alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.0

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT*

                               as of June 30, 1998

<TABLE>
<S>                                                      <C>
Anthem Arizona, L.L.C.                                   Marina Operations Corp.                           
Asset One Corp.                                          New Mexico Asset Corporation                      
Asset Four Corp.                                         New Mexico Asset Limited Partnership              
Asset Five Corp.                                         Sun City Sales Corporation, a Michigan corporation
Bellasera Corp.                                          Sun City Title Agency Co.                         
Coventry of California, Inc.                             Sun State Insulation Co., Inc.                    
Del Webb Architectural Services, Inc.                    Terravita Commercial Corp.                        
Del Webb California Corp.                                Terravita Corp.                                   
Del Webb Commercial Properties Corporation               Terravita Home Construction Co.                   
Del Webb Communities, Inc.                               Terravita Marketplace L.L.C.                      
Del Webb Communities of Nevada, Inc.                     Trovas Company                                    
Del Webb Community Management Co.                        Trovas Construction Co.                           
Del Webb Conservation Holding Corp.                      
Del Webb Construction Services Co.
Del Webb Home Construction, Inc.
Del Webb Homes, Inc.
Del Webb Limited Holding Co.
Del Webb Midatlantic Corp.
Del Webb Property Corp.
Del Webb Southwest Co.
Del Webb Texas Limited Partnership
Del Webb Texas Title Agency Co.
Del Webb Title Company of Nevada, Inc.
Del Webb's Contracting Services, Inc.
Del Webb's Contracting Services of  Tucson, Inc.
Del Webb's Coventry Homes Construction Co.
Del Webb's Coventry Homes, Inc.
Del Webb's Coventry Homes of Nevada, Inc.
Del Webb's Coventry Homes Construction
  of Tucson Co.
Del Webb's Coventry Homes of Tucson, Inc.
Del Webb's Spruce Creek Communities, Inc.
Del Webb's Stetson Hills, Inc.
Del Webb's Sun City Realty, Inc.
Del Webb's Sunflower of Tucson, Inc.
Del E. Webb Cactus Development Corp.
Del E. Webb Development Co., L.P., a Delaware
  limited partnership
Del E. Webb Finance Company, a Nevada
  corporation
Del E. Webb Financial Corporation
Del E. Webb Foothills Corporation
Del E. Webb Glen Harbor Development Corporation
DW Aviation Co.
Fairmount Mortgage, Inc.
</TABLE>

*        All  subsidiaries  are  Arizona   corporations  or  limited   liability
         companies except the following:

         Del Webb Texas Limited Partnership,  an Arizona limited partnership Del
         Webb Title Company of Nevada,  Inc., a Nevada  corporation  Del E. Webb
         Development  Co.,  L.P.,  a Delaware  limited  partnership  Del E. Webb
         Finance  Company,   a  Nevada  corporation  New  Mexico  Asset  Limited
         Partnership, an Arizona limited partnership Sun City Sales Corporation,
         a Michigan corporation
Case 1:11-cv-04036-RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1
#### Hansen *v.*Robertson, Collector.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

January 21, 1887.)

■ Customs Huties—Pish Prepared—Schedule G, Tariff Act of March 3, 1883.

Herrings preserved in a brine of vinegar, salt, and spices, with onions, carrots, peppers, or other vegetables, and ready for food in their imported state, found by the jury to be “fish prepared,” and not merely “herrings, pickled or salted, ” within the meaning of the tariff act of 1883.

This was an action to recover alleged excessive duties, exacted by the collector of customs at the port of New York from Peter P. T. Hansen, the plaintiff, on his importation by the steamer Moravia, December 5, 1883, of certain fish, known in the trade as “Russian Sardines.” The collector levied duty thereon at 25 per cent, *ad valorem,*under Schedule G. of the tariff act of March 3, 1883, (22 St. at Large, U. S. 504,) under the following clause: “Salmon, and all other fish, prepared or preserved, and prepared meats of all kinds, not specially enumerated or provided for in this act, twenty five per centum *ad valorem.”*The plaintiff protested, and claimed the same to be dutiable under another clause of the same schedule, to-wit: “Herrings, pickled or salted, one-half of one cent per pound.” The merchandise in suit was shown to be herrings imported in small wooden kegs or barrels, stamped “Pickled Herrings,” but known in the trade as “Russian Sardines.” They were pickled in salt and vinegar, and in addition thereto mixed with spices, onions, carrots, and red peppers, and prepared and ready to be eaten in their imported condition.

*Chas. Currie*and *Stephen G. Clarke,*for plaintiff.

*Stephen A. Walker,*U. S. Atty., and *Henry C. Platt,*Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendant.

Shipman, J.,

*(charging*jury.) The plaintiff takes the burden of proof, and must satisfy you by a fair preponderance of evidence that the goods should have been classified as “herrings, pickled or salted.” They are herrings, and are pickled; that is to say, they have been preserved in a brine of vinegar, salt, and spices. But the government claims that they are more than that, and are “fish prepared;” that is to say, prepared with vegetables, and that they have passed beyond the stage of “herrings pickled.” The plaintiff, on the other hand, says that a pickle *687moans prepared, either simply with brine or vinegar, or with vinegar and spices, or with vinegar, spices, and other articles, to give the compound an agreeable flavor, of which a great many pickles upon our tables are specimens. That is the whole question before you, whether the article is “herrings pickled,” or whether it has passed beyond that stage, and is properly styled a herring or fish prepared, in addition to being pickled.

Verdict for defendant.
VI 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 513 

For the relief of Esther Karinge. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2015 

Mr. MARKEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Esther Karinge. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ESTHER 

4 KARINGE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Esther Karinge shall be eligible for 

8 the issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of 

9 status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 

10 residence upon filing an application for issuance of an im11 migrant visa under section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 513 IS

1 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 

2 resident. 

3 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Esther Karinge 

4 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci5 fied in subsection (c)— 

6 (1) she shall be considered to have entered and 

7 remained lawfully in the United States; and 

8 (2) if otherwise eligible, she shall be eligible for 

9 adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immi10 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

12 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

13 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply unless the 

14 application for issuance of an immigrant visa or the appli15 cation for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate 

16 fees not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment 

17 of this Act. 

18 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

19 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or lawful perma20 nent residence to Esther Karinge, the Secretary of State 

21 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 

22 current or next following fiscal year— 

23 (1) the total number of immigrant visas that 

24 are made available to natives of the country of EsVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:49 Feb 13, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S513.IS S513

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 513 IS

1 ther’s birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration 

2 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)); or 

3 (2) the total number of immigrant visas that 

4 are made available to natives of the country of Es5 ther’s birth under section 202(e) of such Act (8 

6 U.S.C. 1152(e)), if applicable. 

7 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

8 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

9 parents, brothers, and sisters of Esther Karinge shall not, 

10 by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privi11 lege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act 

12 (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1**

**OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE**

**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 theQuarterly Report of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Jackson E. Reasor, President and Chief Executive 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: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: November 10, 2010 

 

 
28
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1085 CA 13-01767**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

BRIAN GOLEBIESKI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER
CITY OF BUFFALO, DEFENDANT.

--------------------------------------- ESTATE OF DAVID G. JAY, ESQ., DECEASED, RESPONDENT.

HOGAN WILLIG, PLLC, AMHERST (DIANE R. TIVERON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
ARTHUR J. RUMIZEN, WILLIAMSVILLE, FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Dillon, J.), entered December 3, 2012. The order, among other things, determined that the Estate of David G. Jay, Esq. is entitled to one-third of the counsel fees received by the law firm of HoganWillig and/or Steven M. Cohen, Esq., in this action.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see CPLR 5511; Field v New York City Tr. Auth ., 4 AD3d 389).

Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN T. ENSIGN; LAURA A. 

ENSIGN, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

U.S. BANK, as Trustee, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-35198 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01609-HZ 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Chapter 7 debtors Stephen T. Ensign and Laura A. Ensign appeal pro se 

from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order striking 

their amended complaint and dismissing their adversary proceeding. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court’s 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-35198 

decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of 

review applied by the district court. In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869, 

879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not err by striking the Ensigns’ amended 

complaint and dismissing the adversary proceeding sua sponte because the

amended complaint failed to cure the deficiencies in the complaint previously 

dismissed by the court. See 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) (authorizing bankruptcy courts to 

take sua sponte action or make any determination “necessary or appropriate to 

enforce or implement court orders”).

Contrary to the Ensigns’ contentions, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction 

to enter a final order. See Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham 

Ins. Agency, Inc.), 702 F.3d 553, 568-69 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing Fed. R. Bankr. 

P. 7008 and explaining that a litigant’s actions may suffice to establish consent; 

“Congress intended to allow parties to consent by their actions to the authority of 

bankruptcy courts to enter dispositive orders on any bankruptcy-related claim.”). 

We reject as unsupported by the record the Ensigns’ contention that the 

bankruptcy court gave them vague instructions as to amending their complaint.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) 

(issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).
3 17-35198 

The Ensigns’ requests for judicial notice, set forth in their opening and reply 

briefs, and U.S. Bank’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 18), are 

denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**







**Certification
      By Chief Executive Officer 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 Annual Report of Frontier Oil Corporation (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James R. Gibbs,
      Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities 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.





/s/
      James R. Gibbs


James
      R.
      Gibbs


Chairman
      of the Board, President and


Chief
      Executive Officer





March
      1,
      2006
Nicor Gas Company
                                                                     Form 10-K/A
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nicor Gas Company (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

      (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the
   fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
   requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
   Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


   Dated:    March 1, 2004                /s/ RUSS M. STROBEL
          --------------------            --------------------
                                          Russ M. Strobel
                                          President and
                                          Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           															Exhibit 12

                          North Shore Gas Company and Subsidiary Companies

              Statement Re:  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                    (Dollars in Thousands)




                                               Fiscal years ended September 30,
                                                    1997        1996        1995        1994        1993
<S>                                              <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Net Income Before Preferred
  Stock Dividends                                $ 14,814    $ 16,347    $  9,048    $ 10,378    $  8,973

Add - Income Taxes                                  9,229      10,154       4,859       5,087       4,788
      Fixed Charges (see below)                     5,068       5,741       7,196       6,648       7,198

Earnings                                         $ 29,111    $ 32,242    $ 21,103    $ 22,113    $ 20,959

Fixed Charges:
  Interest on Long-Term Debt                     $  4,627    $  4,937    $  5,905    $  6,326    $  6,718
  Other Interest                                      441         804       1,291         322         480

     Total Fixed Charges                         $  5,068    $  5,741    $  7,196    $  6,648    $  7,198

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                   5.74        5.62        2.93        3.33        2.91
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS BEING MADE TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), WHICH CARRIES WITH IT CERTAIN CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN THE EVENT OF A
KNOWING OR WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION.

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

      Re: Nuveen Investments, Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") of Nuveen Investments, Inc. (the "Company") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

            (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated as of this 5th day of November 2004.

                                                     /s/ John P. Amboian
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                    John P. Amboian
                                                    President
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1299 V

UNPUBLISHED

ARLYN HALPERN

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: May 7, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Damages Decision Based on Proffer; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder
Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC , for

P etitioner.

Ryan Daniel Pyles , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On August 27, 2019

, Arlyn Halpern filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) as a result of an influenza v accine received on October 12,

2018 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On May 7, 2021

, a ruling on entitlement was issued , finding P etitioner entitled to
compensation for SIRVA . On May 6, 2021

, R espondent filed a p roffer on a ward of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating P etitioner should be awarded $ 65,000.00

. Proffer at

4

. In the Proffer, R espondent represented that P etitioner agrees with the proffered award.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the

internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact

medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C.
§ 300aa (2012 ).2

Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that P etitioner is entitled to an award as stated

in the Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award P etitioner a lump sum
payment of $ 65,000.00 (all of which is for pain and suffering) in the form of a check
payable to P etitioner

. This amount represents compensation for all damages that w ould be available under § 15 (a)

.

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this

decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint fil ing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.
EXHIBIT 32


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Raymond E. McElhaney, Chief Executive Officer and I, Bill M. Conrad,
Chief Financial Officer of Wyoming Oil & Minerals, Inc. (the "Company") certify
that:

     1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Wyoming Oil &
Minerals, Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report; and

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this annual report.

Date: May 27, 2005



/s/ Raymond E. McElhaney
------------------------
Raymond E. McElhaney,
Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Bill M. Conrad
------------------
Bill M. Conrad,
Chief Financial Officer





<PAGE>