alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1
  BURGER
    KING HOLDINGS, INC.
    List of Subsidiaries
  Entity Name

JurisdictionAdministracion de Comidas Rapidas, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoB.K. Services, Ltd.

DelawareBK Acquisition, Inc.

DelawareBK Argentina Servicios, S.A.

ArgentinaBK Asiapac (Japan) Y.K.

JapanBK Asiapac, Pte. Ltd.

SingaporeBK Card Company, Inc.

FloridaBK Grundstucksverwaltungs Beteiligungs GmbH

GermanyBK Grundstucksverwaltungs GmbH & Co. KG

GermanyBK Venezuela Servicios, C.A.

VenezuelaBurger King (Gibraltar) Ltd.

GibraltarBurger King (Hong Kong) Limited

Hong KongBurger King (Luxembourg) S.a r.l.

LuxembourgBurger King (Shanghai) Commercial Consulting Co. Ltd.

Hong KongBurger King (Shanghai) Restaurant Company Ltd.

Hong KongBurger King (United Kingdom) Ltd.

United KingdomBurger King A.B

SwedenBurger King Asia Pacific P.T.E. Ltd.

SingaporeBurger King Australia Pty Limited

AustraliaBurger King B.V.

NetherlandsBurger King Beteiligungs GmbH

GermanyBurger King Brands, Inc.

DelawareBurger King Canada Acquisitions, Inc.

CanadaBurger King Corporation

FloridaBurger King de Puerto Rico, Inc.

Puerto RicoBurger King do Brasil Assessoria a Restaurantes Ltda.

BrazilBurger King Espana S.L.U.

SpainBurger King Europe GmbH

SwitzerlandBurger King Gida Sanayi Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi

TurkeyBurger King GmbH Berlin

GermanyBurger King GmbH Munchen

GermanyBurger King Interamerica, LLC

FloridaBurger King Italia, S.r.L.

ItalyBurger King Korea Ltd

KoreaBurger King Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoBurger King Restaurants B.V.

NetherlandsBurger King Restaurants K.B.

SwedenBurger King Restaurants of Canada Inc.

CanadaBurger King Schweiz GmbH

SwitzerlandBurger King Sweden K.B.

Sweden




---



##### 



Entity Name

JurisdictionBurger King Sweden, Inc.

FloridaBurger King UK Pension Plan Trustee Company Limited

United KingdomBurger Station B.V.

NetherlandsBurger King Limited

United KingdomCitoyen Holding B.V.

NetherlandsDistron Transportation Systems, Inc.

FloridaEmpire Catering Company Limited

United KingdomEmpire International Restaurants Limited

United KingdomF.P.M.I. Food Services, Inc.

CanadaGolden Egg Franchises Limited

United KingdomHayescrest Limited

United KingdomHuckleberrys Limited

United KingdomInmuebles El Presidente, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoInmuebles Genial, S.A. de C.V.

MexicoJ C Baker & Herbert Bale Limited

United KingdomMid-America
    Aviation, Inc.

OregonMini Meals Limited

United KingdomMontrap Limited

United KingdomMontrass Limited

United KingdomMoxies, Inc.

LouisianaQZ, Inc.

FloridaThe Melodie Corporation

New MexicoTPC Number Four, Inc.

DelawareTPC Number Six, Inc.

TexasTQW Company

Texas  2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3977

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Kenneth David Porter, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: June 4, 1999

 Filed: June 14, 1999

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BRIGHT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth David Porter was previously sentenced to a total of forty-eight months

imprisonment and four years supervised release for aiding and abetting the distribution

of 6.773 grams of cocaine base. While serving his supervised release, he admitted to

violating several supervised release conditions--including testing positive three times

for marijuana use, failing to submit to urinalysis testing on four occasions, and failing

to report to an outpatient drug aftercare program for more than thirty days, resulting in
1The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

his termination from that program. The district court1 revoked Porter’s supervised

release and ordered him to serve ten months imprisonment and, upon his release from

imprisonment, to complete the remainder of his original term of supervised release

through the original supervised release termination date. Porter appeals, challenging

the reimposition of supervised release and the district court’s refusal to grant his

request for lenience by continuing him on supervised release. We affirm.

Based on the drug offense that resulted in his original term of supervised release,

Porter was subject to up to three years imprisonment upon revocation of supervised

release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii); 18 U.S.C.

§ 3559(a)(2). Because the ten-month prison sentence Porter received was less than the

maximum authorized, the district court was entitled to impose additional supervised

release so long as the imprisonment and additional supervised release did not exceed

Porter’s original term of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h); United States

v. St. John, 92 F.3d 761, 766 (8th Cir. 1996). The revocation sentence was proper

because it did not exceed Porter’s original four-year term of supervised release, and his

argument on appeal thus fails.

We further reject Porter’s contention that the district court erred by refusing to

show lenience, because Porter’s supervised release violations included failure to submit

urine specimens on four occasions, as well as failure to attend his drug treatment

program. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(3) (court shall revoke term of supervised release

and impose term of imprisonment if defendant refuses to comply with drug testing

imposed as condition of supervised release); United States v. Stephens, 65 F.3d 738,

741 (8th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Octavio HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent.

No. 10-772-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 23, 2011.

Octavio Hernández, Albion, NY, pro se.

Sarah *B.*Fabian, Trial Attorney, District Court Section, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges, JANE A. RESTANI, Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Jane A. Restani of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designalion.

*69SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Octavio Hernández (“petitioner”), proceeding *pro se,*appeals from a February 23, 2010 judgment of the District Court dismissing for want of jurisdiction his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his final order of removal from the United States. The dismissal was ordered without prejudice to petitioner’s refiling of a petition for review in our Court. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the remaining factual and procedural history of the case.

Although petitioner’s notice of appeal is not styled as a petition for review, and his appellate brief challenges only the validity of his underlying New York state conviction for sexual abuse and criminal possession of a weapon, we “construe! ] appellate briefs submitted by *pro se*litigants liberally and read! ] such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.” *Ortiz v. McBride,*323 F.3d 191, 194 (2d Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we construe petitioner’s notice of appeal as a petition for review of his final order of removal.

The threshold question on appeal is whether we may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this petition. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), a petition for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals “not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.” Here, the Board of Immigration Appeals entered petitioner’s final order of removal on November 21, 2007, but petitioner did not file his petition for review until March 3, 2010. Even if we were to assume that the date Hernández filed his § 2241 petition in the District Court (January 22, 2010) was the operative date, his petition would still be untimely. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the petition. *See Malvoisin v. INS,*268 F.3d 74, 75 (2d Cir.2001) (noting that compliance with the 30-day deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a “strict jurisdictional prerequisite”).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the petition for review is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. As we have completed our review, any pending motion for a stay of removal is DENIED as moot.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Great Western Bancorporation, Inc. (Great Western) on Form 10-Q for the nine month period ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James R. Clark, Chief Financial Officer of Great Western, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 results of operations of Great Western.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ James R. Clark     
|James R. Clark,        
|Chief Financial Officer
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00118-CR

ALLEN DEWAYNE THOMAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 415th District Court

of Parker County (CR17-0403)

December 19, 2019

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
#### Anthony G. HUNT, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2011-7009.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 12, 2011.

Anthony G. Hunt, Adrian, MI, for Claimant-Appellant.

Melissa Devine, Department of Justice, David J. Barrans, Kristiana M. Brugger, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony G. Hunt moves for panel reconsideration and reconsideration en banc of the court’s April 5, 2011 order summarily affirming the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims decision below.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

The motion for panel reconsideration is denied. The request for en banc reconsideration will be circulated to the full court.
#### Diana M. Scritchfield, as Adminstratrix of the Estate of Mitchell N. Sckitchfield, Also Known as Mitchell Scritchfield, Deceased, Respondent, v Arlette Perry et al., Doing Business as Woodlawn Hotel, Appellants, et al., Defendant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[667 NYS2d 584]

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Arlette Perry, doing business as Woodlawn Hotel, and J.A.C.E.P., Ltd., doing business as Woodlawn Hotel (defendants), moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff defaulted in responding, and Supreme Court granted the motion. Before an order was signed or entered, plaintiff moved for additional time to respond to the motion and “to vacate any default on the part of [plaintiff] * * * thereto”. Defendants cross-moved to vacate plaintiff’s note of issue and for further discovery in the event that plaintiff’s motion was granted. The court granted plaintiffs motion and adjourned oral argument on defendants’ cross motion.

A court has the inherent power, *sua sponte*or on motion of a party, to reconsider and vacate its prior decision before issuing an order thereon *(see, American Re-Ins. Co. v SGB Universal Bldrs. Supply,*160 AD2d 586; *Vinciguerra v Jameson,*153 AD2d 452, 454; *Levinger v General Motors Corp.,*122 AD2d 419, 420). In light of the facts that plaintiff made the motion to vacate only four days after the motion for summary judgment was granted, that plaintiff’s default in responding to the motion was the result of law office failure caused by the recurring illness of plaintiff’s counsel and that defendants were not prejudiced by the vacatur, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff additional time to respond to the motion for summary judgment *(see,*CPLR 2004; *see also, Corbett v Zedayko,*151 AD2d 941). (Appeal from Order of Supreme *1055Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Hayes, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,738
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              99
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   162
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          66,097
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            66,112
<LOANS>                                         76,825
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,755
<DEPOSITS>                                     131,167
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,968
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,424
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,196
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 150,755
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,415
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,632
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   300
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,347
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,894
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,894
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,453
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      352
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,906
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,331
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         844
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       844
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.92
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   811
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                        10
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,173
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,173


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1


 


Loan Agreement


 


The Loan Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into
as of December 23, 2014 between the following two parties:


 


(1) Lee, Shu-Fen (the "Lender")


 


(2) Action Holdings Financial Limited,
a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of British Virgin Islands, having its principal office at TrustNet Chamber,
P.O. Box 3444, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. (the "Borrower")


 


The Lender and the Borrower will each be
referred to as a "Party" and collectively referred to as the "Parties."


 


WHEREAS, the Borrower wishes to borrow
a short-term loan from the Lender for its short-term payments and the Lender agrees to provide such loan to the Borrower for such
specified purpose.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:


 


		1.	The Lender agrees to provide the loan at amount NTD10,000,000 (the “Loan”) to the Borrower and agrees to remit
such Loan to the account owned by the Borrower (No. 015540322880 at Chinatrust Bank) upon the effective date of this Agreement.



 


		2.	Term for the Loan shall be from December 23, 2014 to December 22, 2015 (the “Term”) with a fixed interest rate
at 1.5%. The principal amount of the Loan together with the accrued interest shall be paid in one lump sum before December 31,
2015.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed
this Agreement, or have caused this Agreement to be duly executed on their behalf, as of the date first hereinabove set forth.


 


Lender: Lee, Shu-Fen


 


Borrower: Action Holdings Financial Limited
Exhibit 99.2



Certification of Chief Financial 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 Quarterly Report
of Agile Software Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Carolyn V. Aver, as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|              
|--------------
|March 14, 2003
|
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-22-00100-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 348th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 348-317998-20

Before Walker, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

ADELINA E. GOVEA A/K/A ADELINA ESTRADA, Appellant

V.

RANDY PERALES AND LUCINDA PERALES, Appellees
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On March 24, 2022, and April 5, 2022, we notified appellant, in accordance 

with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless 

appellant paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 44.3. Appellant has not 

done so. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because appellant has not complied with a procedural requirement and the 

Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2015,1 we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: April 28, 2022

1See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases 

in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, 

Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ fees).
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23065]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4344-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]


California; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of California (FEMA-4344-DR), dated October 10, 2017, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 14, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of California is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of October 10, 2017.

    Butte, Lake, Mendocino, and Yuba Counties for Individual 
Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency 
protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal 
assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-23065 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Motion Granted; Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed as Moot and

Memorandum Opinion filed April 19 , 20 12

.

In The


## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 1 2

- 00 057

- C V

____________

IN RE NELSON T. HENSLEY , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 257th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2006

- 14036



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

On January 25 , 201 1

, r elator Nelson T. Hensley filed a petition for writ of

mandamus in this c ourt

. See T ex. Gov ’ t Code Ann

. § 22.221; see also T ex. R. App

. P.

52.1. In the petition relator ask s this court to order the respondent, the Honorable Judy

Warne , presiding judge of the 257th District Court, Harris County, Texas, to vacate orders
signed December 16, 2011

.On April 13, 2012

, relator filed a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of

mandamus because the underlying suit was dismissed pursuant to settlement. The motion
is granted.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed as moot

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Boyce.