/a Calton Homes of Florida, Inc.)            Florida
Calton Homes of Chicago, Inc.                                      Illinois
Calton Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc.                                 Pennsylvania
Calton Homes of Pennsylvania at Pennway, Inc.                      Pennsylvania
Calton Homes of California, Inc.                                   California
Calton Lindenwood Corporation                                      California
Calton Manzanita Corporation                                       California
Calton Tamarack Corporation                                        California
Calton California Equity Corporation                               California
Calton Capital, Inc.                                               New Jersey
Calton General, Inc.                                               New Jersey
Calton Homes Finance, Inc.                                         New Jersey
Calton Homes Finance II, Inc.                                      New Jersey
Haddon Group of Virginia, Inc.                                     New Jersey
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2021-3719

_____________________________

JONAVIAN RAPHAEL GRIMSLEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie Kinsey, Judge.

February 27, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROBERTS and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### Davidson et al., Bd. of Elections of Columbiana County, *v.*The Ohio Power Co.

(No. 25055

— Decided October 24, 1934.)

*Mr. George L. Lafferty,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Louis Tobin*and *Mr. Frank W. Springer,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. William H. Vodrey,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Jones and Wilkin, JJ., not participating.
Order entered January 20, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-01172-CV

VETRI VENTURES, LLC, Appellant

V.

WESTRIDGE EAGLES NEST OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-02865-2019

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s January 18, 2023 unopposed third motion for 

an extension of time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time 

to February 1, 2023. We again caution appellee that further extension requests 

will be disfavored.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22844]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel, Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers Meeting (ADRC).
    Date: October 28-29, 2008.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Legacy Hotel Rockville, 1775 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: William Cruce, PhD, Health Scientist 
Administrator, Scientific Review Office, National Institute on 
Aging, National Institutes of Health, Room 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-402-7704, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adcedfd8cec8daedc3c4cc83c3c4c583cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0764757264627047696e6629696e6f29606871">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel, Sex Differences in Health and Longevity I.
    Date: November 10, 2008.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue Rm. 20212, Bethesda, MD 20814. (Telephone 
Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Ramesh Vemuri, PhD, Chief Scientific Review 
Office, National Institute On Aging, National Institutes of Health, 
7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 20-212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-
7700, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91e3e7a3a2e3d1fff8f9bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87f5f1b5b4f5c7e9eeefa9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 22, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
 [FR Doc. E8-22844 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
203 La. 839

#### STATE v. SCHIMPF et al.

Nos. 37080 and 37081.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1943.

W. T. Holloway, of Janesboro, and C. H. Morton, of Farmerville, for appellants.

Eugene Stanley, Atty. Gen., Niels F. Hertz, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Fred L. Jackson, Dist. Atty., of Homer, and Wayne Stovall, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Janesboro, for the State.

FOURNET, Justice.

Frank W. Schimpf and Dal Rowton, having been jointly charged with and convicted of possession of intoxicating liquors for sale and selling intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes in the parish of Jackson, where the sale of such liquor is pro-, hibited by law, are appealing from their convictions and sentences thereunder.

In suggesting that these appeals be dismissed, the prosecuting attorneys in their brief direct our attention to the fact that this court is without appellate jurisdiction to review these convictions and sentences under the .express provisions of Section 10 of Article VII of the Constitution of 1921 because neither of the defendants in either of these two cases was sentenced to serve more than six months in jail or to pay a fine in excess of $300.

This same section of the constitution, in addition to cases where the penalty of death or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed or where the sentence actually imposed is a fine in excess of $300 or a jail sentence in excess of 6 months, gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in all cases where a state statute or municipal or parochial ordinance has been declared unconstitutional and in all cases where the legality of a fine, forfeiture, or penalty imposed by a parish, municipal corporation, *678board or subdivision of the state is in contest, regardless of the amount involved.

No statute or ordinance has been declared unconstitutional in the instant case, and while it is true the validity of the ordinance of the Police Jury of Jackson parish prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors and the possession of such liquors for sale for beverage purposes has been attacked, the defendants in these cases, as pointed out by the trial judge in his per curiam, were not prosecuted under an ordinance of the Police Jury, but under a statute of the state, Act No. IS of 1934.

It is obvious, therefore, that this court has no authority to review the errors alleged to have been committed during the course of the trial of these defendants.

For the reasons assigned, the appeals are dismissed.

O’NEILL, C. J.,

dissents from the ruling that this court has not appellate jurisdiction over the question of constitutionality or legality of the parish ordinance prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 187 (Thursday, September 25, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22599]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 22


Public Mobile Services

CFR Correction

    In title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 22, revised as 
of Oct. 1, 2007, on page 78, in Sec.  22.709, paragraph (b)(3) is 
reinstated to read as follows:

Sec.  22.709  Rural radiotelephone service application requirements.

* * * * *
    (b)* * *
* * * * *
    (3) The center frequency of each channel requested, the maximum 
effective radiated power, the effective radiated power in each of the 
cardinal radial directions, any non-standard emission types to be used, 
including bandwidth and modulation type, the transmitter classification 
(e.g. central office), and the locations and call signs, if any, of any 
fixed points of communication.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. E8-22599 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Case 1:11-cv-02224-WJM-CBS Document 8 Filed 10/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02224-WJM-CBS Document 8 Filed 10/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02224-WJM-CBS Document 8 Filed 10/20/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
---

B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks Year
                  Estimated volume (billions of dollars)
                  Share of outstanding farm production loans (percent)Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q41995
          51
          -2
          14
          13
          25
          .131
          -.004
          .039
          .032
          .0611996
          95
          16
          27
          24
          30
          .240
          .039
          .070
          .058
          .0711997
          93
          6
          19
          19
          50
          .230
          .014
          .049
          .045
          .1121998
          87
          4
          15
          24
          45
          .198
          .008
          .036
          .051
          .0951999
          126
          18
          37
          35
          36
          .280
          .040
          .086
          .078
          .0802000
          108
          11
          17
          34
          45
          .259
          .027
          .041
          .075
          .0982001
          308
          67
          53
          140
          48
          .656
          .142
          .118
          .294
          .1012002
          221
          40
          50
          58
          73
          .471
          .085
          .114
          .124
          .1572003
          175
          34
          35
          48
          58
          .382
          .074
          .080
          .108
          .1282004
          129
          28
          17
          46
          38
          .284
          .062
          .039
          .099
          .0812005
          59
          8
          16
          12
          24
          .124
          .017
          .035
          .026
          .0482006
          n.a.
          9
          7
          23
          n.a.
          n.a.
          .018
          .015
          .045
          n.a. Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported
amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign results for large banks that
report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal
definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: January 08, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Richard L. Duncan

v. Civil No. 08-cv-446-JL

Andrew Newcome, et al

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $2.40 is due no later than January

9, 2009. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s income

credited to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the NH State

Prison for Men when the amount in the account exceeds $10.00

until the sum of $350.00 has been paid. Failure to pay the fee

as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 9, 2008

cc: Richard L. Duncan, pro se

 Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

 NH State Prison for Men, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:08-cv-00446-JL Document 5 Filed 12/09/08 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lorgio Hernandez, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 411]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann, J.), rendered November 25, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the adverse inference charge given by the court with respect to the People’s failure to preserve the clothing and sneakers the police found at the scene *567of the crime was inadequate to remedy the prejudice to him from the lack of that evidence at trial is without merit. The court, in giving a permissive rather than a mandatory adverse inference charge, providently exercised its discretion, since the charge as given was sufficient to dispel any prejudice *(see People v Simon,*295 AD2d 457 [2002]; *People v Gibbs,*207 AD2d 288 [1994], *affd*85 NY2d 899 [1995]).

The defendant also argues that he was deprived of a fair trial by the court’s refusal to give an adverse inference charge with respect to the People’s failure to preserve for his second trial a watch that had been recovered from his pants pocket. As the defendant correctly argues, the People have an obligation to preserve evidence “until all appeals have been exhausted” *(People v Brown,*196 AD2d 465, 466 [1993]; *see People v Watkins,*189 AD2d 623 [1993]; *People v Trama,*167 Misc 2d 93 [1995]) and, therefore, the watch should have been preserved after the first trial. However, because photographs of the watch were offered at the second trial, there was no prejudice to the defendant from the absence of the actual watch. The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to impose a sanction for the People’s failure to preserve the watch *(see People v Brister,*239 AD2d 513 [1997]; *People v Gibbs,*211 AD2d 641 [1995]; *People v Allen,*196 AD2d 876 [1993]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Rivera, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### Johnny Ray COLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44373.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1972.

*264Melvyn Carson Bruder, Dallas (Court Appointed on Appeal), for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and Robert L. Baskett, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for theft of property over the value of $50.00. Two prior convictions were alleged for enhancement under Article 63, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. The punishment was assessed at life.

Charles Wayne Smith testified that he was a supervisor and salesman for a motor company in Dallas. An automobile assigned to him by the company was taken from where it was parked near his apartment without his consent. Two days later he saw the automobile being driven by the appellant. He followed the appellant who stopped, got out and went into an apartment. Smith called the police. When an officer arrived, the appellant, another man, a woman and a child were inside the automobile. A spare tire and jack had been removed from the trunk.

The appellant testified that on the day of the arrest he went to a cafe to borrow an automobile from a friend, but borrowed the one he was driving at the time of the arrest from a girl whom he had not known previously.

He admitted that he had been convicted in three prior felony cases including the two alleged in the indictment. The jury chose not to believe that the appellant borrowed the automobile.

The appellant contends that the portion of the indictment alleging the prior convictions was read to the jury at the guilt or innocence stage of the trial. Article 37.07 Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., provides that only the allegation of the primary offense should be read to the jury prior to a finding of guilt. The record shows that the prosecutor read from the indictment, stopped and then continued to read. It does not show that the enhancement part of the indictment was read to the jury prior to a finding of guilt. No error is shown.

The remaining contentions concern argument by the prosecutor, an alleged er- ' ror in the court’s charge concerning the prior conviction and the allegation that the prior convictions violated appellant’s constitutional rights. No objection was made to preserve any of these contentions for review.

No error is shown. The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2128 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2128

         To provide market loss assistance to apple producers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2001

 Mr. Hinchey (for himself, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. Walsh, Mr. 
  Reynolds, and Mr. Sweeney) introduced the following bill; which was 
                referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To provide market loss assistance to apple producers.

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

SECTION 1. MARKET LOSS ASSISTANCE FOR APPLE PRODUCERS.

    (a) Assistance Available.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall use 
$250,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make 
payments as soon as possible after the date of the enactment of this 
Act to apple producers to provide relief for the loss of markets for 
their 2000 crop.
    (b) Payment Basis.--The amount of the payment to a producer under 
subsection (a) shall be made on a per pound basis equal to each 
qualifying producer's 2000 production of apples, except that the 
Secretary shall not make payments for that amount of a particular 
farm's apple production that is in excess of 20,000,000 pounds.
    (c) Duplicative Payments.--A producer shall be ineligible for 
payments under this section with respect to a market loss for apples to 
the extent of that amount that the producer received as compensation or 
assistance for the same loss under any other Federal program, other 
than under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    (d) Other Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall not establish 
any terms or conditions for producer eligibility, such as limits based 
upon gross income, other than those specified in this section.
    (e) Applicability.--This section applies only with respect to the 
2000 crop of apples and producers of that crop.
                                 <all>
```
B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures
______________________________________________________________________________________

Year                       Q1           Q2            Q3            Q4           Total
______________________________________________________________________________________

1986......    |            14            14            21            16             65
1987......    |            22            19            12            16             69
1988......    |            11             6            12             7             36
1989......    |             5             7             5             5             22
1990......    |             3             5             6             3             17
1991......    |             2             2             3             1              8
1992......    |             1             1             1             4              7
1993......    |             1             2             2             0              5
1994......    |             0             0             0             0              0
1995......    |             0             0             0             0              0
1996......    |             0             2             0             0              2
1997......    |             0             0             0             1              1
1998......    |             0             0             1             0              1
1999......    |             0             1             0             0              1
2000......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2001......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2002......    |             1             0             0             1              2
2003......    |             0             1             0             0              1
2004......    |             0             1             0             0              1
2005......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2006......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2007......    |             0          n.a.          n.a.          n.a.           n.a.
______________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.  Industrial banks and
mutual savings banks also are excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.

29