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

                                                                      Exhibit 21
                  Subsdiaries of Milestone Properties, Inc.

         Subsidiary                                       State of Incorporation

Milestone Asset Management, Inc.                                    Delaware
Milestone Property Management, Inc.                                 Delaware
Centaur Leasing Company, Inc.                                       Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Deland, Inc.                           Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Rochester, Inc.                        Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Pascagoula, Inc.                       Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Janesville, Inc.                       Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Marietta, Inc.                         Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Marion, Inc.                           Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Mt. Pleasant, Inc.                     Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of North Canton, Inc.                     Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Owensboro, Inc.                        Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Quincy, Inc.                           Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Natchez, Inc.                          Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Streetsboro, Inc.                      Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Southington, Inc.                      Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Dubois, Inc.                           Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Franklin, Inc.                         Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Clarksville, Inc.                      Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Roanoke, Inc.                          Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Paris, Inc.                            Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Chili, Inc.                            Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of South Williamson, Inc.                 Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Savannah, Inc.                         Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Danville, Inc.                         Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Vestivia Hills, Inc.                   Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Montgomery, Inc.                       Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Southwick, Inc.                        Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Walpole, Inc.                          Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Baton Rouge, Inc.                      Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Palatka, Inc.                          Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Prattville, Inc.                       Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Columbus, Inc.                         Delaware
Minotaur Mortgage Company of Hamilton, Inc.                         Delaware
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 July 31, 2019

izm

Order 

Clerk

July 31, 2019

159928 (57)

SIMMONS PROPERTIES, LLC,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellant,

v SC: 159928

COA: 346657

Ingham CC: 18-000474-CK

LANSING ENTERTAINMENT AND PUBLIC

FACILITIES AUTHORITY,

Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellee.

___________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the plaintiff-appellant to continue stay 

is DENIED as moot. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(I), “[w]hen a stay bond has been filed on 

appeal to the Court of Appeals under MCR 7.209 or a stay has been entered or takes effect 

pursuant to MCR 7.209(E)(7), it operates to stay proceedings pending disposition of the 

appeal in the Supreme Court unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court or the Court 

of Appeals.” The Court of Appeals entered a stay pending appeal on December 7, 2018, 

which remains in effect without further order by this Court.
**Exhibit 10.55**

 

**Director Compensation Summary**

 

Each non-employee director of our General Partner isreimbursed for any travel, lodging and other out-of-pocket expenses related tomeeting attendance or otherwise related to service on the board (including, withoutlimitation, reimbursement for continuing education expenses). Each non-employeedirector who is not the chairman of a committee receives an annual retainer of$50,000. The chairman of the Audit and Conflicts Committee receives an annualretainer of $60,000, and the chairman of the Board receives an annual retainerof $300,000. One twelfth of each of these annual retainers is paid on a monthlybasis to the appropriate board member. Directors who are either officers orfull-time employees of DFI, EPCO, or the General Partner or any of theiraffiliates are not compensated for their services as directors.

 

----
* 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

April 30, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-11085

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HIRAM RODRIGUEZ MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CR-55-2-A

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

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hiram Rodriguez Martinez (“Martinez”) appeals his sentence

following his guilty plea conviction of conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute a substance containing a detectable

amount of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

and (b)(1)(B). Martinez argues that the district court erred in

applying a two-level increase to the base offense level pursuant
No. 02-11085

-2-

to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon

during the offense. 

Because the Government showed that Martinez’s co-defendant

knowingly possessed a weapon while they committed the offense and

because firearms are the “tools of the trade” in drug

conspiracies, the district court did not clearly err in finding

that Martinez should have foreseen his co-defendant’s possession

of a dangerous weapon. See United States v. Aguilera-Zapata, 901

F.2d 1209, 1215 (5th Cir. 1990). Additionally, a review of the

record indicates that Martinez did not meet his burden of proving

that it was “clearly improbable that the weapon was connected

with the offense.” See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.3); United

States v. Marmolejo, 106 F.3d 1213, 1216 (5th Cir. 1997). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         438,027
<SECURITIES>                                   632,683
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,364
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,148,674
<PP&E>                                         341,664
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,912
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,762,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,322
<BONDS>                                      1,084,328
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          518,770
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       334,067
<OTHER-SE>                                   (326,460)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,762,585
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,545
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,278
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (52,312)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (52,312)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (52,312)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.19)
        

</TABLE>
In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d : Ja n u a ry 1 9 , 2 0 16

S 1 5 A1 64 7 . S MITH v

. THE S TATE.

HUNS T EIN, Ju stic e

. Ap p e lla n t Tia ra S m ith a

p p e a l s fro m th e tria l c ou rt’s d e n ia l o f wh a t sh e
sty le d a s a n “ Ex tra o rd in a ry Mo tio n fo r Ne w Tria l.” We a ffirm

.
In S e p te m b e r 2 00 7 , S m ith p le d g uilty to two c ou nts o f fe lo n y m u rd e r, two

c o u n ts o f se rio u s in

ju ry b y v e h ic le , fe tic id e , a n d fe lo n y fle e in g an d a tte m p tin g

to e lu d e ; sh e wa s se n te n c e d to life im p ri s o n me n t

. In De c e m

b e r 2 0 1 2 , S m ith

file d a n e x tra o rd in a ry m o tio n fo r n e w tria l a sse rtin g th a t sh e h a d d isc o v e re d n e w

e v id e n c e e sta b lish in g th a t sh e is n o t g u i l t y o f fe lo n y m u rd e r. Th e tria l c o urt

d e n ie d th e m o tio n

. On a p p e a l, S m it h c o ntin u e s to arg ue th a t sh e h a s n e wly

d isc o v e re d e v id e n c e th a t u n d e rm in e s h e r fe lo n y m u rd e r c o n vic tio n a n d th a t th e

tria l c o u rt e rro n e o u sly d e n ie d h e r m o tio n.

As th e tria l c o u rt c o rre c tly re c o g n iz e d , a n e x tra o rd in a ry m o tio n fo r n e w

tria l i s n o t a r e me d y a va ilab le to S m ith b e c a u se sh e p le d g uilty

. Se e Da v is v

.
S ta te , 2 74 Ga

. 8 6 5 , 8 6 6 (5 6 1 S E2 d 1 19 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (“ ‘On e wh o h a s e n te re d a p le ao f gu ilty c a n n o t mo v e fo r a n e w tria l, a s th e re wa s n o tria l.’” ). Co n stru in g

S m ith ’s p le a d in g a s a m o tio n to with d ra w he r g u ilty p le a o r a m otio n in a rre st

o f ju dg m e n t is e q ua lly in e ffe c tu a l b e c a u se “ [b ] o th so rts o f m o tio ns m u st b e file d

with in th e sa m e te rm o f c o u rt a t wh ic h t h e g u i l t y p le a or ju d g m e n t b e in g

c h a lle ng e d w as e n t e re d .” Ha g a n v

. S ta te , 2 9 0 Ga

. 3 53 , 3 5 3 (7 2 0 S E2 d 6 4 5 )
(2 0 1 2 ). In d e e d , “ ‘a fte r th e e x p ir a t i o n o f th e te rm a n d o f th e tim e fo r filin g a n

a p p e a l fro m th e c o n vic tio n , th e o n ly re m e d y a va i l a b l e t o th e d e fe n d a n t fo r

with dra win g a p le a is th ro u g h h a be a s c o rp u s p ro c e e d in g s.’” Ha rris v

. S ta te , 2 7 8

Ga

. 8 0 5 , 8 0 6 (2 ) (6 0 6 S E2 d 24 8 ) (2 0 0 4 ). S m ith ’s m o tio n, h o we v e r, c a n n o t b e

c o n stru e d a s a h a

be a s c o rp u s p e titio n; no t o n ly wa s th e m o tio n file d o u tsid e th e

fo u r-y e a r lim ita tio n s p e rio d im p o se d b y OCGA § 9 -1 4 -4 2 (c ) , b u t i t wa s a lso

file d in th e c o u n ty in wh ic h S m ith wa s c o n v ic te d ra th e r th a n th e c o un ty in wh ic h

sh e is in c a rc e ra te d

. S e e OCGA § 9 -1 4 -4 3 . S e e a lso Th o m a s v . S ta te , 2 9 1 Ga

.
1 8 (7 27 S E2 d 1 2 3 ) (2 0 1 2 ). Ac c o rd i n g ly , irre sp e c tiv e o f h o w S m ith ’s m o tio n

is c on stru e d , it is im

p ro p e r a nd u n tim e ly , a n d sh e is n o t e n title d to re lie f.

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o nc u r.

2
Exhibit 32.1

Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the  SarbanesOxley Act of 2002

I, Marcel Martin, the Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Haynes International, Inc., certify that
(i) the annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 (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 Haynes
International, Inc. as of the dates and for the periods set forth therein.

/s/ MARCEL MARTIN Marcel Martin Vice President Finance and
Chief Financial OfficerNovember 18, 2010 Date


I,
Mark Comerford, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Haynes International, Inc., certify that (i) the annual report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 (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 Haynes International, Inc. as of the dates and for the periods set forth
therein.

/s/ MARK COMERFORD Mark Comerford President and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 18, 2010 Date


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Optimal Group Inc.
(the Company), does hereby certify that to the best of the undersigneds
knowledge: 1)
the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
 September 30, 2008 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
 Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated:
November 5,
 2008By:
/s/ Gary S.
 WechslerGary S.
 WechslerTreasurer
 andChief
 Financial Officer The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of this report or as a separate
disclosure document.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### City of Alexandria v. Thorne

June 10, 1981

Case No. (Chancery) 12248

By JUDGE WILEY R. WRIGHT, JR.

The defendant has moved to quash the notice of his deposition and the request for production of documents.

This cause involves a petition for an injunction brought by the City of Alexandria against Thorne, the operator of a taxicab leasing business. The City alleges that Thorne has been operating his business out of his private residence in violation of the RB zoning classification for the property.

The defendant contends that the forced taking of his deposition and the disclosure of the requested documents will violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The City seeks to obviate the problem by offering the defendant use immunity as to any information acquired from the defendant. When queried, counsel for the City was unable to cite any authority for granting the defendant use immunity.

Unless authorized by statute, no prosecutor, judge, grand jury, administrative agency or city attorney has the power to grant use immunity in any case. This is the general, settled rule in this country. See 81 Am. Jur. 2d, *Witnesses,*§ 57; *Bowie*v. *State,*287 A.2d 782, 787 (Md. App. 1972); *State*
      *28v. *Roberts,*230 A.2d 239, 241 (Conn. App. 1967); and *Apodaca*v. Viramontes, 212 P.2d 425, 427-28 (N.M. 1949). Although Virginia has several immunity statutes, there does not appear to be any authority for the granting of immunity in this type of case. Consequently, the offer of the Assistant City Attorney is of no avail.

The defendant is correct in his assertion that the privilege against self-incrimination applies to civil cases. Unlike in criminal cases, the defendant in a civil case may not assert a blanket privilege. A privilege must be specifically claimed on a particular question and the matter submitted to the court for its determination as to the validity of the claim. *North American Mtg. Investors*v. *Pomponio,*219 Va. 914, 252 S.E.2d 345 (1979).

Under the rules set forth in *Shapiro*v. *United States,*335 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 1375 (1948), the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to records required by law to be kept in order that there may be suitable information of transactions which are the appropriate subjects of governmental regulation, and the enforcement of restrictions validly established.

The *Shapiro*rule applies in this case to all of the items requested in the notice except nos. 5 and 6 to which the objections of the defendant will be sustained.
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                  -------------

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
                                  Section 1350

     In connection with the Annual Report of Epic Media, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nicholas A.
Czuczko, Chief 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:

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

     2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial 2 condition and results of operations
          of the Company at the dates and for the periods presented in this
          Report.


Date: March 15, 2006


                                                 /s/ Nicholas A. Czuczko
                                                 -----------------------
                                                    Nicholas A. Czuczko,
                                                 Chief Financial Officer



                                       25
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-42634) pertaining to the Employee Nonqualified Stock Option
Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-32961) pertaining to the Second Amended and Restated
Employee Stock Option Plan, (Form S-8 No. 33-72614) pertaining to the Employee
Stock Purchase Plan, (Form S-8 No. 33-99164) pertaining to the SIG Holdings,
Inc. 1992 Long Term Incentive Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-96293) pertaining to the
Amended and Restated Directors Stock Option Plan, (Form S-3 No. 33-77028) and
(Form S-3 No. 333-86666) pertaining to the shelf registration of securities of
Delphi Financial Group, Inc., and (Form S-3 No. 333-118052) pertaining to the
registration of Class A Common Stock of Delphi Financial Group, Inc. of our
report dated February 6, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedules of Delphi Financial Group, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

                                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
November 4, 2004
**Exhibit 13.1**

----

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter      63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of InterContinental      Hotels Group PLC, a company incorporated under the laws of England and      Wales (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s      knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F      for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the “Report”) of the Company      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities      Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents,      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations      of the Company.

| Dated: April 8, 2004 |   |                                 |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|                 |   |                                 |
|                 | Name:  | Richard C. North                     |
|                 | Title: | Director and Chief Executive Officer |

The foregoing certification is      being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act      of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,      United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as      a separate disclosure document.

----
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2856 

To provide assistance for agricultural producers adversely affected by 

damaging weather and other conditions relating to Hurricane Irene. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 

Mr. GIBSON (for himself, Mr. TONKO, Mr. OWENS, and Mr. HINCHEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide assistance for agricultural producers adversely 

affected by damaging weather and other conditions relating to Hurricane Irene. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE. 

4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

5 (1) DISASTER COUNTY.—The term ‘‘disaster 

6 county’’ means— 

7 (A) a county included in the geographical 

8 area covered by a qualifying natural disaster 

9 declaration; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2856 IH

1 (B) each county contiguous to a county de2 scribed in subparagraph (A). 

3 (2) QUALIFYING NATURAL DISASTER DECLARA4 TION.—The term ‘‘qualifying natural disaster dec5 laration’’ means— 

6 (A) a natural disaster declared by the Sec7 retary in 2011 due to damaging weather and 

8 other conditions relating to Hurricane Irene 

9 under section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm 

10 and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 

11 1961(a)); or 

12 (B) a major disaster or emergency des13 ignated by the President in 2011 due to dam14 aging weather and other conditions relating to 

15 Hurricane Irene under the Robert T. Stafford 

16 Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

17 (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). 

18 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

19 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

20 (b) ASSISTANCE.—Of the funds of the Commodity 

21 Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall use $10,000,000 

22 to provide assistance to agricultural producers in disaster 

23 counties through— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2856 IH

1 (1) the emergency conservation program estab2 lished under title IV of the Agricultural Credit Act 

3 of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.); and 

4 (2) the emergency watershed protection pro5 gram established under section 403 of that Act (16 

6 U.S.C. 2203). 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS