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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                          SCHEIN PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
                            LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

The following is a list of subsidiaries of the Company as of December 25,
1999:

<TABLE>

<CAPTION>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    % OF VOTING
               NAME                               STATE OF          SECURITIES
                                               INCORPORATION           OWNED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                            <C>                  <C>
Schein Pharmaceutical, Inc.                       Delaware
 Danbury Pharmacal, Inc.                          Delaware            100%
  Danbury Pharmal Puerto Rico Inc                 Delaware            100%
 Steris Laboratories, Inc.                        Delaware            100%
 Marsam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.                     Delaware            100%
  MSI, Inc.                                       Delaware            100%
 Schein Pharmaceutical PA, Inc.                   Delaware            100%
 Schein Pharmaceutical Services Co.               Delaware            100%
 Schein Bayer Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.       Delaware             50%
 Ranbaxy Shein Pharma, LLC                        Delaware             50%
 Schein Pharmaceutical International, Inc.        Delaware            100%
  Schein Pharmaceutical Canada, Inc.              Canada               50%
  Schein Pharmaceutical B.V.                      Netherlands         100%
   Triomed Ltd.                                   S.Africa             50%
  Schein Pharmaceutical Ltd.                      Bermuda             100%
  Schein Pharmaceutical UK Holding Ltd.           United Kingdom      100%
   Schein Pharmaceutical UK Ltd.                  United Kingdom      100%
   Schein Pharma Italia Srl.                      Italy               100%
  Schein Farmaceutica de Peru                     Peru                100%
  International Generics Company Ltd.             Taiwan              100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

</TABLE>


                                       78
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Kelly Blue et al., Respondents.

Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), dated November 2, 1990, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motions which were to dismiss count one of Indictment Number QN12848/90 charging the defendants with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient, to the extent of reducing that count, pursuant to CPL 210.20 (1-a), to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, those branches of the defendants’ motions which were to dismiss count one of Indictment Number QN12848/90 are denied, count one of Indictment Number QN12848/90 is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding, the evidence that 50 vials containing cocaine were recovered from the automobile in which the defendants were occupants, was legally sufficient, within the meaning of CPL 70.10 (1) and 190.65 (1), to support count one of the indictment charging the defendants with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree i.e., possession with the intent to sell *(see,*Penal Law § 220.16 [1]; § 220.25 [1]; *People v Timmons,*127 AD2d 806, 807; *see also, People v Hernandez,*71 NY2d 233, 245; *837
      *People v Vailes,*150 AD2d 406, 407; *People v Dawkins,*136 AD2d 726, 726-727). Brown, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### Michael SWEENEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Colorado, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 86SA45.

Supreme Court of Colorado.

Nov. 24, 1986.

ORDER OF COURT

Upon consideration of the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal filed by counsel for Defendant-Appellee and counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant herein, and now being sufficiently advised in the premises,

It Is This Day Ordered that said Motion shall be, and the same hereby is, Granted, and this appeal is Dismissed and the matter Remanded to the trial'court for any further proceedings.
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


I, Robert Gelfand, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Wallace Mountain
      Resources Corp.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
      statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
      make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
      statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
      this quarterly report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
      material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
      flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
      quarterly report;

4.    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
      procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
      registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
      auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
      persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.    I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
      significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
      significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
      recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
27th day of October, 2005.


/s/ Robert Gelfand
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1921 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1921

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on small particle calcium 
                           chloride phosphor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

  Mr. Roberts introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on small particle calcium 
                           chloride phosphor.

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

SECTION 1. SMALL PARTICLE CALCIUM CHLORIDE PHOSPHOR.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.74 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to small particle calcium 
chloride phosphor) is amended by striking the date in the effective 
period column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Robert Mlcoch, Respondent, v Barry Smith et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover on promissory notes, the *444defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated November 22, 1989, which, *inter alia,*granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in lieu of complaint *(see,*CPLR 3213; *Interman Indus. Prods. v R.S.M. Electron Power,*37 NY2d 151). The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing the promissory notes executed by the defendants and by establishing the defendants’ default thereon *(see, Gittleson v Dempster,*148 AD2d 578, 579). It was then "incumbent upon the defendants to demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a genuine triable issue of fact” *(see, Gittleson v Dempster, supra,*at 579; *Crumbliss v Swerdlow,*158 AD2d 502, 503). Significantly, the general rule is that the breach of a related contract cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment on an instrument for money only unless it can be shown that the contract and the instrument are "intertwined” and that the defenses alleged to exist create material issues of triable fact *(see, e.g., Inpar Bldg. Corp. v Veoukas,*143 AD2d 810, 811; *Regal Limousine v Allison Limousine,*136 AD2d 534). The defendants have failed to meet this burden.

After making payment on 28 of the 60 promissory notes in question over a period of almost 2 Vi years, the defendants opposed the plaintiff’s motion by advancing, for the first time, a series of vague contentions that the plaintiff had allegedly breached the underlying contract for which the notes were given. It has been held, however, that " ' "a shadowy semblance of an issue or bald conclusory assertions, even if believable, are not enough” to defeat a motion for summary judgment’ ” *(Morowitz v Naughton,*150 AD2d 536, 537; *see also, Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp.,*34 NY2d 338, 342; *American Sav. Bank v Imperato,*159 AD2d 444; *Assing v United Rubber Supply Co.,*126 AD2d 590; *Kaye v Keret,*89 AD2d 885, 886). Under the circumstances, the defendants’ conclusory and belated allegations of wrongdoing are insufficient to establish the existence of genuine, triable issues of fact.

Finally, while the plaintiff provided notice of the defendants’ default by regular, rather than certified, mail as contemplated by the contract, the defendants responded in writ*445ing by repudiating any obligation to make further payments on the remaining notes, thereby rendering the technical notice issue of which they now complain academic. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
# L_2006026EN.01002901.xml

| 31.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 26/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 26/29

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 143/2006 of 26 January 2006 fixing the export refunds on products processed from cereals and rice

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 23 of 27 January 2006
  )

On page 57, in the Annex, in the table, second part, last line, second column ‘Destination’, concerning product code ‘2106 90 55 9000’:

for:

‘
  C10
  ’,

read:

‘
  C14
  ’.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roberto Ayala, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered September 26, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

During the course of rendering his verdict, the Trial Judge stated that he had expected the defendant to testify as to his affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance and that if the defendant had so testified, then he would have been inclined to render a guilty verdict on the lesser charge of manslaughter rather than on the murder charge.

As a general rule, "absent a showing of prejudice, a Trial Judge is presumed to have considered only competent evidence adduced at the trial in reaching the verdict” *(People v Robinson,*143 AD2d 376, 377). However, it is also "axiomatic that no allusion may be made to the fact that the defendant has failed to avail himself of his right to testify in his own behalf’ *(People v Cora,*47 AD2d 739). The Court of Appeals has previously indicated that any statement by a Trial Judge which tends to deprive the defendant of the full protection of his right not to have unfavorable inferences drawn from his failure to testify in his own behalf is reversible error *(see, People v McLucas,*15 NY2d 167, 171; *see also, People v Mercado,*120 AD2d 619). These rules against improperly commenting upon a defendant’s silence apply equally as well in a nonjury setting *(see, People v Stevens,*158 AD2d 283; *People v Jennings,*144 AD2d 696).

Since it is self-evident from the Trial Judge’s comment that the defendant’s exercise of his constitutional right to remain silent was a major factor in his decision, it cannot be said that the error herein was harmless *(see, Hawkins v LeFevre,*758 F2d 866; *see also, Anderson v Smith,*751 F2d 96; *People v Jennings, supra).*Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Balletta, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

LEGACY BANCORP, INC.

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Legacy Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) certifies that the quarterly report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company



|                    |  |                                                                                              
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 28, 2006 |  | /s/ J. Williar Dunlaevy J. Williar
Dunlaevy Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
|                    | 
|                    |  | /s/ Stephen M. Conley                                                                        
|                    |  | Stephen M. Conley                                                                            
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer                                 



7
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5658]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2011-0286]


Guidance for Decommissioning Planning During Operations

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Draft regulatory guide; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a 
notice appearing in the Federal Register on February 15, 2012 (77 FR 
8751), that re-opened the public comment period for Draft Regulatory 
Guide (DG)-4014, ``Decommissioning Planning During Operations.'' This 
action is necessary to correct the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access 
and Management System (ADAMS) accession number for accessing DG-4014 in 
the ADDRESSES section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-492-
3667; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ce8da7a0aab7e08ca2afaaabb78ea0bcade0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e8ab81868c91c6aa84898c8d91a8869a8bc68f879e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 8751 of Federal Register document 
2012-3522, published February 15, 2012 (77 FR 8751), in the second 
column, the second bullet from the bottom, last sentence, under the 
section titled ADDRESSES, ``ML110960051'' is corrected to read 
``ML111590642.''

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of February 2012.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of 
Administrative Services, Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-5658 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# L_2006168EN.01000401.xml

| 21.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 168/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 168/4

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 906/2006

of 20 June 2006

amending Regulation (EC) No 836/2006 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the Community market of common wheat held by the German intervention agency

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 836/2006 (2) opens a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the Community market of common wheat held by the German intervention agency. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 836/2006 (2) opens a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the Community market of common wheat held by the German intervention agency.

| (2) | In view of market requirements and the quantities held by the German intervention agency, Germany has informed the Commission that its intervention agency intends to increase the amount put out to tender by 50 000 tonnes. In view of the market situation, the request made by Germany should be granted. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In view of market requirements and the quantities held by the German intervention agency, Germany has informed the Commission that its intervention agency intends to increase the amount put out to tender by 50 000 tonnes. In view of the market situation, the request made by Germany should be granted.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 836/2006 should be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 836/2006 should be amended accordingly.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 836/2006 is amended as follows:

| 1. | in Article 1, ‘100 000 tonnes’ is replaced by ‘150 000 tonnes’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

in Article 1, ‘100 000 tonnes’ is replaced by ‘150 000 tonnes’;

| 2. | in the title of the Annex, ‘100 000 tonnes’ is replaced by ‘150 000 tonnes’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

in the title of the Annex, ‘100 000 tonnes’ is replaced by ‘150 000 tonnes’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 June 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 152, 7.6.2006, p. 6.

2

---
# L_2011345DE.01003502.xml

| 29.12.2011 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 345/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2011

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 345/35

---

Berichtigung der Entscheidung Nr. 2006/861/EG der Kommission vom 28. Juli 2006 über die technische Spezifikation für die Interoperabilität (TSI) zum Teilsystem „Fahrzeuge — Güterwagen“ des konventionellen transeuropäischen Bahnsystems

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 344 vom 8. Dezember 2006
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 344 vom 8. Dezember 2006

Auf Seite 199, Punkt C6.1.1 Nummer 1 Buchstabe b:

anstatt:

„... mindestens 1 050 mm über SO liegen, ...“

muss es heißen:

„... tiefer als 1 050 mm über SO liegen, ...“.

---