alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                       Subsidiaries of Platinum Holdings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             JURISDICTION OF
SUBSIDIARY                                                                    INCORPORATION
----------                                                                   ---------------
<S>                                                                          <C>
Platinum Underwriters Bermuda, Ltd...........................                Bermuda
(100% owned by Platinum Holdings)

Platinum Regency Holdings......................................              Ireland
(100% owned by Platinum Holdings)

Platinum Underwriters Finance, Inc..............................             Delaware
(100% owned by Platinum Regency Holdings)

Platinum Underwriters Reinsurance, Inc........................               Maryland
(100% owned by Platinum Underwriters Finance, Inc.)

Platinum Administrative Services, Inc...........................             Delaware
(100% owned by Platinum Underwriters Finance, Inc.)

Platinum Re (UK) Limited..........................................           United Kingdom
(100% owned by Platinum Regency Holdings)
</TABLE>
#### STATE v. DUNCAN

No. 252P01

Case below: 142 N.C. App. 522

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 June 2001.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00367

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF H.S., B.S., AND

M.S., C HILDREN §

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

of Parker County ( CIV

- 2 2

- 0621 )

March 21, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

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

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

is aff irmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Eliza beth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
Exhibit 8.1

AMENDED LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF GOLD FIELDS LIMITED

(AS OF JUNE
30, 2010)

GFI Mining South Africa (Proprietary) Limited, incorporated in South Africa

GFL Mining Services Limited, incorporated in South Africa

Gold Fields Group Services Limited, incorporated in South Africa

Gold Fields
Operations Limited, incorporated in South Africa(1)

GFI Joint Venture Holdings (Pty) Limited, incorporated in South Africa(2)

Gold
Fields Orogen Holdings (BVI) Limited, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands

Gold Fields Holdings Company (BVI) Limited, incorporated in
the British Virgin Islands

Gold Fields Ghana Holdings Limited, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands

Gold Fields Ghana Limited, incorporated in Ghana

Abosso Goldfields Limited, incorporated in Ghana

Gold Fields Australasia Limited, incorporated
in the British Virgin Islands

Gold Fields Australia Pty Limited, incorporated in Australia

St. Ives Gold Mining Company (Pty) Limited, incorporated in Australia

Agnew Gold Mining Company (Pty) Limited, incorporated in Australia

Gold Fields Corona BVI
Limited, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands

Gold Fields La Cima S.A., incorporated in Peru

Gold Fields Exploration B.V., incorporated in the Netherlands

Gold Fields Finland O.Y., incorporated in Finland

Gold Fields Artic Platinum O.Y, incorporated
in Finland

Gold Fields Netherlands Services B.V., incorporated in the Netherlands(3)



|Notes: | 
|------ | 

|(1) | In fiscal 2007, Western Areas Limited changed its name to Gold Fields Operations Limited.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | In fiscal 2007, Barrick Gold South Africa (Pty) Limited changed its name to GFI Joint Venture Holdings (Pty) Limited.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(3) | In fiscal 2007, Gold Fields Venezuela Holding B.V. changed its name to Gold Fields Netherlands Services B.V.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                       Banc One Credit Card Master Trust
                  Trust Performance by Series - February 2001


------------------------------------------------------
Series                                         1996-A
Deal Size                                     $500 MM
Expected Maturity                           5/15/2003
------------------------------------------------------

Yield                                          21.96%
Less:  Coupon                                   5.41%
       Servicing Fee                            1.50%
       Net Credit Losses                        8.58%
Excess Spread:
       February-01                              6.47%
       January-01                               8.47%
       December-00                              7.17%
Three Month Average Excess Spread               7.37%

Delinquency:
       30 to 59 Days                            1.90%
       60 to 89 Days                            1.35%
       90+ Days                                 2.77%
       30+ Days                                 6.02%

Payment Rate                                   11.64%

======================================================
ex10-5.htm


EXHIBIT 10.5




FORM OF AMENDMENT TO WARRANT, ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH THE 9.625% SENIOR UNSECURED PROMISSORY NOTE OF ARMADA OIL, INC., DATED MARCH 29, 2013, ISSUED TO __________


 


This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to Warrant, issued in connection with the 9.625% Senior Unsecured Promissory Note of Armada Oil, Inc., dated March 29, 2013 (the “Note”), issued to the undersigned on March 29, 2013 (the “Warrant”), is entered into as of the ____day of May 2014, by and between Armada Oil, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and the holder of the Warrant.  Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the meaning given to them in the Warrant.


 


WHEREAS, in consideration of the Holder agreeing to extend the Maturity Date of the Note until May 30, 2015, the Company and the Holder have agreed to modify certain of the terms of the Warrant.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants contained herein, the Company and the Holder agree as follows:


 


1.           “Exercise Price”, as such term is defined in the Warrant, per share of Common Stock means $0.30, subject to adjustment as provided in the Warrant.


 


2.   Except as modified herein, all of the other terms of the Warrant remain as is.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the Company and the holder of the Warrant as of the date first written above.


 



	  	
ARMADA OIL, INC.


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
By:                                                      


	  	
Name:  Randy M. Griffin


	  	
Title:   Chief Executive Officer


	  	  
	  	
ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	
By:                                                      


	  	
Name:
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID PLEVA.

September 23, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Maggie DAVIS, nee Long, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Woodrow LONG, Defendant, Jimmy Fulbright, Garnishee-Respondent.

No. 9709.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.

March 12, 1975.

*8Timothy F. Ruddy, Cape Girardeau, for plaintif f-appellant.

No appearance for defendant.

No appearance for garnishee-respondent.

Before BILLINGS, C. J., and HOGAN and FLANIGAN, JJ.

BILLINGS, Chief Judge.

Appellant-garnishor has lodged this appeal from the order of the Circuit Court of Bollinger County directing respondent-garnishee to pay over to the sheriff the sum of $28.89 under a garnishment initiated by appellant-garnishor. Appellant-garnishor contends she was entitled to a default judgment for a larger sum to be applied on a child support judgment she obtained in 1969 against her former husband, the named defendant.

Initially, we note that garnishment is in aid of an execution and is merely an ancillary remedy to obtain payment of a judgment, and a valid judgment and a *valid execution*are indispensable prerequisites to a valid garnishment. Fulkerson v. Laird, 421 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Mo.App.1967).

The *transcript*filed herein by the appellant is fatally deficient inasmuch as it does not reveal that an execution on the support judgment was issued in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 76.02; § 513.025.1 Consequently, we do not know when and to whom an execution was issued [Rule 76.05; § 513.035], the return date thereof [Rule 76.04, § 513.030], when, if ever, an execution was returned into the court, or what entries pertaining thereto were made by the clerk [Rule 76.07, § 513.-045]. Likewise, the *record*is silent as to those matters which are required to demonstrate compliance with Rule 85.21, 90.02, and 90.05 [§§ 521.170, 525.020, and 525.-060].

 If an appellant desires review of an issue it is his duty to furnish a transcript containing all the records, proceed*9ings and evidence relating thereto, and where there is an absence of such items there is nothing for an appellate court to decide. Edwards v. Hrebec, 414 S.W.2d 361 (Mo.App.1967). Rule 81.14 specifies with particularity the matters to be included in the transcript and those matters to be omitted. Review in a case cannot be bottomed on documents not offered in evidence nor included in the appeal transcript. Recitals contained in motions, extraneous statements by counsel, and statements unsupported by the record contained in an appellate brief do not rise to the dignity of proof and thus are insufficient to supply essential matters for review.

Appeal dismissed.

All concur.

1

. References to rules are to the Supreme Court Rules of Civil Procedure, V.A.M.R., and to statutes are to RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.
Exhibit 99.2


                                 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned, the trustee (the "Trustee") in respect of the Trust
Certificates (TRUCs) Series 2002-1, hereby certifies to Bear Stearns Depositor
Inc. as follows:

1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 8-K
filed by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, solely as Trustee for the Trust
Certificates (TRUCs) Series 2002-1 Trust and any distribution reports filed in
respect of the Trust during the 2002 calendar year;

2. The information in those reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, no misleading as of the last day of the period covered by
the annual report;

3. The distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the
depositor by the Trustee under the trust agreement for inclusion in these
reports is included in such reports; and

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Trustee under
the trust agreement and except as disclosed in these reports, the Trustee has
fulfilled its obligations under the trust agreement.

                                            U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL
                                            ASSOCIATION



                                            By:      /s/ Adam K. Berman
                                                ------------------------------
                                            Name:    Adam K. Berman
                                            Title:   Trust Officer
                                            Date:    March 31, 2003


                                       7
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00351

- CV

Joshua M. HINSON and Louise Hinson,

Appellants

v.

Don LEESEBURG and Carla M. Leeseburg,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 16610

Honorable Solomon Casseb III, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of

this appeal are taxed against Appellants

.

SIGNED October 8, 2014.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1210 CA 11-00673** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

JAMES SQUARE ASSOCIATES LP, MOHAWK GLEN ASSOCIATES, LLC, PIONEER FULTON SHOPPING CENTER, LLC, PIONEER MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, AND WATERFRONT ASSOCIATES, LLC, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V ORDER

DENNIS MULLEN, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND JAMIE WOODWARD, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (OWEN DEMUTH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JONATHAN B. FELLOWS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John C. Cherundolo, A.J.), entered June 22, 2010. The order and judgment granted the motion of plaintiffs for summary judgment, denied the cross motion of defendants for summary judgment, declared that Section 3 of the 2009 Amendments to the Empire Zones Program is prospective only and declared that the June 29, 2009 decertification of plaintiffs, to the extent it was applied retroactively to January 1, 2008, is null and void.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Loafin’ Tree Rest. v Pardi [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985).

Entered: November 18, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2274 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2274

   To expedite decisions on applications for authorization to export 
                  natural gas, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 30, 2014

   Mr. Udall of Colorado (for himself, Mr. Begich, and Ms. Heitkamp) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To expedite decisions on applications for authorization to export 
                  natural gas, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPORT NATURAL GAS.

    (a) Decision Deadline.--The Secretary of Energy shall issue a 
decision on any application for authorization to export natural gas 
under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b) not later than 
90 days after the later of--
            (1) the end of the comment period for the decision as set 
        forth in the applicable notice published in the Federal 
        Register; or
            (2) the date of enactment of this Act.
    (b) Judicial Action.--
            (1) In general.--The United States Court of Appeals for the 
        circuit in which the export facility will be located pursuant 
        to an application described in subsection (a) shall have 
        original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action for 
        the review of --
                    (A) an order issued by the Secretary of Energy with 
                respect to the application; or
                    (B) the failure of the Secretary to issue a 
                decision on the application.
            (2) Order.--If the Court in a civil action described in 
        paragraph (1) finds that the Secretary has failed to issue a 
        decision on the application as required under subsection (a), 
        the Court shall order the Secretary to issue the decision not 
        later than 30 days after the order of the Court.
            (3) Expedited consideration.--The Court shall--
                    (A) set any civil action brought under this 
                subsection for expedited consideration; and
                    (B) set the matter on the docket as soon as 
                practicable after the filing date of the initial 
                pleading.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 54297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21635]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Humboldt Resource Advisory Committee (RAC)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Humboldt Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in 
Eureka, California. The committee meeting is authorized under the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-
343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 21, 2010, from 5 p.m. to 7 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Six Rivers National Forest 
Office, 1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka, CA 95501.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Ranieri, Committee Coordinator, 
at (707) 441-3673; e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adc7dfccc3c4c8dfc4edcccbde83cbc8c983d8de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="660c1407080f03140f2607001548000302481315">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The 
agenda includes: finalizing the process and timeline for soliciting 
project proposals for funding under Title II of the Act, review of the 
Project Submission Form and RAC Website, discussion on the voting 
process, and public comment period.

    Dated: August 23, 2010.
Tyrone Kelley,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-21635 Filed 9-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                         975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### SEYMOUR BEST AND CECELIA BEST v. LEON M. SHACHAT.

October 3, 1985.

Leave to appeal is granted, the judgment of the Superior Court, Law Division, is reversed, and the matter is remanded for arbitration with the exception of the claims of plaintiff-respondent, Cecelia Best. The Law Division’s disposition of her claims shall be stayed pending disposition of arbitration.

Jurisdiction is not retained.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ramesh Kapur, dba AIC Management Company v. Cassandra Pleasant

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00236

- CV

Trial court case number: 1013763

Trial court: Co unty Civil C our t at Law No 2 of Harris County

By notice of November 6, 2014, the Clerk of this Court informed the parties it would move forward to resolution of this appeal on issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record unless the reporter’s record was f iled within 30 days. To date, no response to that notice has been received, and no reporter’s record has been filed.

The clerk’s record has previously been filed. We are now considering the record complete, and appellant’s brief is due within 30 days of the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c); 38.6(a). Due to the age of this appeal, no extensions of this deadline will be considered absent extraordinary circumstances.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

__

/s/

_ Rebeca Huddle

X A cting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 19, 2015
#### STATE v. WILSON

No. 199P01

Case below: 142 N.C. App. 392

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 June 2001.
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




In
      connection with the quarterly report of Titan Global Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Bryan Chance, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Actof
                1934; and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Titan Global Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Titan Global Holdings,
      Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.


Date:
                January 29, 2007
            By:
            */s/
              Bryan Chance*Bryan
                ChanceChief
                Executive Officer