alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  SEP-27-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-29-1999
<CASH>                                                  47,236
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          877,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                            15,000
<INVENTORY>                                            433,144
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1,658,881
<PP&E>                                               9,432,780
<DEPRECIATION>                                       3,674,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       7,987,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                4,529,959
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                 14
<COMMON>                                                   350
<OTHER-SE>                                           2,543,750
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         7,987,389
<SALES>                                              4,646,150
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4,646,150
<CGS>                                                2,739,746
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        2,739,746
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       103,253
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      57,917
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         20,852
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     20,852
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                            20,852
<EPS-BASIC>                                                .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              .00



</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF ARES CAPITAL CORPORATION



Name

JurisdictionARCC ABB LLC

DELAWAREARCC AXC LLC

DELAWAREARCC BALKO LLC

DELAWAREARCC BM LLC

DELAWAREARCC CIC FLEX CORPORATION

DELAWAREARCC C&C HoldCo, LLC

DELAWAREARCC CCS, INC.

DELAWAREARCC OTG PREFERRED CORP.

DELAWAREARCC CLPB CORPORATION

DELAWAREARCC CP LLC

DELAWAREARCC CRESCENT LLC

DELAWAREARCC ECG LLC

DELAWAREARCC FD CORP.

DELAWAREARCC FM CORP.

DELAWAREARCC GAC LLC

DELAWAREARCC GF, LLC

DELAWAREARCC HBF LLC

DELAWAREARCC IGS CORP.

DELAWAREARCC IMPERIAL CORPORATION

DELAWAREARCC IMPERIAL LLC

DELAWAREARCC IMPERIAL POF LLC (F/K/A AMEREX EQUITY LLC)

DELAWAREARCC LSQ LLC

DELAWAREARCC MCF 2 LLC

DELAWAREARCC NPA CORP. (F/K/A ARCC PSSI CORP.)

DELAWAREARCC OTG CORP.

DELAWAREARCC PCP L.P.

CAYMAN ISLANDSARCC PCP GP, LLC

DELAWAREARCC S2 LLC (F/K/A AC POSTLE, LLC)

DELAWAREARCC HT CORP. (F/K/A ARCC SAGE INC.)

DELAWAREARCC H8 CORP.

DELAWAREARCC NR LLC

DELAWAREARCC GF1 CORP.

DELAWAREARCC PF LLC

DELAWAREARCC PH CORP.

DELAWAREARCC UNIVERSAL CORP.

DELAWAREARCC PCGI III AIV BLOCKER, INC.

DELAWAREARCC PJMB LLC

DELAWAREARCC RB LLC

DELAWAREARCC SK BLOCKER CORP.

DELAWAREARCC SC LLC

DELAWAREARCC VP LLC

DELAWAREARES VENTURE FINANCE GP LLC

DELAWAREARES VENTURE FINANCE, L.P.

DELAWAREAC NOTES HOLDINGS LLC

DELAWAREARCC COVESTIA CORP.

DELAWAREARCC JTC, LLC

DELAWAREARES CAPITAL JB FUNDING LLC

DELAWAREARES CAPITAL CP FUNDING LLC

DELAWAREARES CAPITAL CP FUNDING HOLDINGS LLC

DELAWARE


---





Name

JurisdictionIVY HILL ASSET MANAGEMENT GP, LLC

DELAWARE10TH STREET EQUITY, LLC

DELAWAREA.C. CORPORATION

DELAWAREA.C., LP

DELAWAREALLBRIDGE EQUITY, LLC

DELAWAREALLBRIDGE FINANCIAL LLC

DELAWAREALLIED ASSET HOLDINGS LLC

DELAWAREALLIED CRESCENT EQUITY, LLC

DELAWARECALDER EQUITY, LLC

DELAWARECLEVELAND EAST EQUITY, LLC

DELAWARECRESCENT EQUITY CORP.

DELAWARECRESCENT SLIVER EQUITY LLC

DELAWAREARCC MCF 1, LLC (f/k/a DYNAMIC EQUITY, LLC)

DELAWAREGLOBALCOM EQUITY, LLC

DELAWAREHCI EQUITY, LLC

ILLINOISMULTIAD EQUITY CORP.

DELAWARENPH, INC.

MARYLANDPCP WILCON HOLDINGS INC.

DELAWAREPCP GHS HOLDINGS INC.

DELAWARES2 EQUITY CORP.

DELAWARESLATE EQUITY, LLC

DELAWARESTAG EQUITY, LLC

DELAWARESTARTEC EQUITY, LLC

DELAWAREAC CORPORATE HOLDINGS, INC.

DELAWAREACAS, LLC

DELAWAREACE ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, LLC

DELAWARECAPITAL PLACEMENT HOLDINGS, INC.

DELAWAREACAS CRE CDO 2007-1 DEPOSITOR, LLC

DELAWAREAMERICAN CAPITAL AGENT SERVICES, LLC

DELAWAREEUROPEAN CAPITAL LIMITED

GUERNSEYECAS 2016 LTD.

GUERNSEYEUROPEAN CAPITAL S.A. SICAR

LUXEMBOURGECAS AGENT S.AS.

FRANCEECAS S.AR.L.

LUXEMBOURGECAS II S.AR.L.

LUXEMBOURG


In
addition, we may be deemed to control certain portfolio companies identified as "Affiliated" companies that we "Control" in footnote 7 to the Consolidated Schedule of Investments as
of December 31, 2016 included in the Financial Statements portion of Ares Capital Corporation's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7447

CRAIG L. SCOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHARLES WILLIAMS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00133-GMG-JES)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig Lamont Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Craig L. Scott, a federal prisoner, appeals the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)

petition, and a subsequent order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motion as an unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, 

and dismissing it on that basis. We conclude that the district 

court properly denied relief on Scott’s § 2241 petition and 

dismissed his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court and grant Scott’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis. See Scott v. Williams, No. 3:14-cv00133-GMG-JES (N.D.W. Va. June 17, 2015; Sept. 3, 2015); United 

States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that 

a certificate of appealability is unnecessary where a district 

court dismisses a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized 

successive habeas motion). 

Additionally, we construe Scott’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on 

either:
3

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 

that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Scott’s claims do not satisfy either of 

these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

 AFFIRMED
Case 2:16-mj-01055-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01055-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01055-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001048237
<NAME> NATEX CORP/UT

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          54,461
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  275,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               329,461
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 463,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       640,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (146,375)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   493,625
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   636
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,702
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,938
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,374)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (47,474)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
#### Minor & Dallam *v.*Smallwood & Querry, etc.

Injunction — Cannot Afford Relief Against Non-resident — Proceedings in rem — Personal Judgment.

As Moore was absent and actual process on him not obtainable, a personal judgment against him could not be rendered. The only *386mode by which appellants could obtain effectual relief was by proceedings in rem.

Injunction — Jurisdiction—Attachment—Actual Service of Process.

A mere injunction which might compel all within the jurisdiction of the court to refrain from action, could afford appellants no relief against those upon whom they could not get actual service of process. As their debtor was not within the jurisdiction of the court, it was needful that they sieze on some property, choses in action, or something upon which the judgment of the court could operate.

APPEAL PROM CRITTENDEN CIRCUIT COURT.

May 7, 1872.

*James, for appellant.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

As Moore was absent and actual service of process on him not attainable, a personal judgment against him could not be rendered, and the only mode by which appellants could obtain effectual relief was by a proceeding *in rem.*

The mere injunction which might compel all within the jurisdiction of the court to refrain from action, could afford appellants no relief against those upon whom they, could not get actual service, nor was it the remedy they needed, it could not advance their rights, either as a temporary remedy or as the final judgment of the court. Their case needed more active remedies, as their debtor was not within the jurisdiction of the court, it was needful for them to seize on some property, choses in action, or some *thing*on which the judgment of the court could operate, but the means to attain that end appellants failed to adopt, and even in their amended petition they refrain from asking for, or suing out an attachment; these were fatal omissions which cannot be remedied after others equally meritorious have profited by them.

Whether or not the funds in the hands of the master were subject to be attached is a question which need not be discussed on this appeal, for let’it be decided either way, still the judgment would not prejudice appellants, and they are not therefore interested in the question.

Judgment *affirmed.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

OUYEINC LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

1Baaaai and et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 20 cv 3488

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 41(a)(1)

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Ouyeinc Ltd.

(“Ouyeinc” or “Plaintiff”) hereby dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to settlement as 

to the following Defendants:

Defendant Name Line No.

TTlife Store 238

Elife-China 64

OUTLETSSHOPPING 174

Shinydiamonds 203

DATED September 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James A. Karamanis

James A. Karamanis

Barney & Karamanis, LLP

Two Prudential Plaza

180 N. Stetson, Ste 3050

Chicago, IL 60601

Tel.: 312/553-5300

Case: 1:20-cv-03488 Document #: 58 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:232
Attorney No. 6203479

James@bkchicagolaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Ouyeinc Ltd.

Case: 1:20-cv-03488 Document #: 58 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:233
---

KPMG LLP
      Telephone
      (604) 691-3000Chartered Accountants
      Fax
      (604) 691-3031PO Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir Street
      Internet
      www.kpmg.caVancouver BC V7Y 1K3Canada




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors of Yukon-Nevada Gold Corp.

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F
of:

|- | our auditors' report dated March 20, 2008 on the
      consolidated balance sheets of Yukon- Nevada Gold Corp. ("the Company") as
      at December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the consolidated statements of
      operations, deficit, comprehensive loss cash flows for each of the years
      then ended.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
|- | our auditors' report on
      reconciliation to United States GAAP dated September 24, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                              

each of which is incorporated by reference in this annual
report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.

Chartered Accountants



Vancouver, Canada

September 24, 2008

KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership
is the Canadianmember firm of KPMG International, a
Swiss cooperative.

---
Dec 16 2015 01;46Din

*

« VS

COURT OP APPEALS CAUSe NO. 04-1S-00697-CV

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO.CV-15-D000318

Janette Suzanne Clark. Appellant

V.

Samuel David Clark. Appellee

§

§

§

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200

San Antonio, Texas782QS-3037

Motion to Dismiss Cause No. 04-15-00697-CV

Since Appellant, though well below the U.S. Poverty Guidelines ofindigence, has been denied indigent

status by the 198*'' District Trial Court, Appellant wishesto dismiss her appeal. She further begsfor

mercy from the Trial Court and the Appellate Court to reduce or dismissthe costs accrued by her appeal

and in the case of no dismissal, she requests small monthly payments be allowed to pay the fees

Incurred. Appellant cannot procure proper council becauseofher indigentstatus and is unable to

represent herselfdue toinadequate knowledge and long standing health issues. Appellant would like to

state thatshe is not gulity ofthe accusations ofAppellee and thatshe wishes neverto have any contact

with him again.

Cc;

Samuel David aark

ByUSPS

198* District Court

By Fax

Respectfullysubmitted,

December16,2015/

ro Se Appelpnt

Co

er

^ m

Is®

'Z-

'•T'rn

ro

•••

tj9

XT

P001
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 275 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 275

    To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit a 
 committee to vote to allow live media coverage of the testimony of a 
                          subpoenaed witness.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 22, 1997

 Mr. Ganske submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit a 
 committee to vote to allow live media coverage of the testimony of a 
                          subpoenaed witness.

    Resolved, That clause 3(f)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``, unless the 
        committee or subcommittee votes otherwise pursuant to the next 
        sentence'' before the period; and
            (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``, unless a 
        majority of the members of the committee or subcommittee 
        voting, a quorum being present, vote otherwise'' before the 
        period.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67232-67233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26684]


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

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #14178 and #14179]


Missouri Disaster #MO-00073

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Missouri (FEMA-
4200-DR), dated 10/31/2014.
    Incident: Severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and 
flooding.
    Incident Period: 09/09/2014 through 09/10/2014.
    Effective Date: 10/31/2014.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/30/2014.
    Economic Injury (EIDl) Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/31/2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

[[Page 67233]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 10/31/2014, private non-
profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Adair, Andrew, Atchison, Daviess, Gentry, Grundy, 
Harrison, Holt, Knox, Lewis, Linn, Livingston, Macon, Mercer, Nodaway, 
Putnam, Ralls, Shelby, Sullivan, Worth.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.625
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.625
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.625
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14178B 
and for economic injury is 14179B.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Cynthia G. Pitts,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014-26684 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### E. J. Green *v.*Jas. R. Secrest.

Bills and Notes — Assignment—Usury.

The written acknowledgment of appellee that all usury included in his individual debts to Green was stricken out in their settlement before the execution of the note sued on, is not contradicted by any testimony in the case, concludes him on that point.

APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 10, 1870.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

As in all cases of usurious and illegal transactions, great difficúlty attends the adjudication of the matters involved in the controversy. From the facts as presented by this record, we are inclined to the opinion that there is no error in the judgment of the court below except in so far as it credits the appellee with the amount he failed to realize upon the assignment of F. M. 'Secrest after the debts said assignment were intended to pay had been purged of usury. The court properly gave him *376credits by the amount of usury contained in said debts, viz: $622.00. The evidence does not establish that the transaction by which appellees accepted said assignment and assumed to pay to Green the debts of F. M. Secrest was brought about by Green. Nor that he represented to appellee that F. M. Secrest was solvent and able to pay all his debts. It is certain that he did not assign the notes he held against F. M. Secrest to appellee, nor even pass them to him without assignment, but delivered them to the debtor himself.

*Carlisle, Pryor, for appellant.*

*O’Hara, for appellee.*

We conclude that Green accepted the note of appellee in full payment of the debts he held against F. M. Secrest, and that appellee accepted the assignment of the note's on points because he hoped to be able now to obtain the money on said assignment, and because he secured time from Green, by the payment of usurious interest.

Under the circumstances we do not think that Green is in any way responsible to him on account of his failure to collect the whole of the amount assigned except in so far as he was prevented by reason of the usury contained in the notes surrendered by Green to F. M. Secrest.

As a legal sequence it follows that appellee was entitled to nothing on his own petition for costs and attorney’s fees expended in the prosecution of his claim against F. M. Secrest.

The written acknowledgment of appellee that all usury included in his individual debts to Green was stricken out in their settlement before the execution of the note sued on, is not contradicted by any testimony in the case, and we think concludes him on that point.

We think the court properly refused to charge appellee with the $270.00 of usury refunded by Green to F. M. Secrest, after the transaction by which appellee became responsible for the payment of the debts of said Secrest. There is nothing in the case to show that his payment was made with the knowledge or assent of appellee except the reply of appellants, which we do not regard in the light of a deposition.

The judgment is affirmed on the cross-appeal, but for the error indicated is reversed on the appeal and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.