alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                                  SUBSIDIARIES

Amusement Management Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation

Austin MGPC, Inc., a Texas corporation

Dallas Castle MGPC, Inc., a Texas corporation

Fresno MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Malibu Grand Prix Consulting, Inc., a California corporation

Malibu Grand Prix Corporation, a Delaware corporation

Malibu Grand Prix Design & Manufacturing, Inc., a California corporation

Malibu Grand Prix Financial Services, Inc., a California corporation

Malibu Management Company, a Georgia corporation

MGP Special, Inc., a California corporation

Mountasia Development Company, a Georgia corporation

Mountasia Family Entertainment Centers, Inc., a Texas corporation

Mountasia Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Mountasia - MEI International, Inc., a Georgia corporation

Mountasia - MEI Limited Company, Inc., a California corporation

Mountasia - MEI California, Inc., a California corporation

Mountasia - MEI International, Inc., a Georgia corporation

North Hollywood Castle MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Off Track Management, Inc., a California corporation

Portland MGPC, Inc., an Oregon corporation

Puente Hills MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Puente Hills Showboat MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Redondo Beach Castle MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Redwood City Castle MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Redwood City MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

San Antonio Castle MGPC, Inc., a Texas corporation

San Antonio MGPC, Inc., a Texas corporation

San Diego MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Tucson MGPC, Inc., an Arizona corporation
[No. 58602-5-I.

Division One.

September 24, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Tadesse Ayele, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-1-14023-1, Sharon S. Armstrong, J., entered July 7, 2006. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2411 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2411

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                                 An Act

  
 
  For the relief of Leteane Clement Monatsi.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR LETEANE CLEMENT MONATSI.
    (a) In General.--Leteane Clement Monatsi shall be classified as a 
child under section 101(b)(1)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
for purposes of approval of a relative visa petition filed under 
section 204 of such Act by his adoptive parent and the filing of an 
application for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Leteane Clement Monatsi enters the 
United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 
he shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, 
if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under 
section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the petition and the application for 
issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of 
status are filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Leteane Clement Monatsi, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
for the current or next following fiscal year, the worldwide level of 
family-sponsored immigrants under section 201(c)(1)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Leteane 
Clement Monatsi shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 
any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.







                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.`
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 China International Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Jiang Peng, Chairman of the Board (Principal Executive Officer) of
the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.  Date: August 14, 2008
     
     By:
     
     /s/ Jiang PengJiang PengChairman of the Board(Principal 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 Great China International Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Sun Dongqing, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: August 14, 2008
     
     By:
     
     /s/ Sun DongqingSun Dongqing, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Great China
International Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Great China International Holdings, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
EXHIBIT 32.2

EVERGREEN ENERGY INC.        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Diana L. Kubik, state and attest that:

|/s/DIANA L. KUBIKDiana L. Kubik
Title: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Date: March 21, 2008 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Evergreen Energy Inc. and will be retained by Evergreen Energy Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 20, 2021

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

AWARDS INVESTMENT CONSULTANT CONTRACTS

Washington, D.C. -- The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) announced today 

that it has awarded a multiple award blanket purchase agreement (BPA) for investment 

consultant services with a potential period of performance of 10 years to Aon Investments USA 

Inc; Mercer Investments LLC; Callan, LLC; Meketa Investment Group, Inc; and R.V. Kuhns & 

Associates, Inc. Call orders will be competed under the contracts amongst the five awardees. 

The five firms will assist the FRTIB with the following tasks: investment policy evaluation and 

design, portfolio governance and portfolio manager evaluation, investment option review and 

evaluation, investment manager search, benchmarking and participant behavior, research on 

improving operational efficiency, Lifecycle Fund asset allocation and glide path analysis, and 

generalized consulting related to defined contribution plans. 

These new investment consultant contracts replace four separate contracts previously held by

Aon Investments USA Inc; NEPC, LLC; R.V. Kuhns & Associates, Inc; and Mercer Investments 

LLC. 

The Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is a retirement savings plan for Federal 

employees; it is similar to the 401(k) plans offered by many private 

employers. As of September 2021, TSP assets totaled approximately $774.2

billion, and retirement savings accounts were being maintained for more than

6.4 million participants TSP participants. Participants include Federal 

civilian employees in all branches of Government, employees of the U.S. 

Postal Service, and members of the uniformed services. Additional information 

can be found at www.tsp.gov. 

MEDIA CONTACT:

Kim Weaver 

202-942-1641

(end)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22-0512 MICHAEL L. GOGUEN, Plaintiff Appellee, and Cross-Appellant, v. NYP HOLDINGS,INC.; ISABEL VINCENT, Defendants and Appellants, WILLIAM DIAL, Defendant and Cross-Appellee Appeal From Montana Eleventh Judicial District Flathead County, DV-21-1382(A) Honorable Amy Eddy
ORDER GRANTING 30-DAY EXTENSION Upon motion ofReid J. Perkins, attorney for Michael L. Goguen ("Goguen"), and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellee and Cross-Appellant Michael L. Goguen is granted an extension to February 14, 2023, in which to prepare, serve and file his combined Answer Brief and Opening Brief on Cross-Appeal.

APPELLEE AND CROSS APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR 30-DAY EXTENSION -PAGE 1 01/11/2023
Case Number: DA 22-0512

### Dated this day of January, 2023.
CHIEF JUSTICE

cc: Counsel of Record

APPELLEE AND CROSS APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR 30-DAY EXTENSION -PAGE 2 Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court January 11 2023
#### Stephen Bassey OFFIIONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74925.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 29, 2010.

Filed Dec. 9, 2010.

Bruce A. Coane, Esq., Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

*113Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Eric W. Marsteller, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Stephen Bassey Offiiong, a citizen and native of Nigeria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Offiiong’s motion to reconsider its order, which affirmed the decision of an immigration judge denying Offiiong’s applications for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. *See Oh v. Gonzales,*406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005) (describing standard).

For an applicant to prove he was “lawfully admitted for permanent residence,” 8 U.S.C. § 1256, the applicant must show “compliance with substantive legal requirements, not mere procedural regularity.” *Monet v. INS,*791 F.2d 752, 753 (9th Cir.1986). Offiiong claims this permanent-resident status based on erroneous issuance of documents. However, “mistaken admission confer[s] no status, permanent resident or otherwise.” *Lai Haw Wong v. INS,*474 F.2d 739, 742 (9th Cir.1973); *accord Kyong Ho Shin v. Holder,*607 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.2010). Offiiong did not establish that he complied with the substantive requirements for adjustment of status because he never had the requisite immigrant visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). Thus, the BIA properly concluded that Offiiong had never been granted lawful permanent-resident status or conditional-permanent-resident status and did not abuse its discretion in denying Offiiong’s motion to reconsider that decision.

Given our conclusion, we need not reach any other issue urged by the parties.

PETITION DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report on Form 10-Q of The Sports Authority, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended October 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Douglas Morton, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |  | /s/JOHN DOUGLAS MORTONJohn Douglas Morton Chairman of the Board of
Directors, Chief Executive Officer and President
April 14, 2005
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.16.3





Quaker City
Bank Change in Control Agreement Renewal and Extension Acknowledgment between Quaker City Bank and Jerrold S. Perisho dated July 1, 2002.





QUAKER CITY BANK


CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT


RENEWAL AND
EXTENSION ACKNOWLEDGMENT





Name of Participant:    Jerrold S. Perisho





The undersigned participant does hereby acknowledge that, at their regularly scheduled meeting on June 25, 2002, the Board of Directors of Quaker City Bank acted to renew and extend the Quaker City
Bank Change in Control Agreement with the undersigned participant to a full twenty-four (24) month term, until June 30, 2004.





Dated this
            1st             day of
            July            , A.D.,
            2002            .





QUAKERCITY BANK/s/    JERROLD S. PERISHO



By:

/s/    FREDERIC R.
MCGILLParticipant





President
EXHIBIT 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Safe Technologies International, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Christopher L. Kolb, President and principal financial officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1)

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

(2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



August 14, 2009



| |                                                               
| | --------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Christopher L. Kolb                                       
| | Christopher L. Kolb,
President and principal financial officer
#### Jason W. LANE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-7445.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2007.

Decided: March 28, 2007.

Jason W. Lane, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jason W. Lane seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lane has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lane’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the *277facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Scott THELANDER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Anthony KANE, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 07-16448.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 13, 2011.

Steve M. Defilippis, Esquire, Picone & Defilippis San Jose, CA, for PetitionerAppellee.

Amber N. Wipfler, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, WALLACE and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Warden Kane appeals from the district court’s order granting Thelander’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

*106The district court granted Thelander’s habeas petition, concluding that his due process rights were violated when the California Board of Parole (Board) denied parole without “some evidence” that Thelander posed a current risk of danger to society. *See Hayward v. Marshall,*603 F.3d 546, 562-63 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). During the pendency of the Warden’s subsequent appeal, the Board held another hearing and found Thelander suitable for parole, a decision that recently became final. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for us to resolve. *See United States v. Verdin,*243 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir.2001).

Additionally, “[t]he actual injury traceable to the State of [California] for which [Thelander] seeks relief cannot be redressed by a favorable decision” from this court. *See Burnett v. Lampert,*432 F.3d 996, 1000-01 (9th Cir.2005) (internal alterations and quotation omitted). While The-lander remains in state custody on an unrelated conviction, we are unable to order his release. *See Haggard v. Curry,*631 F.3d 931, 937-38 (9th Cir.2010). Based on the claims asserted in his habeas petition, the only relief to which Thelander might be entitled is “a redetermination by the Board consistent with [California’s] ‘some evidence’ requirement.” *See id.; see also In re Chaudhary,*172 Cal.App.4th 32, 37, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 (Cal.Ct.App.2009) (holding that time wrongfully imprisoned after erroneous parole denial cannot be credited towards the five-year parole discharge eligibility requirement). Because the Board has now found Thelander eligible for parole, it is undisputed that he has received this relief, and his claim is therefore moot.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11274-11275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4483]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Managed 
Information Dissemination Follow-On Initiative will meet in closed 
session on February 22-23, 2001, at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Arlington, VA. The Task Force will review the need and feasibility of a 
coordinated information dissemination capability within the U.S. 
Government encompassing tactical, operational, and strategic 
information. Specifically, they will investigate: detailed and 
actionable recommendations with respect to enabling ``channels'' and 
establishing appropriate ``brand identity''; DoD's role in a U.S. 
strategic information dissemination capability; policy, legal, and 
economic issues hindering U.S. capabilities; and identify new and 
emerging technologies capable of enhancing U.S. capabilities.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these 
meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will review and evaluate 
the Department's ability to provide information.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been 
determined that this Defense Science Board meeting, concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (1), and that accordingly

[[Page 11275]]

this meeting will be closed to the public.
    Due to critical mission requirements and the limited timeframe to 
accomplish this review, there is insufficient time to provide timely 
notice required by section 10(c)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act and Subsection 101-6.1015(b) of the GSA Final Rule on Federal 
Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR Part 101-6, which further 
requires publication at least 15 calendar days prior to this meeting.

    Dated: February 16, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-4483 Filed 2-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M