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



MELLON FINANCIAL CORPORATION

PRIMARY SUBSIDIARIES OF THE CORPORATION (a)

DEC. 31, 2002



Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company  State of Incorporation:  Massachusetts



The Boston Company, Inc.  State of Incorporation:  Massachusetts



Buck Consultants, Inc.  State of Incorporation:  New York



Mellon Bank, N.A.  Incorporation:  United States



| |  |  | Cornice Holding Company, Inc.  State of Incorporation:  Colorado
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Founders Asset Management, LLC  State of Organization:  Colorado
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The Dreyfus Corporation  State of Incorporation:  New York
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------



Mellon 1stBusiness Corporation  State of Incorporation:  California



Mellon United National Bank  Incorporation:  United States



MBC Investments Corporation  State of Incorporation:  Delaware



| |  |  | Neptune, LLC  State of Organization:  Delaware
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Mellon Europe Limited  Incorporation:  England
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Mellon Global Investments Limited  Incorporation:  England
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Newton Management Limited  Incorporation:  England
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Newton Investment Management Limited  Incorporation:  England
| | ---- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------



Mellon Investor Services Group, LLC  State of Organization:  New Jersey



| |  |  | Mellon Investor Services, LLC  State of Organization:  New Jersey
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------



Mellon HR Solutions, LLC  State of Organization:  Pennsylvania



Standish Mellon Asset Management Holdings, LLC  State of
Organization:  Pennsylvania



| |  |  | Standish Mellon Asset Management, LLC  State of Organization:    Massachusetts
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|(a) |  | This listing includes all significant subsidiaries as defined in Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X, as well as other selected subsidiaries.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>   1




                                                                     Exhibit 5.1




(214) 969-1700

                                  June 16, 1998


Brigham Exploration Company
6300 Bridge Point Parkway, Suite 500
Austin, Texas 78730

         Re:    Registration Statement on Form S-8

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We have acted as counsel for Brigham Exploration Company, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the registration under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), of an aggregate of
1,588,169 shares of the Company's Common Stock, $.01 par value per share (the
"Shares"), for issuance under the Company's 1997 Incentive Plan (the "Plan").

         We have participated in the preparation of the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (the "Registration Statement"), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, relating to the registration of the Shares under the
Securities Act.

         In connection with the foregoing, we have examined the originals or
copies, certified or otherwise authenticated to our satisfaction, of the
resolutions of the Company's Board of Directors establishing the Plan, the
Registration Statement and such corporate records of the Company, certificates
of officers of the Company, and other instruments and documents as we have
deemed necessary to require as a basis for the opinion hereinafter expressed. As
to various questions of fact material to such opinion, we have, where relevant
facts were not independently established, relied upon statements of officers of
the Company whom we believe to be responsible.

         Based upon the foregoing and in reliance thereon, we advise you that in
our opinion the Shares, when issued and delivered in accordance with the
provisions of the Plan, will be legally issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

         We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                        THOMPSON & KNIGHT,
                                        A Professional Corporation


                                        By:       /s/ Joe Dannenmaier
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Joe Dannenmaier, Attorney
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             317
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      197
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           6,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,934
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          6,134
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,281
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,135)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,074
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,764
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,234
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     72
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 72
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     33
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       105
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 28, 2013

t0520

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2013

146781

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146781

COA: 304458 

Oakland CC: 2010-232779-FC

JOHNNY CLARENCE BRYANT, III,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 15, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          25,728
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                       685
<INVENTORY>                                      7,977
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,774
<PP&E>                                         588,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                 306,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 426,012
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,654
<BONDS>                                        144,903
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     148,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   426,012
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               296,339
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  222,932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,822
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   268
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,175
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,141
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,592
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,549
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,990)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,559
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### JACKIE L. BIVENS, MARY E. BIVENS and ELLIS M. COTTLE v. DEBORAH LYNN COTTLE (WESTLAKE)

No. 496PA95

(Filed 6 June 1997)

Appeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(1) and on discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 120 N.C. App. 467, 462 S.E.2d 829 (1995), reversing an order granting custody of defendant’s minor children to defendant by Lanier (Russell J., Jr.), J., entered on 11 October 1994 in District Court, Duplin County. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 October 1996.

*Gailor & Associates, PLLG, by Carole S. Gailor, for plaintiffappellees Jackie and Mary Bivens.*

*Edward P. Hausle, P.A., by Edward P. Hausle; and Lea, Clybum & Rhine, by James W. Lea, III, and J. Albert Clybum, for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

APPEAL DISMISSED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
March 2003 

Transition to the Metric System - A Window of Opportunity 

By: Tom Coleman 

The convergence of several economic factors provides a window of opportunity to 

facilitate the voluntary transition of the United States to the metric system of 

measurement. The transition to the metric system, which depends on an implementation 

strategy that facilitates the acceptance of the metric system by consumers will be driven 

by the economic interests of business. A major influence on consumer packages in the 

near future is the European Union (EU) Directive requiring all consumer packages 

marketed in the EU after January 1, 2010, be labeled in only metric units. This mandate, 

coupled with other global trends in the marketplace, indicates that the United States will 

see a gradual increase in consumer packages labeled only in metric units. There is a 

competitive advantage for multinational companies to market their products in a single 

set of packages and sizes for multiple markets. Labeling packages in only metric units 

increases the efficiency of companies to market their products, while giving consumers 

"reference points" within the metric system that will lead to an understanding of metric 

units. Understanding the metric system involves an educational process. Since much of 

learning is based on experience, this gradual learning process will ultimately lead to 

acceptance of the metric system in the United States.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


Board of Directors and Stockholder
ANR Pipeline Company
Detroit, Michigan

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of ANR Pipeline Company (an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of El Paso CGP Company, formerly The Coastal
Corporation) and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2000. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free of material misstatement. 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, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the consolidated financial position of ANR Pipeline Company
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000, and the results of their operations
and their cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31,
2000, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Detroit, Michigan
March 19, 2001
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6999

KEITH HAGER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:19-cv-00226-GEC-PMS)

Submitted: March 10, 2020 Decided: March 12, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Hager, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Hager, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition in which he sought to challenge his conviction and 

sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018).

*

 We review de novo 

the denial of § 2241 relief. Fontanez v. O’Brien, 807 F.3d 84, 86 (4th Cir. 2015). Pursuant 

to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction and sentence in a traditional writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to 

test the legality of his detention.

[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a 

conviction when: (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or 

the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent 

to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law 

changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed 

not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping 

provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law.

In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000). 

[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence 

when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme 

Court established the legality of the sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s 

direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled substantive 

law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; 

(3) the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h)(2) 

for second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the 

sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental 

defect.

United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018).

 * As the district court noted, although Hager attempted to frame his § 2241 petition 

as contesting the execution of his sentence, his claims in fact challenged the validity of his 

conviction and sentence.
3

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Hager v. Warden, No. 7:19-cv-00226-GECPMS (W.D. Va. June 21, 2019). 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
ALPHONSO JAMES, SR.,

Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, Secretary, Florida

Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2333

Opinion filed June 8, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Alphonso James, Sr., pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee; Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, 

Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

LEWIS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated condensed financial statements for the three-months ended August
31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,014,473
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,672,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    598,198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,413,553
<PP&E>                                         995,164
<DEPRECIATION>                               (508,942)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,437,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,735,815
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,470
<COMMON>                                        50,979
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,512,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,437,892
<SALES>                                      3,019,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,019,480
<CGS>                                          612,270
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  612,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,097,049
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,012
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                308,149
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            308,149
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   308,149
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James W. Bernau, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc.

Date: December 6, 2004
By:	 /s/ James W. Bernau
Name: James W. Bernau
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

 

**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 accompanyingAnnual Report of ALLTELCorporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (theReport), I, Jeffery R. Gardner, Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuantto 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

 

 

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Jeffery R. Gardner                               |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Jeffery R. Gardner                                   |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| February 10, 2005                                    |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to ALLTEL Corporation and will be retained by ALLTEL Corporationand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----