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

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

| Name of Subsidiary:             |   | ICOS Systems GmbH                    |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| Jurisdiction of Organization:   |   | Germany                              |
| Name Under Which Doing Business |   | ICOS Systems Computer Vertriebs GmbH |
|                            |   |                                 |
| Name of Subsidiary:             |   | IKOS Systems, Ltd.                   |
| Jurisdiction of Organization:   |   | United Kingdom                       |
| Name Under Which Doing Business |   | IKOS Systems, Limited                |
|                            |   |                                 |
| Name of Subsidiary:             |   | IKOS Systems K.K.                    |
| Jurisdiction of Organization:   |   | Takatsu-ku, Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa   |
| Name Under Which Doing Business |   | IKOS Systems Kabushiki Kaisha        |
|                            |   |                                 |
| Name of Subsidiary:             |   | IKOS (India) Pvt. Ltd.               |
| Jurisdiction of Organization:   |   | India                                |
| Name Under Which Doing Business |   | IKOS (India) Pvt. Ltd.               |
# C_2022165EN.01002401.xml

| 19.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/24

---

Appeal brought on 24 May 2021 by Roberto Alejandro Macías Chávez, José María Castillejo Oriol and Fernando Presencia against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2021 in Case T-719/20 Macías Chávez and Others v Spain and Parliament

(Case C-322/21 P)

(2022/C 165/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Roberto Alejandro Macías Chávez, José María Castillejo Oriol and Fernando Presencia (represented by: J. Jover Padró, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament and Kingdom of Spain

By order of 1 February 2022, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded, and ordered appellants to bear their own costs.

---
# C_2023007EN.01002801.xml

| 9.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Wellstat Therapeutics (WELLMONDE)

(Case T-601/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark WELLMONDE - Earlier national word mark WELL AND WELL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 7/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M.P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: N. Lamsters and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wellstat Therapeutics Corp. (Rockville, Maryland, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2021 (Case R 1776/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pharmadom to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pharmadom to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

---
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 79 

Supporting the goals and ideals of International Water Safety Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2013 

Mr. FATTAH (for himself and Mr. COBLE) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of International Water 

Safety Day. 

Whereas International Water Safety Day is celebrated to 

bring awareness to the ongoing drowning epidemic and 

educate people in becoming safer in and around the 

water; 

Whereas fatal unintentional drowning is the second leading 

cause of death for children 1 to 14 years of age; 

Whereas fatal unintentional drowning is the sixth leading 

cause of death for people of all ages; 

Whereas an estimated 388,000 people died from drowning, 

making drowning a major public health problem worldwide and accounting for nearly 10 percent of total global 

mortality; 

Whereas drowning deaths are an epidemic; 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 79 IH 

Whereas drowning is the third leading cause of unintentional 

injury death, accounting for 7 percent of all injury-related deaths; 

Whereas water safety education and water safety awareness 

can help curve the number of drowning fatalities; 

Whereas research shows that formal swimming lessons can 

reduce the risk of drowning by 88 percent among children aged 1 to 4 years old; 

Whereas courses such as CPR have shown to improve outcomes for drowning victims since interventions occur 

more quickly; 

Whereas water safety is a life skill that can be taught; and 

Whereas water safety education should be included in primary and secondary school education: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of Inter3 national Water Safety Day; 

4 (2) acknowledges that water safety education 

5 should be included in primary and secondary school 

6 education; 

7 (3) acknowledges the importance of water safe8 ty and that every person should engage in water 

9 safety education; and 

10 (4) acknowledges that every person should learn 

11 to swim. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,770
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                       654
<INVENTORY>                                     53,875
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         384,473
<DEPRECIATION>                                  69,843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 403,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        156,946
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   403,932
<SALES>                                        163,127
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               207,701
<CGS>                                          107,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,493
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             44,493
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    44,493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28
        

</TABLE>
#### Fay FOX v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and James C. Lewis.

No. 53423.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: Fay Fox applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans, 273 So. 2d 743.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue ; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 Evergreen Solar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
G. Chleboski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Richard G. Chleboski
--------------------------------------------
Richard G. Chleboski
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           25054
<SECURITIES>                                       187
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1486
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        125
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 28605
<PP&E>                                            4326
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2195)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   35071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            10973
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            67
<OTHER-SE>                                       23868
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     35071
<SALES>                                          23247
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 23247
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    13041
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   766
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  10973
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3939
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               7033
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7033
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### WHYTE *v.*STATE

[No. 10,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided October 16, 1962.*

The cause was submitted to the full Court.

Submitted on brief by *Albert A. Levin*for the appellant.

Submitted on brief by *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Robert F. Sweeney, Assistant Attorney General, Saul A. Harris, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City,*and *Dene L. Lusby, Assistant State’s Attorney,*for the appellee.

Per Curiam.

Ignatius N. Whyte was convicted by a jury of the possession and control of narcotics. On appeal he claims insufficiency of the evidence and entrapment by the police. Both contentions are without merit.

A member of the narcotics squad, having searched a “special employee” (known as “Dukey”) and finding no money or narcotics in his possession, gave him money with which to *460make a purchase. The officer, in plain clothes, while following the special employee and defendant, saw the employee give the defendant money and saw the defendant walk into a school yard, leaving the employee in the street. After the lapse of about a minute, the defendant returned and gave “something” to the employee, who, in turn, gave a package, containing two capsules of heroin, to the officer. The officer again searched the employee and found neither narcotics nor money. The defendant was arrested approximately sixty days later in a series of arrests along with other suspected offenders. The State introduced the testimony of the “undercover” officer and the captain of the narcotics squad, but'the special employee was not called to testify. The motions of the defendant for a judgment of acquittal on the possession and control counts in the indictment were overruled.

It was not essential to the prosecution that it call the special employee as a state witness. And since there was legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be set aside. *Wright v. State,*222 Md. 242.

The complaint with respect to entrapment was groundless. The issue was submitted to the jury on proper instructions and it found against the defendant. *Baxter v. State,*223 Md. 495, *cert. den.*366 U. S. 968. See also *Ferraro v. State,*200 Md. 274.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 32.1
Section  1350 Certifications

STATEMENT
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO  SECTION  906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned is the President of Newsearch, Inc. This Certification is made
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification
accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Newsearch, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2006.

The
undersigned certifies that such 10-KSB Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Newsearch, Inc. as of December 31, 2006.

This
Certification is executed as of May 3, 2007.

| | /s/   Travis K. Robinson Travis K. RobinsonPresident (Principal Executive Officer)
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to us and will be retained by Newsearch, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1
                                EXHIBIT (23)-1-

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

To the partners of Unimar Company

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(Post-effective amendment No. 2 on Form S-3 to Form S-14 (No. 2-93037)) of
Unimar Company of our report dated March 6, 1998, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Unimar Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and
1996 and the related consolidated statements of earnings, cash flows and
changes in partners' capital for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual
report on Form 10-K of Unimar Company.


                                                   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP





Houston, Texas
March 20, 1998
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Perry Law, President, Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief Financial Officer of Smart-Tek Solutions Inc. (the Company),
  hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
      March 31, 2008 (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: May 20, 2008

/s/ Perry Law 
  Perry Law
  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
  (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial 
  Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 759 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 759

 Recognizing Survivors Victory Day to celebrate and honor the victims 
                        and survivors of trauma.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 19, 2014

 Mr. Carter submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing Survivors Victory Day to celebrate and honor the victims 
                        and survivors of trauma.

Whereas, on November 19, 2002, Jessica Huber from Leander, Texas, was nearly 
        killed after her mother, while under the influence of prescription pain 
        killers, narcotics, and marijuana, ran a red light and crashed;
Whereas Jessica, as a result of her injuries, underwent multiple blood 
        transfusions and surgeries;
Whereas, despite the extraordinary odds against her survival, Jessica is living 
        a happy, healthy, and productive life;
Whereas Jessica's story is a poignant reminder of the thousands who have been 
        victims and survivors of trauma;
Whereas stories of survivors of trauma remind us all of the indomitable nature 
        of the human spirit and our basic desire to persevere in the face of 
        adversity; and
Whereas, in honor of Jessica Huber, November 19 is recognized as Survivors 
        Victory Day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes Survivors 
Victory Day to celebrate and honor the victims and survivors of trauma.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Material Sciences Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended February 28, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Clifford D. Nastas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 result of operations of the Company.

Dated:
April 29, 2011



By:

/s/    CLIFFORD D. NASTASClifford D. NastasChief Executive Officer


In connection with the Report,
I, James D. Pawlak, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Controller and Corporate Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 result of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 29, 2011



By:

/s/    JAMES D.
PAWLAKJames D. PawlakVice President, Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Controller and Corporate Secretary




1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7890

RODNEY EUGENE JONES,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

LAWRENCE PARSONS, Administrator, Lanesboro Correctional 

Institution,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cv-00175-RJC)

Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Eugene Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Eugene Jones seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the 

court’s order denying Jones’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the 

notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on May 17, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on November 8, 

2013. Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 

We also deny Jones’ second motion to reopen the appeal as moot. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2021182EN.01004402.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/44

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 4 March 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v GD and WT

(Case C-135/21)

(2021/C 182/59)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendants: GD, WT

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees which is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---