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

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

    Subsidiaries of the Company as of September 29, 1997, are as follows:


                                                                  Percentage
                                                State of           of Voting
NAME OF COMPANY                              Incorporation      Securities Owned
---------------                              -------------      ----------------
Mississippi Phosphates Corporation             Delaware              100%    
                                                                             
NSI Land Corporation                           Delaware              100%    
                                                                             
Mississippi Chemical Management Company        Delaware              100%    
                                                                             
MCC Investments, Inc.                          Mississippi           100%    
                                                                             
Mississippi Potash, Inc.                       Mississippi           100%    
                                                                             
Eddy Potash, Inc.                              Mississippi           100%    
 (a subsidiary of Mississippi Potash, Inc.)                                  
                                                                             
Triad Nitrogen, Inc.                           Delaware              100%    
                                                                             
Triad Fertilizer, Inc.                         Mississippi           100%    
 (a subsidiary of Triad Nitrogen, Inc.)                                      
                                                                             
TNI, Inc.                                      Mississippi           100%    
 (a subsidiary of Triad Nitrogen, Inc.)                                      
                                                                             
Triad Barge, Inc.                              Mississippi           100%    
 (a subsidiary of Triad Nitrogen, Inc.)                                      
                                                                             
TNI Barge, Inc.                                Delaware              100%    
 (a subsidiary of Triad Barge, Inc.)                                         
                                                                             
Farmland MissChem Limited                      Republic of Trinidad   50%     
                                               and Tobago
_____________ No. 96-1800WM

_____________ Bill Herron, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Karen Cornell, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: January 3, 1997 Filed: January 8, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Bill Herr on, a Missouri prison inmate, appeals the district court's order denying Herron's motions for appointment of counsel and for sanction s against opposing coun sel, denying injunctive relief, and granting summary judgment in Cornell's favor on Herron's claim that Cornell was deliberatel y indifferent to Herron's serious medical needs because Herron failed to sho w that Cornell, an administrative employee, was authorized to make an outsid e neurological referral for Herron. Having carefully reviewed the record an d the briefs , we conclude the rulings of the district court are clearl y correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Herron's motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

### -2- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,825
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,825
<PP&E>                                     155,817,500
<DEPRECIATION>                              63,694,815
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              92,126,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          122,755
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  92,003,755
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                92,126,510
<SALES>                                     12,441,297
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,482,357
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  422,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,060,168
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,060,168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.54
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60881

Summary Calendar

MAGDALENE TIKUN TEBA,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A97 186 634

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

Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Clement, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Magdalene Tikun Teba petitions for review of an order by the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen. 

Teba contends that her right to due process was violated because

the immigration judge (IJ) failed to fully inform her of her

right to seek an adjustment of status based on her marriage to a

United States citizen in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2)

and that the BIA improperly relied on facts not supported by the

record. Teba also argues that she failed to comply with the

order to voluntarily depart due to ineffective assistance of
No. 04-60881 

-2-

counsel. She contends that this constitutes exceptional

circumstances excusing her failure to comply such that she should

not be barred from seeking an adjustment of status.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of

discretion. Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 469 (5th

Cir. 2005). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying

Teba’s motion to reopen because the BIA determined that Teba was

advised of her right to seek an adjustment of status based on her

marriage but that she elected to forgo this application until

after her asylum hearing. Given this fact, Teba’s reliance on 8

C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2) to establish a due process violation based

on the alleged failure to inform her of the availability of such

relief is misplaced. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, F.3d , No. 05-

60032, 2006 WL 1064196 at *7 (5th Cir. Apr. 24, 2006) (holding

that because an application for adjustment of status is a request

for discretionary relief, it does not create a liberty or

property interest that is protected by due process). Likewise,

Teba’s assertions of ineffective assistance do not excuse her

failure to comply with the order to voluntarily depart because

the exceptional circumstances excuse that she relies on was

repealed by Congress and is no longer provided for by statute. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. Additionally, any failure to preserve the

ability to pursue discretionary relief does not implicate due

process. See Ahmed, 2006 WL 1064196 at *7; Assaad v. Ashcroft,

378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2004).
No. 04-60881 

-3-

The petition for review is DENIED.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4579 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 

Received 

AN ACT 

To modify the boundary of the Harry S Truman National 

Historic Site in the State of Missouri, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 4579 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This section may be cited as the ‘‘Truman Farm 

3 Home Expansion Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. HARRY S TRUMAN NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE 

5 BOUNDARY MODIFICATION. 

6 The first section of Public Law 98–32 (16 U.S.C. 

7 461 note) is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub9 section (e); and 

10 (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol11 lowing: 

12 ‘‘(d) ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND.— 

13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may acquire, 

14 by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated 

15 funds, transfer from another Federal agency, or any 

16 other means, the land described in paragraph (2) for 

17 inclusion in the Harry S Truman National Historic 

18 Site. 

19 ‘‘(2) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The land re20 ferred to in paragraph (1) consists of the approxi21 mately 5 acres of land (including the structure lo22 cated south of the Truman Farm Home site), as 

23 generally depicted on the map entitled ‘Harry S 

24 Truman National Historic Site Proposed Boundary’, 

25 numbered 492/80,027, and dated April 17, 2003. 
3 

HR 4579 RDS 

1 ‘‘(3) BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.—On acquisi2 tion of the land under this subsection, the Secretary 

3 shall modify the boundary of the Harry S Truman 

4 National Historic Site to reflect the acquisition of 

5 the land.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Walter Industries, Inc.
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Walter Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report"), I, Victor P. Patrick, Director, Vice Chairman and Director, Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel, Principal Executive and
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date:
August 8, 2008

/s/VICTOR P. PATRICKVice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer
and General Counsel
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
#### David Irwin v. Michael Schlief.

*Abandonment of exceptions*— Review *of cases tried, without a jury*— Affirm> *anee of judgment.*

Exceptions not referred to in the arguments of counsel are presumed to have been abandoned.

Where no written finding of facts is ashed fo? or made, the Supreme-Court cannot review the facts or evidence -in a suit at law tried without a jury.

Judgment is affirmed where no question is presented which the court can consider.

Error to Kent.

Submitted April 7.

Decided April 25.

Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*Maynard c& Wanty*for appellant.

*Dennis L. Rogers*for appellee.

*238Marston, J.

This case was tried by the court without a jury. A bill of exceptions was settled, but no written finding of facts was asked for or made. Exceptions were taken to rulings made upon the admissibility of certain testimony, but no reference whatever is made thereto in the brief of counsel. We must assume therefore that they have been abandoned. The argument submitted is upon the merits, based upon facts appearing in the bill of exceptions. It is almost needless to say that this court cannot review the facts or evidence in the case. As no question has therefore been presented to this Court which we can consider, the judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our reports dated March 13, 1998, on 6701 Tower, March 11, 1998, on
Two Town Center, January 23, 1998, on Woodfield Corporate Center and June 12,
1998, on BP Plaza included in this Form 8-K into Crescent Real Estate Equities
Company's previously filed Registration Statements No. 33-91438, No. 333-92548,
No. 333-3450, No. 333-3452, No. 333-3454, No. 333-13521, No. 333-21905, No.
333-23005, No. 333-33893, No. 333-37273, No. 333-38071, No. 333-37565, No.
333-41049, 333-42417, No. 333-56809 and No. 333-57945.

                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Dallas, Texas
   July 6, 1998
11014.

#### Hill *v.*The State.

Decided January 28, 1920.

Certiorari; from Putnam superior court—Judge Park. September 20, 1919.

Yiola Hill was convicted in the county court under an indictment which charged that she "did, by cursing and using profane and obscene language [and] by being intoxicated, interrupt and disturb a congregation of persons lawfully assembled for divine service at Flat Rock Baptist Church.” She sued out certiorari, alleging that the judgment was contrary to law and the evidence. The judge’s answer was as follows: “Answering the certiorari in the above case, I have this to say: • The witnesses Burl Briscoe and Jesse Williams both swore that Yiola Hill was drunk. They both swore that she rode up immediately in front of the church, my recollection is not more than 20 feet from the door, where she said in a loud voice,4 I’m drinking my own liquor to-day and don’t *712care a damn, who knows it;’ that her husband tried to get her ta leave the church, that she refused to go, and he shot her. I believed beyond a reasonable doubt, and still believe, that she and her husband were both drunk, and that each one of them disturbed the congregation assembled for divine service, especially those people who were standing outside the church, near the door. These two witnesses testified that her conduct, and owing to her intoxicated condition and loudness of her voice, must have disturbed people in the church, that there were some standing near the door on the outside of the church that were obliged to have been disturbed. The testimony of Dr. Griffith, Jeff Lewis, and Yiola Hill’s statement is about right.” From the petition it appears that Dr. Griffith testified that soon after the shooting referred to, he cut a bullet from Yiola Hill’s arm, and she did not appear to have been drunk. Jeff Lewis testified thajt she was not drunk and did not disturb any one, and did not interrupt or disturb in any way the services that day, and that when she was shot she was in the road about 50 or 60 feet from the church. The defendant, in her statement, denied that she was drunk, or interrupted or disturbed any part of the congregation.

*711Luke, J.

In order to authorize the conviction of one charged in an indictment with having disturbed a congregation of persons lawfully assembled for divine service, by cursing, by using profane and obscene language, and by being intoxicated, it is necessary to show that there was a lawful assembly of persons engaged in divine service as alleged in the indictment, and that, in the manner charged, some person of the congregation so assembled was actually disturbed. The evidence in this case did not authorize the conviction of the defendant. It was error for the court to overrule her certiorari and not grant her a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodioorth, J,, concur.*

*712
      *Davidson, Callatvay & DeJarnette,*for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general,*contra.
EXHIBIT (11)
                              THE MIDLAND COMPANY
                               AND SUBSIDIARIES

        Exhibit (11) - Computation of Consolidated Net Income Per Share
             For the Years Ended December 31, 1997, 1996 AND 1995


                                            1997          1996          1995
                                       -----------------------------------------
Consolidated Net Income:
  Income From Continuing Operations    $ 24,367,000  $  3,743,000  $ 16,048,000
  Income (Loss) From Discontinued
   Operations                            (6,817,000)   (2,675,000)   (6,496,000)
                                       -----------------------------------------
    Net Income                         $ 17,550,000  $  1,068,000  $  9,552,000
                                       =========================================

Calculation of Basic Earnings (Loss)
 Per Share of Common Stock:
  Weighted Average Common Shares
   Outstanding, Excluding The
   Dilutive Effect Of Stock Options
   And Stock Awards                       2,985,000     2,948,000     2,952,000
                                       -----------------------------------------

  Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share Of
   Common Stock (average shares
   outstanding divided by income):
    Continuing Operations              $       8.16  $       1.27  $       5.44
    Discontinued Operations                   (2.28)        (0.91)        (2.20)
                                       -----------------------------------------
     Total                             $       5.88  $       0.36  $       3.24
                                       =========================================
Calculation Of Dilutive Earnings
 (Loss) Per Share Of Common Stock:
  Adjusted Weighted Average Common
   Shares Outstanding, Including
   The Dilutive Effect Of Stock
   Options And Stock Awards               3,097,000     3,033,000     3,072,000
                                       -----------------------------------------
  Dilutive Earnings (Loss) Per Share
   Of Common Stock (adjusted average
   shares outstanding divided
   by income):
    Continuing Operations              $       7.88  $       1.23  $       5.22
    Discontinued Operations                   (2.21)        (0.88)        (2.11)
                                       -----------------------------------------
     Total                             $       5.67  $       0.35  $       3.11
                                       =========================================

                                       23

<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund V, Ltd. at March 31, 1998, and its statement of income
for the three months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10Q of CNL Income Fund V, Ltd. for the three months ended March 31,
1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,251,803
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  216,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                   134,798
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      12,428,541
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,695,706
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,881,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,018,388
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,881,986
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               478,119
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                836,181
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            836,181
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   836,181
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund V, Ltd. has an
unclassified balance sheet; therefore, no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Walter E. PATTERSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6172.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 25, 2001.

Walter E. Patterson, Jr., pro se.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Walter E. Patterson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Patterson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Patterson v. Angelone,*No. CA-00-868-3 (E.D.Va. Dec. 28, 2000). 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.*
Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 133 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1206
Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 133 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:1207
Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 133 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:1208
Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 133 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:1209
Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 133 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:1210
Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 133 Filed: 02/14/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:1211