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



                 THE BARBERS, HAIRSTYLING FOR MEN & WOMEN, INC.

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name of Subsidiary                       State of Incorporation     Trade Name, if any
------------------                       ----------------------     ------------------
<S>                                      <C>                        <C>
WCH, Inc.                                Minnesota                  We Care Hair
We Care Hair Realty, Inc.                Delaware                   none
Hair Performers International, Inc.      Minnesota                  The Hair Performers
CLS International, Inc.                  Minnesota                  City Looks Salons International
The Barbers Export, Inc.                 Minnesota                  The Barbers
CL Moscow Partners, LLP*                 Minnesota*                 none

</TABLE>

*The Barbers, Hairstyling for Men & Women, Inc. owns 70% of this Limited
Liability Partnership.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS FOUND ON PAGES F-1 AND
F-2 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         316,599
<SECURITIES>                                 1,255,160
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,009,906
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000
<INVENTORY>                                 11,674,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,578,588
<PP&E>                                       4,377,850
<DEPRECIATION>                                 741,759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,214,679
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,236,972
<BONDS>                                      7,020,608
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,122
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,906,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,214,679
<SALES>                                     24,315,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,315,591
<CGS>                                       18,113,910
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,113,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,447,287
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             398,589
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,653,557
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,330,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,323,557
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,323,557
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Includes addback of after-tax effect on interest expense for convertible
Debentures.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 20624 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MOHAMMED TAIMOOR RAZA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CR

- 473

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
Mohammed Taimoor Raza appeals the revocation of his supervised release. Raza had pleaded guilty to being an ill egal alien in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release. One of the special conditions of supervision that Raza violated was that he would “provide travel information and follow through with exiting the United States under immigration officials’ supervision.”

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 14, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-20624 Document: 00514033711 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2017No. 16

- 20624

2 T he appropriate guidelines range was 5 to 11 months in prison for the revocation . The district court foun d that Raza had made no attempt to contact his parents to secure the information necessary to secure travel documents and told the probation officer that he, Raza, had no intention of getting the documents necessary for his deportation. The court departed from the guidelines and sentenced Raza to two years in prison. On appeal Raza challenges the imposition of the above

- guidelines sentence. We review a sentence imposed on revocati on of supervised release under the plainly unreasonable standard , applying a two

- step process. United States v. Warren , 720 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2013). First, we ensure that the district court did not commit significant procedural error, such as selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts. Id. If there is no pro cedural error,

we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. Raza argues that the sentence is based on the district court’s unfounded beliefs and assumptions. He has not shown that any of the factual findings supporting his
senten ce are clearly erroneous and has not shown a procedural error in his sentencing. See id

. Nor has Raza shown that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Heard , 709 F.3d 413, 435 (5th Cir. 2013) ; Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)

. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-20624 Document: 00514033711 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2017
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 10 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00689

- CR

GLEN SHANNON NELSON , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1375125

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly

weapon

. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which t he y conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advan ced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 , 811

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).2

A copy of counsel s ’ brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford
v. State , 813 S.W.2d 50 3, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him. As of this date, more than 45 days have passed since appellant received the record, and no pro se response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and coun sels ’ brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in
the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no a rguable grounds for
review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Wise. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2( b).
# **EXHIBIT 32.1**

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

In connection with the June 30, 2006Form 10-Q of Cornell Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,James E. Hyman, Chief Executive Officer and the Chairman of the Board, certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
|        | /s/ James E. Hyman                |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|   | James E. Hyman, Chief Executive   |   |
|   | Officer and Chairman of the Board |   |
|   | August 9, 2006               |   |
|        |                                   |        |  |

 

----
**Exhibit 12.2**

**302 CERTIFICATION**

I,Ramiro Alfonsín B. certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Empresa Nacional de ElectricidadS.A. (“Endesa Chile”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reportingto be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 30, 2015.
|   |                                       |   |                |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|
| By:    | /s/      Mary B. Halsey               |   | March      26, 2010 |
|   | Mary      B. Halsey                        |   | Date                |
|   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |                |
|   | (Principal      Executive Officer)         |   |                |
|   |                                       |   |                |
|   |                                       |   |                |
|   |                                       |   |                |
|   |                                       |   |                |

----

|   |                                            |   |                |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|
| By:    | /s/      Robert Lee Whitehead                   |   | March      26, 2010 |
|   | R.      Lee Whitehead                           |   | Date                |
|   | Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer |   |                |
|   | (Principal      Financial Officer)              |   |                |
|   |                                            |   |                |
|   |                                            |   |                |
|   |                                            |   |                |
|   |                                            |   |                |
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued January 19, 2005 Decided July 27, 2005 Before Hon. Richard D. Cudahy, Circuit Judge Hon. Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Judge Hon. Terence T. Evans, Circuit Judge

No. 04-2986 United States of America,

Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. Angel Lechuga-Ponce,

Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin No. 03-CR-215 William C. Griesbach, Judge

.
O R D E R In an opinion and order dated May 17, 2005, this court directed a limitedremand to the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in the abovecaptioned case. United States v. Lechuga-Ponce , 407 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2005). We did so pursuant to this court’s decision in United States v. Paladino , 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005). In that case this court held that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), a criminal defendant sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines was entitled to a remand “where this court cannot be assured that the district court would have arrived at the same sentence if it had treated the guidelines as advisory.” Lechuga-Ponce , 407 F.3d at 897. UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 04-2986 Page 2

On remand, the district court determined that “I may have sentenced the defendant differently had I known that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were advisory.” In light of the conclusion, and consistent with this court’s decision in Paladino

, we order that Lechuga-Ponce’s sentence is vacated and this case is remanded to the district court for resentencing.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 46649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21704]



[[Page 46647]]

Vol. 82

Thursday,

No. 192

October 5, 2017

Part III





The President





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



Memorandum of September 25, 2017--Delegation of Authority Under the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 192 / Thursday, October 5, 2017 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 46649]]

                Memorandum of September 25, 2017

                
Delegation of Authority Under the Consolidated 
                Appropriations Act, 2017

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
                America, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State 
                the functions and authorities vested in the President 
                by section 10006 of the Consolidated Appropriations 
                Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31) (the ``Act'').

                The delegation in this memorandum shall apply to any 
                provision of any future public law that is the same or 
                substantially the same as section 10006 of the Act.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, September 25, 2017

[FR Doc. 2017-21704
Filed 10-4-17; 11:15 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,163
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,463
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         556,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 532,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        244,113
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         23
<COMMON>                                            86
<OTHER-SE>                                     218,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   532,954
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,064
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,039
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (358)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,681
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto CASTILLO-HEREDIA, a.k.a. Arm Abogado-Rivera, a.k.a. Armando Eduardo Abogado-Rivera, a.k.a. Heredia Ernesto Castillo, a.k.a. Jesus Garcia, a.k.a. Armando E.A. Rivera, a.k.a. Armando Eduardo Rivera, a.k.a. Armando Eduardo Rivera-Abogado, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30058.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 15, 2011.

Alan G. Burrow, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Monte J. Stiles, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

J.D. Merris, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.

Ernesto Castillo-Heredia, pro se.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ernesto Castillo-Heredia appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 78-month sentence for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pursuant to *Anders v.*
      *737
      *California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Castillo-Heredia’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief have been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 99.1**

Name: Nicholas J. Benson Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer

**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 Quarterly Report of Sunterra Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Nicholas J. Benson, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complieswith 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 andresults of operations of the Company.

|                                                      |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ NICHOLAS J. BENSON                               |   |   |        |
| **Dated: November 13, 2002**     |