alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 21.1**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF GFI GROUP INC.**

| **Name of Subsidiary**    | ** ** | ** ** | ** **     | **Jurisdiction of Formation** | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------|------------|------------|----------------|-----------------------------------------|------------|
| GFInet inc.                         |       |       | Delaware       |                                    |       |
| GFI Group LLC                       |       |       | New York       |                                    |       |
| Fenics Software  Inc.               |       |       | Delaware       |                                    |       |
| GFI Brokers LLC                     |       |       | Delaware       |                                    |       |
| Interactive  Ventures LLC           |       |       | Delaware       |                                    |       |
| GFI (HK)  Securities LLC            |       |       | New York       |                                    |       |
| GFI Securities  LLC                 |       |       | New York       |                                    |       |
| GFI Holdings  Limited               |       |       | United Kingdom |                                    |       |
| GFI Brokers  Limited                |       |       | United Kingdom |                                    |       |
| GFI Securities  Limited             |       |       | United Kingdom |                                    |       |
| GFInet Europe  Limited              |       |       | United Kingdom |                                    |       |
| Fenics Limited                      |       |       | United Kingdom |                                    |       |
| Fenics Software  Limited            |       |       | United Kingdom |                                    |       |
| dVega Limited                       |       |       | United Kingdom |                                    |       |
| GFInet UK Limited                   |       |       | United Kingdom |                                    |       |
| GM Capital  Markets Limited         |       |       | United Kingdom |                                    |       |
| Christopher  Street Capital Limited |       |       | United Kingdom |                                    |       |
| GFI Group Pte.  Limited             |       |       | Singapore      |                                    |       |
| GFI (HK) Brokers  Limited           |       |       | Hong Kong      |                                    |       |
| Amerex Brokers  LLC                 |       |       | Delaware       |                                    |       |
| GFI Advisory  (China) Co. Limited   |       |       | China          |                                    |       |
| GFI Brokers (SA) (PTY)  Limited     |       |       | South Africa   |                                    |       |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6930

WALTER SCOTT REYNOLDS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DENNIS BIDWELL, Warden, FCI Cumberland,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA99-1270-PJM)

Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: February 22, 2000

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Golden, GOLDEN & MEIZLISH CO., L.P.A., Columbus, Ohio, for

Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Larry D.

Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

May 17, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered

on the docket sheet on May 18, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and

79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that

the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Scott Reynolds appeals the district court order denying

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). We have reviewed

the record and the district court memorandum and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Reynolds v. Bidwell, No. CA-99-1270-PJM (D. Md. May 18,

1999).* 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Walter Industries, Inc.Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 200218 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection withthe accompanying Annual Report of Walter Industries, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006(the “Report”), I, Joseph J. Troy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:  November 9, 2006

| * * | /s/ JOSEPH  J. TROY     |
|----------|-------------------------|
|     | Joseph J. Troy          |
|     | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.2



              Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting a part of this Registration Statement on Form S-8 of our report
dated March 6, 1998, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
schedules of Continental Mortgage and Equity Trust (the "Trust") appearing in
the Trust's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                              
                                /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

                                BDO Seidman, LLP



Dallas, Texas
April 3, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         450,205
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  349,259
<ALLOWANCES>                                    53,333
<INVENTORY>                                      2,128
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               755,627
<PP&E>                                         539,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                 308,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,034,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          757,678
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,496,140
<COMMON>                                         6,203
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,673,173)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,034,696
<SALES>                                        625,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               625,626
<CGS>                                          405,542
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  405,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               795,332
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             169,517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (734,598)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (734,598)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-12-00466- CR

Lester Ray G uy, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 331 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 10- 3025 48, H ONO RAB LE DAVID CRAIN, J UDGE P RESIDING
O R D E R P ER CURIAM

The State’s brief was orig inally due November 14, 2013, and the State has been g rante d three extensions. The S tate has filed a fourth mot ion, seeking an additi onal t hirty day s to file the bri ef

, fo r a t o tal of 120 day s. We g rant the motion, extending the deadline to Marc h 17, 2014, and ca

ution counsel that no furthe r extensions will be g rante d. I t is ordere d Fe bruar

y 21, 2014.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield Do Not Publish
#### Benjamin Jones and Wife *v.*M. A. C. Bright's Adm'r.

Guardian and Ward — Joint Judgment Against Guardian and Her Husband.

A joint judgment against a guardian and her husband iis erroneous, where the record discloses nothing to .sustain a personal judgment against the (husband.,

APPEAL PROM CLARK CIRCUIT 'COURT.

December 15, 1872.

*Egenton, for appellants.*

*Simpson, for app.ellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

The evidence upon which the county court confirmed the report of its commissioner settling the accounts of Mrs. Jones as the late guardian of Miss Bright, is not certified in the record; so this court can not know, from the record, whether the judgment founded on the county, court settlement was right or not so far as Mrs.. Jones is concerned. But the joint judgment against herself and husband is certainly erroneous, there being nothing disclosed in the. record to sustain any personal judgment against him.

Wherefore the judgment is. reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this1 opinion.

The case of *Helm v. Short, 7*Bush 624, should govern the action of the court, on the return of this cause, as to evidence to be considered on the trial of the case. \
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.3



CAPSTAR RADIO BROADCASTING PARTNERS COMPLETES
TENDER OFFER FOR SENIOR SUBORDINATED NOTES

         AUSTIN, TEXAS, APRIL 29, 1998 -- Capstar Radio Broadcasting Partners,
Inc. ("Capstar Radio"), a subsidiary of Capstar Broadcasting Partners, Inc.,
announced today that it has completed its offer to purchase its 13 1/4% Senior
Subordinated Notes due 2003 (the "Notes"). The company's cash tender offer and
related consent solicitation, which commenced on March 30, 1998, expired at 5:00
p.m., New York City time, on Monday, April 27, 1998 (the "Expiration Date").

         As of the Expiration Date, $76,808,000 aggregate principal amount of
the Notes representing 100% of the outstanding Notes had been validly tendered
and not withdrawn. All Notes validly tendered with respect to the tender offer
prior to expiration were accepted for payment. In addition, the Company received
the requisite consents to the proposed amendments to the Indenture pursuant to
which the Notes were issued.

         BT Alex. Brown Incorporated served as the Dealer Manager for the tender
offer and the consent solicitation.

         Capstar Radio is the largest radio broadcaster in the United States
operating primarily in mid-sized markets. Since its first acquisition in October
1996, Capstar Radio has assembled, on a pro forma basis after giving effect to
pending transactions, a nationwide portfolio of 300 owned and operated or
programmed stations in 75 mid-sized markets.


For more information contact:


         Lisa Dollinger
         Capstar Radio Broadcasting Partners, Inc.
         600 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400
         Austin, Texas
         Telephone No. (512) 340-7800
#### Millett, &c., *v.*John B. McGehee, Receiver.

Landlord and Tenant — Lien for Rent Cumulative or Ancillary.

Although appellee had a preferred lien on the goods in the house, as landlord, for the rent, still he might waive that lien and enforce the collection of his debt, as creditor, by an ordinary action. The lien secured to landlords is merely cumulative or ancillary.

APPEAL FROM FULTON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 9, 1871

*609-■, *for appellant.*

*Randle & Tyler, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

Although appellee had a preferred lien on the goods in the house as landlord for the rent, still he might waive that lien, and enforce the collection of his debt, as creditor, by an ordinary action — the lien secured to landlords is merely cumulative or ancillary — but he is not bound to pursue the enforcement of his lien, and if he chooses to waive it, it is not perceived how the tenant in this case was prejudiced; he had his choice of his mode of collecting his debt; the answer presented no defense to the action and the demurrer was properly sustained.

The motion to affirm as a delay case must be sustained. Judgment affirmed.
10695.

#### McDermid *v.*Rentz.

Smith, J.

1. Where a bank brought suit on a promissory note given for capital stock in the bank, and at the trial term an amendment was allowed, making a named person, termed a liquidating agent, an additional party plaintiff, the amendment alleging that two persons had been named by the stockholders as liquidating agents for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the bank (the bank having no assets to pay its debts in full), the amendment did not set up a new cause of action or make a new party plaintiff, but in legal effect the amendment was merely an attempt to make the person termed liquidating agent an additional nominal party plaintiff, suing for the use of the bank, its depositors and outside creditors.

2. Motions for continuance are addressed to the broad discretion of the court, and there was no abuse of this discretion in overruling the defendant’s motion to continue because of the filing of the amendment referred to above.

3. Neither in the answer nor in the evidence is any question of fraud *487properly raised; and there being no evidence to sustain a plea of fraud, the judge did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Decided November 19, 1919.

Complaint; from Cook superior court—Judge Thomas. May 23, 1919.

*B. A. Hendricks,*for plaintiff in error.

IT. *B. Smith, W. D. Buie,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
#### Orford *v.*City Council of Augusta.

Atkinson, J.

1. If a city liaving authority to exercise the power of eminent domain, for the purpose of constructing a sewer, enters upon private lands without the knowledge or consent of the proprietor, or without having exercised the power of eminent domain, and constructs and puts into operation a line of sewerage across the property as a health measure, the proprietor may not, in his private capacity and without any kind of judicial proceeding, physically disconnect and remove the sewerage pipes from his lands merely because of the wrongful entry.

2. If after such a line of sewerage has been constructed and put in operation over private property, the proprietor attempts to disconnect and remove the pipes, equity may afford injunctive relief to prevent such injury to the sewerage lines, under circumstances where such relief would ordinarily be appropriate.

3. “Under the act of December 8, 1880 (Acts 1880-81, p. 365), relating to the organization, powers, and duties of the board of health of thi> City of Augusta, the city authorities have the right to construct drains and sewers outside the limits of the city, after compliance with the formalities prescribed in the act.” *Langley*v. *Augusta,*118 *Ga.*590 (7) (45 S. E. 486, 98 Am. St. R. 133); *Potts*v. *Atlanta,*137 *Ga.*211 (73 S. E. 397).

4. Under the pleadings and the evidence in this case the judge did not err in temporarily enjoining the proprietor of the land from interfering with the sewer pipes.

*866Nos. 6647, 6651.

February 23, 1929.

*Fleming & Fleming,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. Inman Curry,*contra.'

5. It was provided in section 3 of the act of 1898 (Ga. Laws 1898, p. 133), “That in the event it shall be necessary to construct and lay down any drain or sewer through private property, said city council shall have the right to condemn said private property for such use. Such condemnation proceedings to be had under sections 4657 to 4686, inclusive, of the Civil Code of 1895 of the State of Georgia and the acts amendatory thereof;” and it was provided in section 6 “that all laws and parts thereof in conflict with this be and the same are hereby repealed.” This act did not repeal so much of the act approved December 8, 1880, supra, as authorized exercise of the power of eminent domain outside of the City of Augusta, but made a different provision for the selection of a third appraiser to appraise the damage.

6. The city is not deprived of the right to condemn under proceedings authorized by the municipal charter because in the circumstances it is already in possession of the property.

7. Under the pleadings and the evidence the judge did not err in refusing to enjoin the condemnation proceedings.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*AU the Justices concur.*
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2011 (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 6, 2011                                        |   | By:    | /s/                                         | Ewout L. Steenbergen |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|          (Date) |   |   | Ewout L. Steenbergen              |
|                                                         |   |   | Executive Vice President and |
|                                                         |   |   | Chief Financial Officer           |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                914
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      16,200
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                        34,540
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   51,654
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     51,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             126,304
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                       114,690
<COMMON>                        2,897,764
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       51,654
<SALES>                            18,460
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   18,462
<CGS>                              20,866
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      20,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    4,660
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (3,942)
<DISCONTINUED>                     86,232
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       81,572
<EPS-BASIC>                         .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .20





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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,800,984
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,844,242
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,684,432
<PP&E>                                     115,465,153<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             130,223,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       43,436,686
<BONDS>                                     97,963,488
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   141,212,037
<OTHER-SE>                               (128,215,858)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               130,223,657
<SALES>                                      9,130,367
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,130,367
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,960,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               180,271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,986,754
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,636,426)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,636,426)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
<FN>
<F1>Property, plant and equipment represent net amounts.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-146339 and 333-133527 on Form S-8 of our report dated February 14, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of a new accounting standard) and our report dated February 14, 2008 on the effectiveness of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries internal control over
financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|                         
|Boise, Idaho             
|February 19, 2008