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

Subsidiaries of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc.



|                                                       |  |                                              
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                     |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation of Organization
|HQ Sustainable Maritime Marketing Inc.                 |  | New York                                     
|                                                       | 
|Jade Profit Investment Limited                         |  | British Virgin Islands                       
|                                                       | 
|Sealink Wealth Limited                                 |  | British Virgin Islands                       
|                                                       | 
|Phoenix Global Creation Limited                        |  | British Virgin Islands                       
|                                                       | 
|Jiahua Marine BioProducts Company Limited             |  | Peoples Republic of China                   
|                                                       | 
|Hainan Quebec Ocean Fishing Co. Ltd.                   |  | Peoples Republic of China                   
|                                                       | 
|Highest Quality Aquaculture Feed                       |  |                                              
|                                                       | 
|Products Company Limited                               |  | Peoples Republic of China                   
|                                                       | 
|HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries (Hong Kong) Limited |  | Hong Kong                                    
|                                                       | 
|HQ Sustainable Maritime Marketing (Canada) Inc         |  | Canada                                       
|                                                       | 
|Kingly Sun International Limited                       |  | British Virgin Islands                       
|                                                       | 
|Liberal Sky Holdings Limited                           |  | British Virgin Islands                       
|                                                       | 
|Unique Solutions Holdings Limited                      |  | British Virgin Islands
<PAGE>



                       Service Systems International, Ltd.
                         Computation of Per-Share Income
                              Treasury Stock Method
                            As Modified for 20% Test

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                  PERIOD ENDED  MAY 31, 1999
                                                                          NINE MONTHS



<S>                                                               <C>
Weighted average number of shares outstanding                                   12,713,432
                                                                               -----------
                                                                               -----------


Total common and common equivalent shares                                       12,783,988
                                                                               -----------
                                                                               -----------


Net income (loss) for the period                                               $(1,124,967)
                                                                               -----------
                                                                               -----------





Total common and common equivalent shares                                        12,783,988
                                                                               -----------
                                                                               -----------


Loss per common and common equivalent shares                                   $     (0.09)
                                                                               -----------
                                                                               -----------
</TABLE>





Earnings per share:

The earnings per share is computed by dividing the net income (loss) for the
period by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the
period. Common stock equivalents are excluded from the computation if their
effect would be anti-dilutive.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2831 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2831

   To amend Public Law 89-732 to modify the requirement for a Cuban 
  national to qualify for and maintain status as a permanent resident.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 30, 2011

  Mr. Rivera introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend Public Law 89-732 to modify the requirement for a Cuban 
  national to qualify for and maintain status as a permanent resident.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF RULES REGARDING ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR 
              CUBAN REFUGEES.

    Section 1 of Public Law 89-732 is amended by adding at the end the 
following: ``An alien shall be ineligible for adjustment of status 
under this section if the alien returns to Cuba after admission or 
parole into the United States. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
rescind the status of an alien who obtained adjustment of status under 
this section if the alien returns to Cuba before being admitted to 
citizenship in accordance with title III of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and the alien shall thereafter 
be subject to all the provisions of such Act to the same extent as if 
the adjustment of status had not been made.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Joan Haymon, Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian of L.H., an Infant, Appellant, v Donald J. Pettit et al., Defendants, and Auburn Community Non-Profit Baseball Association, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted December 31, 2007;

decided February 14, 2008

Motion for reargument denied *[see 9*NY3d 324 (2007)].
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOHN BEHLING,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1481

[March 29, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Gary L. Sweet, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 2014CF001874A.

John Behling, Orlando, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. 

Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos.
333-88676, 333-09565, and 333-97652 of First Keystone Financial, Inc. on Form
S-8 and Registration No. 333-141970 of First Keystone Financial, Inc. on Form
S-3 our report dated December 27, 2007, relating to our audit of the
consolidated financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007.


/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA
December 27, 2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gabriel Kian AFKHAMI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-41022

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 19, 2008.

Samuel Wallace Cantrell, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District Of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert Gerard Arrambide, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gabriel Kian Afkhami has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Afkhami has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00301-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.J.R., A CHILD

From the County Court at Law No. 2

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-000665-CV-CCL2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

O.B. Robinson, Jr. attempts to appeal the trial court’s order of termination of 

Robinson’s parental rights to K.J.R. By letter dated October 9, 2014, the Clerk of this 

Court notified Robinson that his notice of appeal appeared untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). In the same letter, the Clerk warned Robinson that we would dismiss 

this appeal unless, within 10 days from the date of the letter, a response was filed 

showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Ten days have passed, and we have not 

received a response.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.1

 

1 A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the judgment or order of this Court is 

rendered. TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. If the appellant desires to have the decision of this Court reviewed by the 
In the Interest of K.J.R., a Child Page 2

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the 

time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP.

P., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). See also TEX. R.

APP. P. 5; 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207(b); 51.208; § 

51.941(a) (West 2013). Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the 

Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. The write-off of 

the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or reduces the 

fees owed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion issued and filed October 30, 2014

CV06

 

Texas Supreme Court, a petition for review must be filed with the Texas Supreme Court clerk within 45 

days after either the date the court of appeals’ judgment was rendered or the date the last ruling on all 

timely motions for rehearing was made by the court of appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 53.7(a).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DAVID COREY JOHNSON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:01-cr-00117-REP-1) 

Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellant. James Brien Comey, Jr., OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, John Staige Davis, V, Brian Ronald Hood, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

David Corey Johnson appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have reviewed 

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

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Johnson, No. 3:01-cr-00117-REP-1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 22, 2008). We 

deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
#### UNION MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Sidney SIMON.

Civ. A. No. 23625.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 11, 1958.

Wm. C. Hogg, Jr. (of Clark, Ladner, Fortenbaugh & Young), Philadelphia, for plaintiff.

Alfred L. Luongo (of Blank, Rudenko & Klaus), Philadelphia, for defendant.

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

This is an action by the insurer to cancel a policy of health and accident insurance.

Although the word “fraud” does not appear in the complaint, it is alleged that the insured made certain representations in the application and that he knew the representations to be false, or acted in bad faith in making the same. Under the federal system of notice pleading, this sufficiently states a case of fraud or, *187what is equivalent, a state of facts under which the plaintiff would be permitted to prove fraud.

The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it is not in compliance with Rule 9(b), 28 U.S.C.A., which requires that “In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity”. The purpose of this rule is to require more of a plaintiff who charges a defendant with fraud than merely a statement that “the defendant fraudulently induced the plaintiff to enter into a contract” or something of that sort. In the present case the complaint specifically avers, for example, that question 11(a) of the application asked the defendant whether he had “ever had or been under observation for any disease or disorder: Of the brain or nervous system (convulsions, nervous breakdown, insanity, loss of consciousness, spinal disease or paralysis included)”, and that the defendant’s answer was “No”. There are other similar questions. It seems to me that when it is borne in mind that it is the office of interrogatories to elicit complete and exact details, the allegations of this complaint meet the requirements of Rule 9 (b) as to particularity.

 The defendant further argues that the complaint does not state that the plaintiff relied on the representations averred to be false. This objection is unsound. The law of Pennsylvania is clear that in the absence of proof to the contrary it will be presumed that the plaintiff did in fact rely on the false representations. New York Life Insurance Company v. Brandwene, 316 Pa. 218, 172 A. 669. Moreover, it should be pointed out that the requirement of Rule 9(b) that fraud be pleaded with particularity does not mean that a textbook pleading of all of the elements of fraud are required but requires that the complaint set forth the facts with sufficient particularity to apprise the defendant fairly of the charges made against him. It must be remembered that the Court at this time is not deciding whether or not the plaintiff has sufficiently proved its case, in which event undoubtedly all of the elements to make a cause of action would have to be proved. That question will arise at the trial. The Court is now merely determining the sufficiency of a pleading.

The motions are denied.
CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY

#### Carolyn C. Hobson, Administratrix of the Estate of Harry Rochelle Hobson, deceased v. David Lee Francisco and Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation

April 26, 2005

Case No. CL 03-196

By Judge Robert p. Doherty, Jr.

On July 26,2004, this Court rendered a written opinion in this case that is reported as *Hobson*v. *Francisco,*65 Va. Cir. 255 (2004). That opinion is not correct. This Court erroneously found that § 8.01-6, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was authority for the proposition that it was merely the correction of a misnomer to substitute the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) as a party defendant, retroactive to the commencement of the lawsuit. On November 5, 2004, the Virginia Supreme Court clarified the law in *Billups v. Carter,*268 Va. 701, 712, n. 4 (2004), stating that, under facts such as these, where the plaintiff sued an agency of the Commonwealth, but not the Commonwealth itself, “Code § 8.01-6, relating to the correction of a misnomer, is inapplicable. It applies when the right person is wrongly named, not where the wrong entity is named.” If a plaintiffs claim should have been filed against the Commonwealth of Virginia, but instead they mistakenly sued an agency of the *298Commonwealth, the statute of limitations continues to run against the Commonwealth of Virginia until such time as it is made a party to the lawsuit.

Plaintiff claimed he was injured through the fault of VDOT and its employee on May 5, 2000. On August 31, 2000, the Plaintiff gave his statutory notice within one year of the accrual of his cause of action, as required by § 8.01-195.6. On October 31,2001, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Judgment against VDOT and its employee. That action was nonsuited on January 24, 2003. On May 1,2003, Plaintiff refiled his suit against the same Defendants. On April 16, 2004, Plaintiff, recognizing that VDOT was the wrong party, made his Motion to Amend in order to change the name of the Defendant from VDOT to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Even if the Court accepted that motion as a request to add a party defendant, the statute of limitations for claims against the Commonwealth had already run. Section 8.01-195.7 requires that “[a]ll claims against the Commonwealth . . . under [the Virginia Tort Claims Act] shall be forever barred unless such action is commenced within eighteen months of the filing of the notice of claim.” Plaintiff, by waiting approximately forty-three months after his statutory notice before attempting to j oin the Commonwealth as a party to this lawsuit, allowed the statute of limitations to run. Accordingly, the Court grants the plea to the statute of limitations. The Commonwealth of Virginia is dismissed as a party defendant from this lawsuit.
IBEX Staffing Solutions, Inc. 

and Pronto General Agency, 

Ltd. d/b/a Pronto/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 13, 2014

No. 04-14-00269-CV

Andrea COLLIE,

Appellant

v.

IBEX STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. and Pronto General Agency, Ltd. d/b/a Pronto 

Insurance,

Appellees

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 376802

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The appellees’ brief was originally due to be filed on September 15, 2014. The 

appellees’ first motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the 

brief to October 15, 2014. On October 9, 2014, the appellees filed a motion requesting an 

additional extension of time to file the brief until November 14, 2014, for a total extension of 

sixty days. The motion is GRANTED. THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME 

THAT THE APPELLEES WILL BE GRANTED. The appellees’ brief must be filed by 

November 14, 2014.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,984,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,420,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (188,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    826,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,796,000
<PP&E>                                      33,955,761
<DEPRECIATION>                            (14,715,109)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,322,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,800,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    18,655,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,322,000
<SALES>                                     19,784,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,784,000
<CGS>                                       11,605,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,605,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,975,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             504,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,703,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,108,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,595,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,595,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John Scott, :

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 358 C.D. 2015

:

Zoning Board of Adjustment, :

Moyer Street Associates, LLC, :

and Kevin Baird :

O R D E R

NOW, June 1 3 , 2017

, having considered appellant’s application for

reargument and appellee s ’ answer in response thereto , the application is denied.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

P resident Judge
EXHIBIT
32











CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350











We,
each hereby certify to the best of our knowledge that the Third Amended Annual
Report of Form 10-K/A-3 of Gateway Tax Credit Fund II Ltd. for the year ended
March 31, 2007 containing the financial statements fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the periodic report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.














/s/ Ronald M.
Diner


President


Raymond
James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.


(the
Managing General Partner)


December
22, 2008











/s/ Jonathan
Oorlog


Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer


Raymond
James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.


(the
Managing General Partner)


December
22, 2008