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

SUBSIDIARIES



|                              |  |                                        |  | 
|----------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------- |  | 
|Subsidiary                    |  | State of Incorporation or Organization |  | 
|                              |  |                                       
|Agvestments, Inc.             |  | Georgia                                |  | 
|AgraTech Seeds Inc.           |  | Georgia                                |  | 
|AgraTrade Financing, Inc.     |  | Georgia                                |  | 
|Cross Equipment Company, Inc. |  | Georgia                                |  | 
|GK Finance Corporation        |  | Delaware                               |  | 
|GK Peanuts, Inc.              |  | Georgia                                |  | 
|GK Pecans, Inc.               |  | Georgia                                |  | 
|GK Insurance Company          |  | Vermont                                |  | 
|GKX, Inc.                     |  | Territory of Guam                      |  | 
|Luker Inc.                    |  | Georgia                                |  |
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 25 Wood-Frame Screen Door

Item 25 Wood-Frame Screen Door – Noncombustible framed metal screen doors reduce risk of ignition.

Metal screen door

Metal screen door

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
There is no CAD drawing for 

Item 25: Wood-Frame Screen Door 

Please see photographs for illustrations.
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Mediscience
Technology Corporation (the "Company"), certifies that:

1.   The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended February
     28, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
     780(d)); and

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


                                         /S/       Peter Katevatis

   June 14, 2006                                     Peter Katevatis
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


                                         /S/       Frank Benick CPA CFO

   June 14, 2006                                     Frank Benick
                                                    Chief Financial Officer

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
#### Mary Maloney, etc., *v.*St. Louis Mutual Insurance Company.

Equity — Trial of Issues of Fact.

In equitable proceedings, or in actions pending on tbe equity docket by consent of tbe parties', tbe issues of fact are triable by tbe court, subject to tbe power of tbe chancellor to order issues of fact to be tried by a jury.

Equity — Submission to Jury.

In equitable proceedings and in actions pending in equity, tbe court is not bound, on motion of one of tbé parties, to submit issues of fact tO' a jury.

Appeal — Reversal—Refusal to Submit Question to Jury.

To authorize tbe Court of Appeals to reverse a judgment merely because a motion to submit questions of fact in an equity proceeding to a jury has been overruled, it must be made to- appear that tbe court abused its discretion in overruling tbe motion.

APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

February 20, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

If it be true that appellants declared in three distinct causes of action, still they are each cognizable at law. The prayer to the third paragraph of the petition, it is true, is for a specific enforcement of the alleged contract to insure, but it also explains that the specific enforcement desired is a judgment for five thousand dollars in money, the exact relief that would have been asked had the action been based on a policy of insurance, instead of the alleged oral contract to insure.

In the petition for a rehearing it is-insisted that appellants did not ask to have the cause transferred to- the ordinary side of the docket, but merely that they should have the issues of fact tried by a jury.

In equitable proceedings, or in actions pending on the equity docket by consent of the parties, the issues of fact shall be tried by the court, subject to its power to order any such issue or issues to be tried by a jury. (Sec. 341, Civil Code of Practice.)

The court is not bound in such proceedings upon the motion of one of the parties to submit issues of fact to a jury. It is a matter *496within the sound discretion of the judge, and to authorize this court to reverse a judgment merely because such a motion has been overruled, it- must be made to appear that this discretion had been abused. It has not been abused in this case. Nor do we deem it necessary to reargue the facts involved in this litigation.

*Russell & Avritt, for appellant.*

*Rountree & Fogle, for ,a>ppellee.*

Appellants failed to sustain either of the causes of action set up in their petition.

Motion for rehearing overruled.
---






Exhibit
99.1









Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm









The
Partners of


Sam
Houston Racepark, Ltd.







We have
audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Sam Houston Racepark,
Ltd. (a Texas limited partnership, the “Partnership”) as of December 31,
2006 and the related consolidated statements of operations, partner’s equity
(deficit), and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended
December 31, 2006. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.




We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. The Partnership is not required to
have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over
financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over
financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are
appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purposes of expressing an
opinion on the effectiveness of the Partnership’s internal control over
financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.




In our
opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly,
in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Partnership
at December 31, 2006, and the consolidated results of its operations and
its cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31,
2006, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.














BDO Seidman, LLP









Houston,
Texas


March 20,
2007








---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6175** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. BEVERLY J. BEARD , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Catherine C. Blake , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00141

- CCB

- 1; 1:11

- cv - 00285

- CCB )

Submitted : June 11, 2013 Decided: June 14, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Beverly J. Beard, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen O’Connell Gavin, Allen F. Loucks, Sujit Raman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Beverly J. Beard seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 201 3 ) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its office r or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5 ), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court ’ s order was entered on the docket

on November 20, 2012 . The notice of appeal was filed on February 5, 2013
. Because Beard failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because t he facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 31, 1999
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         757,607
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  180,457
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               938,064
<PP&E>                                      14,009,866
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,578,762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,369,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,369,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,369,168
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               342,744
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  220,931
<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>                                    68,149
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,477
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              63
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                15,598
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     53,422
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        139,230
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,593
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 222,156
<DEPOSITS>                                     184,787
<SHORT-TERM>                                    16,311
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,394
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,713
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,951
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 222,156
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,554
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,786
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   155
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,495
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,433
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 321
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,741
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      210
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,182
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,182
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,455
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.96
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.26
<LOANS-NON>                                        292
<LOANS-PAST>                                       353
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,592
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      315
<RECOVERIES>                                       106
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,593
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,593
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
10534.

#### Simms *v.*Massengale Advertising Agency.

Decided September 18, 1919,

Brovles, P. 'J.

1. The court did not err in admitting in evidence the testimony of an officer of the plaintiff advertising agency, that credit for the account sued on was given to the defendant and not to the milling company of which the defendant was vice-president. *Reynolds*v. *Simpson,*74 *Ga.*454 (1), 460.

2. It does not appear, from the evidence, that there were two separate and distinct transactions, or “orders,” between the plaintiff and the defendant, but it appeared that the defendant guaranteed the payment of a single contract for newspaper advertising, and later, by mutual consent, there was merely a substitution of certain newspapers for those originally named in the order. The doctrine, therefore, that where a plaintiff mingles items upon which he is entitled to recover with items upon which he is not entitled to recover, and does not furnish to the jury means to separate them, a verdict and judgment in his favor is contrary to law, is not applicable in this case.

3. The defendant paid a part of the account, and the verdict for the balance was authorized by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concuf.*

*183Complaint; from Fulton superior court—Judge Ellis. January 9,1919.

*Little, Powell, Smith & Goldstein,*for plaintiff in error.

*Rosser, Slaton, Phillips & Hopkins,*contra.
Case: 1:20-cv-04883 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cv-04883 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:2
Case: 1:20-cv-04883 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:3
Case: 1:20-cv-04883 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:4
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| May 12, 2008

  | By: /s/ | David A. Wheat                                                                                         |
|----------------------|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (Date)

        |    | David A. Wheat

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

  |

 

 

----
**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 China Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a Alpha
      Nutra, Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
      30,
      2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Report"), I, Pu Yue, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      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 Act of 1934; and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      China Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a Alpha Nutra, Inc.) and will be retained by China
      Broadband, Inc. (f/k/a Alpha Nutra, Inc.) and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




November
                14, 2007
            
            
            */s/ Pu
                Yue*Pu
                Yue*(Principal
                Executive Officer and*
              *Principal
                Accounting and Financial*
              *Officer)*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

EMOJI COMPANY GmbH, )

) Case No. 20-cv-3884

Plaintiff, ) 

)

) Judge Charles P. Kocoras

v. )

)

THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, )

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, )

PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED )

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED )

ON SCHEDULE A HERETO, )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff EMOJI COMPANY 

GmbH hereby dismisses with prejudice all causes of action in the complaint against the following 

Defendants identified in Schedule A. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

No. Defendant 

69 G-real

The respective Defendant has not filed an answer to the complaint or a motion for summary 

judgment in this matter. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is 

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: February 9, 2021 By: s/Michael A. Hierl _ 

Michael A. Hierl (Bar No. 3128021)

William B. Kalbac (Bar No. 6301771)

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.

Three First National Plaza

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 580-0100 Telephone

mhierl@hsplegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

EMOJI COMPANY GmbH

Case: 1:20-cv-03884 Document #: 53 Filed: 02/09/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:3412
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Voluntary Dismissal was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court and served on all counsel of 

record and interested parties via the CM/ECF system on February 9, 2021.

s/Michael A. Hierl

Case: 1:20-cv-03884 Document #: 53 Filed: 02/09/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:3413
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 12937 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:11

- cr - 00232

- BJD

- MCR

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus STEVLEIN BIVINS , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (December 11, 2018)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN and NEWSOM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Rosemary Cakmis , appointed counsel for Stevlein Bivins in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

Case: 18-12937 Date Filed: 12/11/2018 Page: 1 of 22 appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 3 86 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion t o withdraw is GRANTED , and Bivins’ s judgment of revocation and sentence are AFFIRMED . 1

1 We note that Bivins was apparently released from custody during the pendency of this appeal, and that he is not currently serving a term of supervised release. To the extent Bivins’s release render s his appeal moot , the proceedings are hereby dismissed. See United States v. Farmer , 923 F.2d 1557, 1568 (11th Ci r. 1991) (holding that appeal from sentence was rendered moot by the defendant’s release from custody)

.

Case: 18-12937 Date Filed: 12/11/2018 Page: 2 of 2