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

                        JEFFERSON-PILOT CORPORATION


Subsidiary listing as of January 6, 1999

Jefferson-Pilot Corporation (North Carolina corp.)

     Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance Company of America (Michigan corp.)

          First Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance Company (New York corp.)

     Jefferson Pilot Financial Insurance Company (New Hampshire corp.)

          Jefferson Pilot LifeAmerica Insurance Company (New Jersey corp.)

     HARCO Capital Corp. (Delaware corp.)
 
          Omega Jefferson Pilot Seguros de Vida S.A. (Argentina corp.)(2)
 
             Jefferson Pilot Omega Seguros de Vida S.A. (Uruguay corp.)

     Hampshire Funding Inc. (New Hampshire corp.)

     Jefferson-Pilot Capital Trust A (Delaware business trust)

     Jefferson-Pilot Capital Trust B (Delaware business trust)

     Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company (North Carolina corp.)

          Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of California (North
          Carolina corp.)

          Jefferson-Pilot Communications Company of Virginia (Virginia corp.)

          Jefferson-Pilot Sports, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)

          WCSC, Inc. (South Carolina corp.)
     
               Tall Tower, Inc. (South Carolina corp.)

     Jefferson Pilot Investment Advisory Corporation (Tennessee corp.)

     Jefferson-Pilot Investments, Inc. (North Carolina corp.)

     Jefferson Pilot Variable Corporation (North Carolina corp.)

     Jefferson-Pilot Life Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)
  
          Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)

     Jefferson-Pilot Property Insurance Company (North Carolina corp.)

     Jefferson Pilot Securities Corporation (New Hampshire corp.)

___________

Notes:  

(1) Each indentation reflects another tier of ownership.  
(2) The immediate parent owns 100% of the voting securities of each
    entity except that HARCO owns 99% of Omega.
(3) All entities more than 50% owned are listed, except that several
    subsidiaries that in the aggregate are insignificant have been omitted.
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 amended Quarterly Report of Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Registrant”)
on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
I, Nasrat Hakim, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)      Information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.



|Date: November 10, 2015 | /s/ Nasrat Hakim               | 
|----------------------- | ------------------------------ | 
|                        | Nasrat Hakim                   | 
|                        | Chief Executive Officer        | 
|                        | of Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 
|                        | (Principal Executive Officer)  | 



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of any defendant, then

plaintiff must serve documents on that attorney and not on the defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5(b).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID EARL WALKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1671 GEB KJM P

vs.

CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT

K. CLEMENT, et al.,

Defendants. DISCOVERY ORDER

 /

Defendants: Clement, Davidge, Simmerson, Stevens and Trulinger have

answered the complaint. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1, 16, and 26-36,

discovery shall proceed as follows:

1. Discovery requests shall be served by the party seeking the discovery on all

parties to the action.1 Discovery requests shall not be filed with the court except when required

by Local Rules 30-250(a), 33-250(c), 34-250(c) and 36-250(c).

2. Responses to written discovery requests shall be due forty-five days after the

Case 2:04-cv-01671-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 08/31/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

request is served;

3. The parties are cautioned that filing of discovery requests or responses, except

as required by rule of court, may result in an order of sanctions, including, but not limited to, a

recommendation that the action be dismissed or the answer stricken;

4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a), defendants may depose

plaintiff and any other witness confined in a prison upon condition that, at least fourteen days

before such a deposition, defendants serve all parties with the notice required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

30(b)(1); and

5. If disputes arise about the parties’ obligations to respond to requests for

discovery, the parties shall comply with all pertinent rules including Rules 5, 7, 11, 26, and 37 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules 5-134, 5-135, 6-136, 7-130, 7-131, 7-132, 11-

110, 43-140, and 78-230(m) of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court,

Eastern District of California; unless otherwise ordered, Local Rule 37-251 shall not apply. 

Filing of a discovery motion that does not comply with all applicable rules may result in

imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to denial of the motion.

DATED: August 30, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/bb

walk1671.440 

Case 2:04-cv-01671-GEB -KJM Document 16 Filed 08/31/05 Page 2 of 2
Before Judge Watson,

April 4, 1968

No. R68/22.

reappraisements R66/7018, etc. (New York).

#### Mantell Export Co. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and merchandise involved herein are the same in all material respects as those in *Mantell Export Company*v. *United States*(58 Cust. Ct. 662, R.D. 11290), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by *1064the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, was the proper basis for the determination of the value of the unlacquered second-quality wooden coat hangers and that such value was $101 per thousand, less the pro rata share of the items of ocean freight and marine insurance premium as invoiced.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

Wehave issued our report dated August 30, 2006, accompanying the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedules incorporated by reference in the AnnualReport of KOSS CORPORATION on Form 10-K for the years ended June 30, 2006, 2005and 2004.  We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement ofKOSS CORPORATION on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-89872, 33-60804,333-37986 and 333-20405).

GRANT THORNTON LLPMilwaukee, WisconsinSeptember 6, 2006

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING

AGENCY,

NO. CIV. S-04-1614 WBS/KJM

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

BRYAN DEVORE, DEVORE 

CONSTRUCTION INC., DEVORE

EXCAVATION & SNOW REMOVAL,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On May 31, 2005, the court heard oral argument

regarding defendant Bryan Devore’s request that the court

continue plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for 90 days to

allow him to obtain counsel. 

Jordan Kahn appeared on behalf of plaintiff Tahoe

Regional Planning Agency. Bryan Devore appeared on his own

behalf. After hearing argument from both parties, the court

determined that Mr. Devore could reasonably be expected to obtain

counsel within 30 days and that continuing plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment for 30 days would not significantly prejudice

Case 2:04-cv-01614-WBS -KJM Document 23 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

plaintiff. Therefore, the court continued the hearing on

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to June 27, 2005 at 1:30

p.m. 

 At that time, the parties will appear before this

court, and Mr. Devore will report on whether he has obtained

counsel for this matter. If Mr. Devore establishes that he has

obtained counsel, the court will reschedule the hearing on

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. However, if Mr. Devore

has failed to obtain counsel, the court will take plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment under submission. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 1, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-01614-WBS -KJM Document 23 Filed 06/01/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD BARRON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1197 GEB GGH P

vs.

DR. USHA PAI, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General

Order No. 262.

On June 30, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Case 2:04-cv-01197-GEB-GGH Document 40 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 30,

2005, are adopted in full; and 

2. Defendants Leramo and Pendleton are dismissed

without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Dated: August 22, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01197-GEB-GGH Document 40 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 66834.

#### Hosoda Bros. and Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni et al. *v.*United States,

protests 257500-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vegetables similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Mutual Supply Co.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 75, C.D. 2155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**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**

| (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                Partnership. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Matthew A. Jones                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Matthew                A. Jones                                        |
| Title: | Chief                Financial Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| Date:  | November                9, 2007                                        |
(Reap. Dec. 11012)

#### Elof Hansson, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 8559-H.

(Decided June 15, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan,*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, etseq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon, tbe agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to he as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
**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 Quarterly Report of m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Mordechai Broudo,
      Chairman of the Board and Secretary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to my knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Report fully comply 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.





/s/
                Mordechai BroudoMordechai
                Broudo, ChairmanDated:
                August 14, 2008
**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 Yearly Report of Advantage Capital Development Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey Sternberg, Chief Executive Officer and 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; and                               |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                |
| 2.     | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| By:    | */s/*   *Jeffrey Sternberg*

Jeffrey SternbergChief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

__________________________________________

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

:

: CRIMINAL NO. 05-582

v. : CIVIL NO. 09-675

:

CHRISTOPHER DENMARK :

__________________________________________:

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of August 2009, upon consideration of Petitioner,

Christopher Denmark’s, Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Doc. No. 80), and the

Response in opposition thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and an

Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 87) is DENIED.

There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

ROBERT F. KELLY

SENIOR JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cr-00582-RK Document 91 Filed 08/06/09 Page 1 of 1
No. 60044.

#### Teigh, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 215672-K and 254527-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pine or cedar cones similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59051, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Curative Health Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
Axmacher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to 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 the Company.


                                                /s/ Thomas Axmacher
                                                --------------------------------
                                                    Thomas Axmacher
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                                    May 10, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4509 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4509

  To authorize the appropriation of amounts for the construction of a 
  consolidated rigging facility for the special operations forces at 
                     Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 2024

  Mr. Ossoff introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the appropriation of amounts for the construction of a 
  consolidated rigging facility for the special operations forces at 
                     Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hunter Army Airfield Support Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF AMOUNTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CONSOLIDATED 
              RIGGING FACILITY FOR THE SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES AT 
              HUNTER ARMY AIRFIELD, GEORGIA.

    There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Defense 
for fiscal year 2025 $47,000,000 for the construction of a consolidated 
rigging facility for the special operations forces at Hunter Army 
Airfield, Georgia.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Getty Realty Corp. (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (subject to the Company's position prevailing in regard to
the remaining unresolved SEC comment, as more fully described in the Report);
and

     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: May 10, 2006


BY: /s/ Leo Liebowitz
    ---------------------------------
    (Signature)
    LEO LIEBOWITZ
    Chairman and Chief Executive
    Officer

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

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is 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.