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

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                           ---------------------------
                                DECEMBER 31, 2004
                                -----------------

                                                         State or Country
                      Name                               of Incorporation
-------------------------------------------------     ----------------------


United States
-------------
     A H Investments LTD.                                   Delaware
     AC Acquisition Holding Company                         Delaware
     Ayerst-Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Incorporated              Delaware
     CICL Corporation                                       Delaware
     Genetics Institute, LLC                                Delaware
     Route 24 Holdings, Inc.                                Delaware
     Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.                            Delaware
     Wyeth Holdings Corporation                             Maine
     Wyeth-Ayerst International Inc.                        New York
     Wyeth-Ayerst Lederle, Inc.                             Puerto Rico
     Wyeth-Whitehall Pharmaceuticals, Inc.                  Puerto Rico
     Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Company, Inc.                    Puerto Rico
     Berdan Insurance Company                               Vermont

International
-------------
     Wyeth Australia Pty. Limited                           Australia
     Laboratorios Wyeth-Whitehall Ltda.                     Brazil
     Wyeth Canada (1)                                       Canada
     Wyeth Consumer Healthcare Inc.                         Canada
     John Wyeth & Brother Limited                           England
     Wyeth Pharmaceuticals France                           France
     Wyeth-Pharma GmbH                                      Germany
     Wyeth Hellas S.A.                                      Greece
     AHP Finance Ireland Limited                            Ireland
     Wyeth Lederle S.p.A.                                   Italy
     Wyeth KK                                               Japan
     Wyeth S.A. de C.V.                                     Mexico
     AHP Manufacturing B.V.                                 Netherlands
     Wyeth Philippines, Inc.                                Philippines
     Wyeth Nutritionals (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.               Singapore
     Wyeth Farma S.A.                                       Spain
     Wyeth Lederle Nordiska A.B.                            Sweden
     Dimminaco AG                                           Switzerland
     Wyeth Taiwan Corporation                               Taiwan

(1)  Wyeth Canada is a partnership between two affiliates of the Company.

There have been omitted from the above list the names of the subsidiaries
which, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not
constitute a significant subsidiary.
----

----

**EXHIBIT      32.3**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

| (1)    | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period                ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the                requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                Act of                1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| (2)    | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company.                                                                                                                                                   |

| Date:  November 2,                2007 | /s/  Gregory                E. Abel |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                  | Gregory                E. Abel                |   |
|                                                  | President                                     |   |
|                                                  | (chief                executive officer)      |   |

----

----
S· DEPARTMENT OF THE Sub}ect Nwnbar; 

DIRECTIVES SYSTEM 

Enforcement Poli~y 

,, 

1. purpose. 

This directive modifies inspection and enforcement policy 

under Federal programs or Federal land programs to 

eliminate issuance of notices of violation (NOV) where no 

useful enforcement purpose is served. 

2. Definitions. 

"Appropriate enforcement action" means any action required 

by the Act and regulations Which will result in the timely 

abatement of all violations. This means all violations 

must be properly cited and the remedial action must be 

sufficient to result in complete abatement within a 

reasonable period of time. 

3. PolicY/Procedures. 

The following policy changes revise existing Office of 

Surface Mining enforcement policies with respect to any 

violation which does not constitute a significant, imminent 

environmental harm or public danger: 

If a violation is completely abated during an inspection, 

an NOV should not be issued unless failure to issue an NOV 

would render the applicable regulation unenforceable. For 

example, turning off a pump to cease a discharge which 

obviously exceeds the effluent limits immediately abates 

the violation, but often there is no practical and/or 

effective remedial action which may be ordered to remedy 

the effects of the discharge. similarly, there is often no 
3 • 

'· 

effective remedial action for improper blasting or topsoil 

contamination although an operator may cease the practice 

during the inspection. There would be no incentive for an 

operator to comply with regulations if he knew that he 

could avoid receiving an NOV simply by ceasing the 

violation during the time the inspector was on the site, 

Where, however, there is remedial action that can be taken 

and the operator takes it during the inspection, issuing an 

NOV serves no useful purpose. For example, there is no 

point in issuing an NOV where the operator has one or two 

perimeter markers missing when the inspector arrived but 

posted them before the inspector left. 

Existing policy is not changed as it relates to significant 

imminent harm to the public and/or the environment, 

The inspector must document his 

report. 

5, References. 

(a) Public Law 95-87, section 521(a)(2) and (3). 

(b) 30 CFR Part 843. 

6. Replaces Temporary Directive, 

Enforcement Policy,• INE-13 

7. Effective Date. Upon issuance. 

8.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






The undersigned, Daniel Hollis, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Dutch Gold Resources, Inc., 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 quarter report on Form 10-Q of Dutch Gold Resources, Inc. 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 Dutch Gold Resources, Inc.




Dated: March 16, 2010




DUTCH GOLD RESOURCES, INC.By:
/s/Daniel W. HollisDaniel W. Hollis, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer (principal executive and accounting officer)




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Dutch Gold Resources, Inc. and will be retained by Dutch Gold Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6075

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. DENNIS WILLIAM BROWN,
Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:17

- cr - 00297

- RJC

- DCK

- 1 )

Submitted : July 25, 2023 Decided: July 28, 2023

Before WYNN and HEYTENS , Circu it Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Dennis William Brown , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6075 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Dennis William Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Having reviewed the record, we conclud e that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Brown failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review) . Accordingly, we affir m the district court’s order. We also deny all of Brown’s pending motions. 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 proces s. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6075 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Jordan Williams, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

The testimony of the chief witness for the State, as it appears in the rec? ord, leaving the question wholly uncertain whether the blinds to the windows of the house charged to have been broken into, were closed so as to show that there was such a breaking as is necessary to constitute burglary, when taken in connection with the apparent uncertainty of the witness as to the identity of the accused, makes this a proper case, in the opinion of this court, for a new trial.

Criminal law. New trial. Before Judge Gibson. Richmond Superior Court. October Term, 1873.

This case turns exclusively upon the testimony. To make any report beyond what is contained in the above head-note would illustrate' no principal of law.

S. F. Webb, for plaintiff in error.

Davenport Jackson, solicitor general, by Jackson *&*Clarke, for the state.

Trippe, Judge.

The-record in this case may not possibly set out with exact correctness the testimony of the chief witness for the prosecution. Certain it is that, as it appears in the record, it is wholly uncertain whether the blinds to the windows of the house charged to have been broken into were closed, so as to *581show that there was such a breaking as is necessary to constitute burglary. There is no difficulty, nor was there any disagreement on the argument of the case, as to what the law is upon this point. The testimony, as it is in the record, on this fact, when taken in connection with the apparent uncertainty of the same witness as to the identity of the defendant, makes this a proper case, in the opinion of this court, for another investigation.

New trial granted.
EXHIBIT 13.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002









In connection with the annual report of Oncolytics Biotech Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “Report”), I, Brad Thompson, 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:





(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











/s/ Brad Thompson


_________________________________


Brad Thompson, PhD


Chief Executive Officer


Principal Executive Officer


March 24, 2011








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Oncolytics Biotech Inc. and will be retained by Oncloytics Biotech Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited  financial  statements of Quality  Stores,  Inc. at and for the period
ended April 29, 2000 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-29-2000
<CASH>                                         4,915
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,918
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,343
<INVENTORY>                                    456,981
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               485,831
<PP&E>                                         141,027
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (11,276)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 919,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          254,284
<BONDS>                                        439,105
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     219,616
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   919,739
<SALES>                                        274,256
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               274,256
<CGS>                                          196,178
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  196,178
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               74,561
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               177
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             10,722
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,382)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,371)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,011)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,011)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1074 

AN ACT 

To repeal the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to confer jurisdiction 

on the State of Iowa over offenses committed by or 

against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1074 EH

1 That the Act of June 30, 1948, entitled ‘‘An Act to confer 

2 jurisdiction on the State of Iowa over offenses committed 

3 by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reserva4 tion’’ (62 Stat. 1161, chapter 759) is repealed. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 1, 

2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1074 

AN ACT 

To repeal the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to confer jurisIndian Reservation’’. mitted by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox diction on the State of Iowa over offenses com-
#### Bunn, Appellant, vs. Bucknam, Respondent.

*February 15*—

March *15, 1938.*

*220The cause was submitted for the appellant on the case and brief of *Strehlow & Cranston*of Green Bay.

No brief or appearance for the respondent.

Rosenberry, C. J.

This case is ruled by *Felix v. Soderberg*(1932), 207 Wis. 76, 240 N. W. 836. The defendant was negligent in that he did, as the court found, violate the provisions of the statute regarding the parking of cars. That the defendant’s negligence contributed to the damage to plaintiff’s car seems to be too plain for argument. The finding of the trial court that Palmer, the driver of plaintiff’s car, was negligent because he attempted to pass the defendant’s truck near the crest of the hill is not significant because under the circumstances of this case there was no causal relation between that negligence and the injuries sustained by plaintiff’s car. Conceding, as the court found, that Palmer was negligent because he did not exercise ordinary care in passing the defendant’s truck.parked as it was in violation of the statute, it is considered that such negligence was a contributing, not an intervening, cause. It was the usual case of two causal factors operating to produce a single injury. Judgment should have gone for the plaintiff.

*By the Court.*— Judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to the trial court to enter judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of two hundred dollars, the amount of plaintiff’s damage as found by the court.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30783 Summary Calendar

GLENDA RICE, individually and as administrator for her two minor children; RICE CHILDREN TRUST on behalf of Rena Deslatte; RICE ELECTRONICS INC.,; RICE ELECTRONICS OF TEXAS, INC.; DAVID P. RICE, individually and as administrator for his two minor children, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus JODY M. FELTERMAN, ET AL., Defendants, DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 95-CV-1248 and 95-CV-1190

- - - - - - - - - - May 28, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHE’ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * David and Glenda Rice, individually and as administrators for their two minor children; Rice Children Trust, through its trustee, Rena Deslatte; Rice Electronics, Inc.; and RiceNo. 96-30783 - 2 - Electronics of Texas, Inc. (collectively the Rices) appeal the memorandum ruling of the district court denying their motion appealing the magistrate judge’s discovery order. The discovery order is not appealable as a final judgment, has not been deemed final under any jurisprudential exceptions, and has not been certified for appeal by the district court. See Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc. , 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988). Because we are without jurisdiction, the appeal is DISMISSED. See Texaco, Inc. v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co. , 995 F.2d 43, 43 (5th Cir. 1993).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
### 04-14-2011 03:19pm 

### De-LA IRIZARRY AND ASSO +7872763846

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON D.C 

### T-Z97 P.001/003 F-169

Application 01 DOCKET:**OST~97-3077** - 

### Servicios Aer?Os ProfesfOnale$ S.A For 

### a foreign air carrier oerr'"ut 

### pursuant to Section 402 01 :he Federal Aviat on Act of -!958 as 

### amendect


### REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

Communication 

### with feSDec to this document should 

### be sent 

### to:
Luis A. lrizarr,f Aviation Con3ultant 

### L.A. Irizarry 

## c. Associates, 

### Inc P.O. Box 37: 17 Airport S1atior 

### San Juan, Puerto 

### Rico P R. 00937-0217 

### Tel: (787) 75.2-7621 Fax: 

### (787)**2~** 5·3846
NOTICE: An" 

### person rna" 5UpOOn- or approved this application byfiling an answer

### with the Documentar:: 

### Service Divisior
. .)epartment**of~ransportation,** 

### within 15days and 

### serving a copy ofthe answe' on all persons listed in the 

### service Jist attached to 

### this applicant Date: April 4, 201'-

### 04-14-Z011 03: 19pm 

### De-LA IRIZARRY AND ASSO +7872763846

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES VEPARTMENT 

### OF TRANSPORTA nON WASHINGTON D_C



## ----- .--- 

## -------- T-Z9i p.OOZ/003 F-169

Application cf 

### DOCKET.- OST-97-3077- Servicios Ae-eos Profesionales 

### S.f!- For a foreigr air carrier Dermv pursuantto**~~ect;on** 402 

### of**~he** Federal Avia:ion Act of**~952** as amended 

## ,-----._-- 

# ----_ .. 

### REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND COMES NO'Iii!, SERVICIOS AEREOS PROFESIONALES, S.A_ (SAPSA) thru the undersigned, and formally -equest an extenSIOp. oftime to respond to the request for update information letter. 1. SAIJSA is**obta~n!ng** a\t the available accounting information from its accountant, but due to the tirre of the yearwfllct" 

### we haveto present the taxes to the government SAPSA 

### will need additional time to comolete the information and provided to the Department. 2. Th;::t SAPSA formal/\(**~uest** an extension ofat least30 days to complete the information and answerthe ::::>eoartment in a prooer manner. WHEREFORE, SAPSA resoectfully request the Department

### to grant an extension of at least 30 days. Respectfully submittedthis .Aon;**~**4. 20 1 -:.



### s . L.A. 

### Irizarry & 

### ssoci P.O. Box 37217 / 

### San Juan, P,R. Tel (787) 752-76?1 Fax: (787) 276-3'846

### 04-14-2011 03:19pm 

## De-LA IRIZARRY AND ASSO +7872763846 T-297 P.003/003 F-169

CERTlFICll -E OF SERViCE I hereby cer:ify thatthe foregoing Application for Renewal for Exemption has been mailed by Regular**Ma~1** 

### to all persons ana entities shown on the attached service list in accordance with 

### the Departrr'ent procedures rf':qulations 

### SERVICE 

### LSi Department ofTransportatior 

### Office ofthE Secretary 400 Sevent!-, Street, N.\/'v 

### Washington DC 2059C,