alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit21.1**

 

# **Subsidiariesof the Company**

 
| **Entity**                                  | ** ** | **State of  Incorporation** |
|---------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------|
|                                        |       |                        |
| Acapulco Restaurants,  Inc.                 |       | Delaware                    |
|                                        |       |                        |
| El Torito Restaurants,  Inc.                |       | Delaware                    |
|                                        |       |                        |
| El Torito Franchising  Company              |       | Delaware                    |
|                                        |       |                        |
| El Paso Cantina, Inc.                       |       | California                  |
|                                        |       |                        |
| Murray Pacific                              |       | California                  |
|                                        |       |                        |
| TARV, Inc.                                  |       | California                  |
|                                        |       |                        |
| ALA Design, Inc.                            |       | California                  |
|                                        |       |                        |
| Acapulco Restaurant of  Westwood, Inc.      |       | California                  |
|                                        |       |                        |
| Acapulco Restaurant of  Moreno Valley, Inc. |       | California                  |
|                                        |       |                        |
| Acapulco Restaurant of  Ventura, Inc.       |       | California                  |
|                                        |       |                        |
| Acapulco Restaurant of  Downey, Inc.        |       | California                  |
|                                        |       |                        |
| Acapulco Restaurants of  Encinitas, Inc.    |       | California                  |
|                                        |       |                        |
| Acapulco Mark Corp.                         |       | Delaware                    |
|                                        |       |                        |
| Real Mex Foods, Inc.                        |       | California                  |
|                                        |       |                        |
| CKR Acquisition Corp.                       |       | Delaware                    |
|                                        |       |                        |
| Chevys Restaurants, LLC                     |       | Delaware                    |

 

----
H. Res. 179

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 9, 1997.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1775) to authorize appropriations for fiscal

year 1998 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of

the United States Government, the Community Management

Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and

Disability System, and for other purposes. The first reading

of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under

the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on
2

•HRES 179 EH

Intelligence now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title

rather than by section. Each title shall be considered as read.

Points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule

XVI or clause 5(a) or clause 5(b) of rule XXI are waived.

No amendments to the committee amendment in the nature

of a substitute shall be in order unless printed in the portion

of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in

clause 6 of rule XXIII. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have

been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in

the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of

the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the

nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 435 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          May 19, 1998.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel 
strengths for fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the 
bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on National Security. After general debate the 
Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of 
the bill shall be in order except pursuant to subsequent order of the House.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cr−00299

Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

Hardy Lee Browner

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Sunday, June 28, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. as to Hardy Lee

Browner (1): Government's unopposed motion for entry of a protective order [10] is

granted. Signed order to follow. Notice of motion date of 6/30/2020 is stricken and no

appearances are necessary on that date. Because Judge Dow will not be in court on

7/29/2020, which is the next scheduled hearing date, counsel are requested to email the

Courtroom Deputy to reset that status hearing to some date after August 10. Mailed notice

(cdh, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cr-00299 Document #: 13 Filed: 06/28/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:19
#### Anderson *v.*Shoup.

Opinion delivered January 27, 1930.

*957
      *Elmo CarlLee,*for appellant.

*W. J. Dumgan,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). The allegations of the complaint show the items of the account charged against appellant and the amount of interest also, and that the interest charged exceeds the amount allowed by law, and was usurious in the sum of $30, the correct amount alleged to 'be agreed upon. It was shown, however, that the whole amount of the account had 'been voluntarily paid by appellant without objection to the payment of the alleged usurious interest, until the final settlement was made, and, although the complaint alleges that the different payments were made under protest, and were not voluntary, the allegations showing the method of payment do not show such payments to have *958been otherwise than voluntarily made. According to the allegations, when the last bale of cotton and seed had been sold, the appellant had the check made payable to the landlord, and his account was given to him, and the balance of the amount of the check over the amount shown to be due him by the account was returned to appellant. He objected at this time to the settlement, claiming usury had been chaig-ed and exacted to him, and later presented his account to the executor of the estate of the deceased landlord, claiming to be entitled to an allowance for the whole amount of the account he had paid to the landlord, including- the interest thereon.

The statute makes no express provision for the recovery of the money paid on.usurious accounts or contracts, although it prohibits the taking of excessive or usurious interest, and declares void all notes and obligations providing therefor. The payments made on the account under the allegations of the complaint should, we think, be treated as having been voluntarily made, the amount of the account and lawful interest, and held not recoverable, under the doctrine of our cases. *Kendall*v. *Davis,*55 Ark. 318, 18 Ark. 185; *Murphy*v. *Citizens’ Bank,*82 Ark. 131, 100 S. W. 891, 11 L. R. A. N. S. 616, 12 Ann. Cas. 536. See also 39 Cyc. 1030, paragraph H.

The complaint alleged that the tender of the amount agreed to be the amount of excessive or usurious interest exacted had been duly made, and the court correctly sustained the demurrer; and the judgment of the court sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint is correct and must be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Subject: EXT :FW: NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 Concept Paper 

Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 11:23:54 PM 

Attachments: Gov Fun.pptx 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening 

attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 

Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 5:03 PM 

To: cyberframework <cyberframework@nist.gov> 

Subject: NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 Concept Paper 

Greetings, 

Comments on Section 4.1. Add a new Govern Function 

I agree with the idea of having Gov as a function. I suggest to change the presentation of the 

CSF farmwork. I attached two proposals. The gov is the overarching function of all Cyber 

functions 

I suggest to add subcategory for Segregation of Duties and other subcategory for Conflict of 

interest for approval, accessing data etc under Gov 

I suggest adding category for Compliance/Assurance under Gov. 

I suggest adding Cybersecurity Performance Measures under Gov. 

I suggest to add Cybersecurity Architecture subcategory and/or Cybersecurity Engineering 

subcategory under Identify/Protect 

For “Call for action”, I would like to collaborate with NIST in the following areas: 

“Call to Action – Share International Resources:” 

Translate the CSF 2 to Arabic. I translated CSF ver 1.1 and I would like to translate ver 

2.0 

“Call to Action – Provide Mappings:” 

Explore the possibility of mapping Saudi National Cybersecurity Authority’s (NCA) 

Cybersecurity regulation to CSF 2.0 

Call to Action – Share Use of the CSF in Measuring and Assessing Cybersecurity: 

Thanks, 

Ali
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6489

DAVID HARRISON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(CA-03-1423-8-26BI)

Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004

Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

David Harrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Harrison has not made the

requisite showing. 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 and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001049135
<NAME> MOLECULAR ROBOTICS, INC.

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                            0
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  0
<PP&E>                                                      199,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              199,756
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        36,201
<BONDS>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                     496
<COMMON>                                                        669
<OTHER-SE>                                                  163,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                199,756
<SALES>                                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  0
<CGS>                                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             4,218,825
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (4,218,825)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (4,218,825)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (0.37)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board of Directors


Ares Capital Corporation





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form N-2 of Ares Capital Corporation of our reports dated February 9, 2022, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Ares Capital Corporation and its subsidiaries, including the consolidated schedules of investments, as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2021, and the related notes, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, which reports appear in the annual report on Form 10-K of Ares Capital Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2021, and the report dated February 9, 2022 on the senior securities table attached as an exhibit to the Form 10-K. We also consent to the references to our firm under the headings “Controls and Procedures” and “Senior Securities” in the Form 10-K.





/s/ KPMG LLP





Los Angeles, California


February 9, 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                                                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1000
       
<S>                                                           <C>    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                  OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                                        982
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 13,704
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  (1,054)
<INVENTORY>                                                   45,172
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              65,619
<PP&E>                                                        25,956
<DEPRECIATION>                                                (5,828)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                211,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         28,777
<BONDS>                                                       150,605
<COMMON>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                                    20,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  211,778
<SALES>                                                       127,508
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              127,508
<CGS>                                                         77,826
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 38,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            10,093
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               838
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  417
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           421
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  421
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0
        



</TABLE>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 16 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
KEITH D. LARKINS,

Petitioner-Appellant,
v. R. MICHAEL CODY,

Respondent-Appellee. No. 96-6171 (D.C. No. CV-95-600-L) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, HENRY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Th e case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Petitioner Keith D. Larkins appeals from the distri ct court’s judgment denying his habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 2254. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. On appeal, petition er presents the following arguments: 1) his Fourth Amendment search and seiz ure claims are cognizable on habeas review; 2) the stop and search of petitionerwas constitutionally invalid; 3) his sentence for possession of cocaine was exces sive; and 4) his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. After careful consideration of the briefs and appen dix filed on appeal, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons as set out in the ma gistrate judge’s report and recommendation, dated September 11, 1995, adopted b y the district court on May 1, 1996, the judgment of the United States Dist rict Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
#### M. C. Howard, etc., *v.*E. M. Peters, etc.

Bills and Note — Husband and Wife — Credit Given Wife — Husband Insolvent.

Where the credit is given to the wife and she joins with her husband in the execution of a note, a recovery may be had against her. especially where the husband is insolvent.

APPEAL PROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

November 3, 1871.

*370
      *Ray, for appellmts.*

*Little, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

The note in controversy was executed by the husband, and wife for the labor of the obligee in building or furnishing brick out of which a dwelling house was erected on the land of the wife. The husband was insolvent and a home was necessary for the shelter and comfort of the family. The amount charged is only eighty dollars. The credit was given to the wife, and she appears as principal in the note. We perceive no reason for disturbing the judgment of the court below and the same is affirmed.