alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                                  |  |                                              
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary name                                   |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization
|AMCC (UK) Limited                                 |  | United Kingdom                               
|Applied Micro Circuits Corporation France S.A.S.  |  | France                                       
|AMCC Deutschland GmbH                             |  | Germany                                      
|AMCC Japan Co., Ltd.                              |  | Japan                                        
|Applied Micro Circuits Corporation Canada         |  | Canada                                       
|AMCC Sales Corporation                            |  | Delaware                                     
|AMCC China, Inc.                                  |  | Delaware                                     
|Law 1111 Limited                                  |  | United Kingdom                               
|AMCC Enterprise Corporation                       |  | Delaware                                     
|3Ware, Inc.                                       |  | California                                   
|Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (AMCC) Vietnam |  | Vietnam                                      
|Applied Micro Circuits India Private Limited      |  | India
Publications

## Tables

Table 3.
Table 3
Table 3
Table 3.

Table 10. Chemical compounds or classes of compounds in winter flounder stomach contents showing significant positive relationships (logistic regression, p < 0.05) with selected categories of idiopathic liver lesions. Analyses were performed separately for each major class of contaminants, while adjusting for the possible influences of gender and age. Percentages indicate percent of total variation in lesion prevalence explained. A total of 19 sites were sampled, and some sites were sampled more than once. Each sampling was considered a separate data point for statistical analyses, resulting in n = 24.

Table 3.

Table 11. Chemical compounds or classes of compounds in winter flounder bile and liver tissue showing significant positive relationships (logistic regression, p < 0.05) with selected categories of idiopathic liver lesions. Analyses were performed separately for each major class of contaminants, while adjusting for the possible influences of gender and age. Percentages indicate percent of total variation in lesion prevalence explained. A total of 19 sites were sampled, and some sites were sampled more than once. Each sampling was considered a separate data point for statistical analyses, resulting in n = 24.

Table 3.
Table 3
Table 3
Table 3
Table of Contents
| 1. | The Company’s Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended August 31, 2013, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.01 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as applicable; and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and results of operations of the Company for the periods covered in the financial statements in the Report. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 5, 2014 | By:    | /s/ D. Alan Meeker      |   |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                 | Name:  | D. Alan Meeker          |   |
|                 | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |   |

| Date: August 5, 2014 | By:    | /s/ David Hexter        |   |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                 | Name:  | David Hexter            |   |
|                 | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |   |

| Note: | This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. |
|-------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/PublicationsNOAA Tech Memo NMFS NWFSC-8: Contaminant Exposure in Juvenile Salmon (cont): Figure 7
Table of Contents
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**CITY OF READING,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 867 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 6 th**  **day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of App eal is** 

GRANTED **. The issue, as stated by petitioner is:**

**Did the Commonwealth Court err in holding that the City of Reading was**  **immune from liability for property damage caused by Reading’s negligent**  **conduct despite the [u]tility [s]ervice [f]acility excepti on to governmental**  **immunity contained within the Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C .S. §8542(b)(5)?**
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.3
 AXCESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
WHISTLEBLOWER POLICY
 Purpose
  
    
    establishes guidance for the receipt, retention, and treatment of verbal or
written reports received by the Company regarding accounting, internal controls,
auditing matters, disclosure, fraud and unethical business practices, whether
submitted by Company employees or third parties (Allegation), and
    
    establishes guidance for providing Company employees a means to make Reports in a
confidential and anonymous manner, and
    
    makes clear the Companys intention to discipline, up to and including
termination of employment, any person determined to have engaged in retaliatory
behavior,
  Receipt
  Procedures




---



##### 



Delegation of Authority With In the Audit Committee
  Interpretation
  Retaliation
  Audit Committee Review of Reports
  Reporting Allegations
  Dated and approved by the Board of Directors on this 22 nd day of February 2005.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                   1

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                   JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                         98,780
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                  207,435
<ALLOWANCES>                   68,900
<INVENTORY>                    3,423,789
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               4,378,059
<PP&E>                         2,789,011
<DEPRECIATION>                 1,435,833
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 10,146,895
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          1,944,407
<BONDS>                        3,337,168
<COMMON>                       211,720
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0
<PREFERRED>                    173,445
<OTHER-SE>                     4,480,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   10,146,895
<SALES>                        3,553,805
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               3,553,805
<CGS>                          2,873,844
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  3,897,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               130,274
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             123,957
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (331,812)
<INCOME-TAX>                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (331,812)
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>                   (331,812)
<EPS-BASIC>                  (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (.02)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6067

HERBERT ALONZO ROBINSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DANIEL KOELE, LPN; DELLA ACKERMAN, LPN;

RIVERS RICE, Corporal, all in their individual

capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

and

BETTE GARRAND, RN,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-558-5-17JI)

Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Herbert Alonzo Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. James Miller Davis,

Jr., DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Sandra Jane Senn, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date

Appellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it

would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v.

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing

notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods

are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have

thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of

appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district

court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on September 10, 1998;

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on December 28, 1998.

Appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal* or to obtain

either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this

court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s

appeal. We therefore grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss, deny Appellant’s motion to dismiss motion to dismiss, and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 October 2, 2013

s0925

Order 

Clerk

October 2, 2013

146724 & (83)

LaFONTAINE SALINE, INC. d/b/a

LaFONTAINE CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE

RAM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146724

COA: 307148

Washtenaw CC: 10-001329-CZ

CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

IHS AUTOMOTIVE GROUP LLC d/b/a/

CHRYSLER JEEP OF ANN ARBOR,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the November 27, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals 

is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address whether the Court of 

Appeals erred in holding that the 2010 PA 139 definition of “relevant market area,” MCL 

445.1566(1)(a), applied to enable the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement 

between the defendants under MCL 445.1576(3). Compare Kia Motors America, Inc v 

Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc, 706 F3d 733, 735 (CA 6, 2013). We further 

ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court together with the case of 

LaFontaine Saline, Inc v Chrysler Group LLC (Docket No. 146722), at such future 

session of the Court as both cases are ready for submission. 

Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue presented in this case 

may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1

Eastern Division

Grant Birchmeier, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−04069

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, July 13, 2015:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Status hearing held on

7/13/2015. Status hearing set for 8/12/2015 at 8:45 AM. Joint status report due by

8/11/2015. Mailed notice.(pjg, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 316 Filed: 07/13/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:5958
No. 8203.

#### Longanecker et al. *v.*The Commissioners of Darke County et al.

(Decided December 1, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Darke county.

*Mr. Martin B. Trainor,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Meeker & Gasldll*and *Messrs. Anderson, Bowman & Anderson,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
204.7300 Scope. ( a ) This subpart applies to contracts and subcontracts requiring contractors and subcontractors to safeguard covered defense information that resides in or transits through covered contractor information systems by applying specified network security requirements. It also requires reporting of cyber incidents.
( b ) This subpart does not abrogate any other requirements regarding contractor physical, personnel, information, technical, or general administrative security operations governing the protection of unclassified information, nor does it affect requirements of the National Industrial Security Program.
[80 FR 51742, Aug. 26, 2015, as amended at 81 FR 72998, Oct. 21, 2016]
Exhibit
      32(a)








**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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
      on Form 10-Q of Progress Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending June
      30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Robert B. McGehee, 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:




(1)           the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 condition and result of operations of the Company.











/s/
      Robert B. McGehee


Robert
      B.
      McGehee


Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer


August
      8,
      2007








This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
225.7002-1 Restrictions. ( a ) The following restrictions implement 10 U.S.C. 4862 (the “Berry Amendment”). Except as provided in 225.7002-2, do not acquire— ( 1 ) Any of the following items, either as end products or components, unless the items have been grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States: ( i ) Food.
( ii ) Clothing and the materials and components thereof, other than sensors, electronics, or other items added to, and not normally associated with, clothing and the materials and components thereof. Clothing includes items such as outerwear, headwear, underwear, nightwear, footwear, hosiery, handwear, belts, badges, and insignia. For additional guidance and examples, see PGI 225.7002-1(a)(1)(ii).
( iii ) ( A ) Tents and the structural components of tents;
( B ) Tarpaulins; or
( C ) Covers.
( iv ) Cotton and other natural fiber products.
( v ) Woven silk or woven silk blends.
( vi ) Spun silk yarn for cartridge cloth.
( vii ) Synthetic fabric or coated synthetic fabric, including all textile fibers and yarns that are for use in such fabrics.
( viii ) Canvas products.
( ix ) Wool (whether in the form of fiber or yarn or contained in fabrics, materials, or manufactured articles).
( x ) Any item of individual equipment (Product or Service Code (PSC) 8465) manufactured from or containing any of the fibers, yarns, fabrics, or materials listed in this paragraph (a)(1).
( 2 ) Hand or measuring tools, unless the tools were produced in the United States. For additional guidance, see PGI 225.7002-1(a)(2).
( b ) In accordance with section 8123 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76, division C, title VIII), and the same provision in subsequent Defense appropriations acts, except as provided in 225.7002-2, do not acquire a flag of the United States (PSC 8345), unless such flag, including the materials and components thereof, is manufactured in the United States, consistent with the requirements at 10 U.S.C. 4862. This restriction does not apply to the acquisition of any end items or components related to flying or displaying the flag (*e.g.,* flag poles and accessories).
[67 FR 20697, Apr. 26, 2002, as amended at 71 FR 39009, July 11, 2006; 71 FR 58537, Oct. 4, 2006; 72 FR 2638, Jan. 22, 2007; 74 FR 37636, July 29, 2009; 76 FR 52133, Aug. 19, 2011; 77 FR 38736, June 29, 2012; 78 FR 13546, Feb. 28, 2013; 80 FR 51749, Aug. 26, 2015; 87 FR 76993, Dec. 16, 2022]
#### 225.7010 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of Leonard J. Hill, Petitioner, v. William S. Hults, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, Respondent.

Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. (Review of determination of Commissioner of Motor Vehicles suspending petitioner’s driver’s license for 60 days, transferred by Erie Special Term.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and McClusky, JJ.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 3, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D 2 4

- 0 3 39 Lower Tribunal No. 2 2

- 13233

________________ Andrew Byers, etc. , et al., Petitioner s ,
vs. Digital Radiology, Inc., etc. , et al

. ,

Respondent s

.
A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County , Vivianne del Rio , Judge. KSW Legal, P.A., and Kraig S. Weiss ( Coral Springs ) , for petitioner s

. Sutton Pomares Law Group, P.A., and John R. Sutton , for respondent s

.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES , JJ. PER CURIAM

.2

Petitioners 1 seek certiorari review of a February 13, 2024 discovery order denying Petitioners’ motion for a protective order and compelling Petitioners to provide discovery to Respondent Douglas Hornsby that is relevant to Respondents’ 2 underlying claim for an accou nting of Plantation Open MRI, LLC (“Plantation”). See Picerne Dev. Corp. of Fla. v. Tasca &
Rotelli , 635 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“A writ of certiorari is the proper remedy for a premature discovery order in a suit for an accounting.”).
Petitio ners claim the discovery order is premature because the trial court has not yet adjudicated Petitioners’ August 8, 2023 motion to dismiss the operative amended complaint, wherein Petitioners challenge Hornsby’s
st anding to seek an accounting. “It is well e stablished that discovery as to an accounting must be deferred until the preliminary issue of the right to an accounting is settled.” Arthur Finnieston, Inc. v. Pratt , 673 So. 2d 560 , 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (quoting Drs. Weiland, Keiser, Jones, Shufflebarg er, Co o per , P.A. v. Tindall , 372 So. 2d 505, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)) ; see also G.H. Crawford Co. Fin.

1 Andrew Byers, individually, and/or M ember M anager of Plantation Open MRI, LLC, and/or Andrew Byers Enterprises, LLC Member and/or POM Open MRI Radiology, LLC.

2 Digital Radiology Inc. as a Minority Member of Plantation Open MRI , LLC and Douglas Hornsby.3

Servs

. v. Goch , 292 So. 2d 54, 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (same). We decline Respondents’ invitation to effectively adjudicate Petitioners’ pending August 8, 2 023 dismissal motion in the first instance and, consistent with Picerne Development Corp. of Florida , we grant the petition and quash the challenged discovery order. Petition granted; order quashed.