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

                                                                                        Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF EXCELON CORPORATION

The following listing includes our legal subsidiaries existing at December 31, 2001:

NAME                                                           JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
-----                                                          -----------------------------

Object Design Security Corporation                             Massachusetts
Excelon Japan, Ltd.                                            Japan
Excelon U.K. Limited                                           United Kingdom
Object Design S.A.R.L.                                         France
Excelon Deutschland Gmbh                                       Germany
Excelon Australia Pty., Ltd.                                   Australia
Object Design Italia S.R.L.                                    Italy
Excelon Nederlands B.V.                                        Netherlands
C-bridge Internet Solutions European Holdings, B.V.            Netherlands
C-bridge International Holdings, Inc.                          Delaware
C-bridge Investments, Inc.                                     Massachusetts
C-bridge (Norway)AS                                            Norway
C-bridge (Sweden)AB                                            Sweden
C-bridge (Denmark)A/S                                          Denmark
C-bridge B.V.                                                  Netherlands
C-bridge Internet Solutions (U.K) Ltd.                         United Kingdom
C-bridge (Australia) Ltd.                                      Australia
C-bridge (Hong Kong) Ltd.                                      Hong Kong
C-bridge Investments, Inc.                                     Massachusetts
C-bridge (Singapore) Ltd.                                      Singapore
```
----

 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 Annual Report UltraGuard Water Systems Corp.. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth Fielding, thePresident and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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.

 Date: January 24, 2005

/s/ Ken Fielding                                   Ken Fielding   President and Chief Executive Officer 

----
# C_2005143EN.01000502.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 17 March 2005

in Case C-294/02: Commission of the European Communities v AMI Semiconductor Belgium BVBA and Others (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Designation of the Court of First Instance - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice - Parties in liquidation - Capacity to be parties to legal proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Recovery of advances - Reimbursement under a clause of the contract - Joint and several liability - Recovery of sums paid but not due)

(2005/C 143/03)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-294/02, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M G. Wilms, assisted by R. Karpenstein) v AMI Semiconductor Belgium BVBA, formerly Alcatel Microelectronics NV, established in Oudenaarde (Belgium), (Rechtsanwälte: M. Hallweger and R. Lutz), A-Consult EDV-Beratungsgesellschaft mbH (in liquidation), established in Vienna (Austria), (Rechtsanwalt: E. Roehlich), Intracom SA Hellenic Telecommunications & Electronic Industry, established in Athens (Greece), (avocats: M. Lienemeyer, U. Zinsmeister and D. Waelbroeck), ISION Sales + Services GmbH & Co. KG (in liquidation), established in Hamburg (Germany), (Rechtsanwälte: H. Fialski and T. Delhey), Euram-Kamino GmbH, established in Hallbergmoos (Germany), (Rechtsanwälte: M. Hallweger and R. Lutz), HSH Nordbank AG, formerly Landesbank Kiel Girozentrale, established in Kiel (Germany), (Rechtsanwälte: B. Treibmann and E. Meincke), and InterTeam GmbH (in liquidation), established in Itzehoe (Germany), (Rechtsanwälte: M. Hallweger and R. Lutz) — application under Article 238 EC brought on 12 August 2002 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Dismisses the counterclaim by Intracom SA Hellenic Telecommunications & Electronic Industry; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the counterclaim by Intracom SA Hellenic Telecommunications & Electronic Industry;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

1

---
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 794/2006

of 29 May 2006         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 May 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 29 May 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 29 May 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 750/2005 (OJ L 126, 19.5.2005, p. 12). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
Exhibit 21.1
 Subsidiaries of Imation Corp.
 Country or State inWhich Subsidiary
    
    Percentage ofwas Organized
    
    OwnershipImation Enterprises Corp
    
    U.S.
    
    100Imation Electronics Mexico
    
    Mexico
    
    100Imation Latin America Corp
    
    U.S.
    
    100Imation Mexico S.A. de C.V.
    
    Mexico
    
    100Imation do Brasil Ltda
    
    Brazil
    
    100Imation Chile S.A.
    
    Chile
    
    100Imation Latin America Marketing S.A.
    
    Panama
    
    100Imation Mercosur Trading S.A.
    
    Uruguay
    
    100Imation Funding Corp
    
    U.S.
    
    100Memorex Products Inc.
    
    U.S.
    
    100Imation Online Services Corporation
    
    U.S.
    
    100IMN Data Storage LLC
    
    U.S.
    
    100Imation Data Storage Holdings CV
    
    Netherlands
    
    100Imation Europe BV
    
    Netherlands
    
    100TME GmbH
    
    Germany
    
    100Imation Deutschland GmbH
    
    Germany
    
    100Imation France S.A.
    
    France
    
    100Imation Iberia, S.A.
    
    Spain
    
    100Imation U.K. Limited
    
    United Kingdom
    
    100Imation S.r.l.
    
    Italy
    
    100Imation Middle East FZE
    
    United Arab Emirates
    
    100Imation Polska Sp. Z.O.O.
    
    Poland
    
    100Memorex Products Europe Ltd.
    
    United Kingdom
    
    100Memorex Products GmbH
    
    Germany
    
    100Hanny Magnetics Europe Ltd.
    
    United Kingdom
    
    100Imation Holdings Pte Ltd.
    
    Singapore
    
    100Imation Asia Pacific Pte Ltd.
    
    Singapore
    
    100Imation ANZ Pty Ltd.
    
    Australia
    
    100TDK (Australia) Pty Ltd
    
    Australia
    
    100Imation Singapore Pte Ltd.
    
    Singapore
    
    100Imation (Malaysia) SDN BHD
    
    Malaysia
    
    100Imation India Private Ltd.
    
    India
    
    100Imation Corporation Japan
    
    Japan
    
    100Imation Korea, Inc.
    
    South Korea
    
    100Imation Hong Kong Ltd.
    
    Hong Kong
    
    100Imation (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
    
    China
    
    100Imation (Guangzhou) International Co. Ltd.
    
    China
    
    100Imation Information Technology (Beijing) Ltd.
    
    China
    
    100Imation Taiwan Ltd.
    
    Taiwan
    
    100Memorex Products (Taiwan) Inc.
    
    Taiwan
    
    100Imation (Thailand) Ltd.
    
    Thailand
    
    100Imation Argentina S.A.C.I.F.I.A.
    
    Argentina
    
    100Imation Colombia S.A.
    
    Colombia
    
    100Imation Panama S.A.
    
    Panama
    
    100Imation Canada Inc.
    
    Canada
    
    100Imation Ireland Ltd.
    
    Ireland
    
    100Global Data Media FZ-LLC
    
    United Arab Emirates
    
    51*MBI International FZ-LLC
    
    United Arab Emirates
    
    51*MBI International Services Private Ltd.
    
    India
    
    51*MBI India Marketing Private Ltd.
    
    India
    
    51*Glyphics Media, Inc.
    
    U.S.
    
    51*
#### STATE v. WILLIAM KERNS.

*Appeal in criminal cases.*

3. An appeal in a criminal action without bond to secure the costs, will not be-entertained, unless the defendant is allowed to appeal upon his affidavit, of inability to give such bond.

2. Wiiere an appeal without bond or affidavit in such case was allowed “by-consent,” it was held not to be in compliance with law.

*(State*v. *Spurtin,*80 N. C., 362; *Slate*v. *Patrick,*72 N. C., 217, cited and' approved).

INDICTMENT for burning a mill, tried at Fall Term, 1883, of MecklenbuRG Superior Court, before *Gilmer, J.*

The defendant was indicted for the said offence and convicted in the inferior court, and appealed from its judgment to the superior court, where the judgment below.was affirmed, and the-defendant then appealed to this court. • -

*Attorney-General,*for the State.

No counsel for the defendant.

*651Asiie, J.

The record transmitted from the superior court shows that “by consent the defendant was allowed to appeal without bond.” This court will not entertain an appeal in a criminal action without a bond to secure the costs of the appeal, unless the defendant, upon his affidavit of inability to give such bond, has been allowed by the court to appeal *in forma pauperis.*

In the case of *State*v. *Spurtin,*80 N. C., 362, the appeal was dismissed, because no bond to secure the costs accompanied the record, and there was no order of the court allowing the defendant to appeal without the usual security. The same point was ruled in *State*v. *Patrick,*72 N. C., 217.

Neither the judge nor the solicitor has authority to allow a defendant to appeal in a criminal case without complying with the requisites of the law.

The appeal must be dismissed and this opinion certified, to the superior court of Mecklenburg county, that the case may be remanded to the inferior court, to the end that the case may be proceeded with according to law.

Appeal dismissed.
## (%0 J 

# Gardea r CIT Y COMMISSIO N JOH N DOLL , Mayo r RO Y CESSN A DAVI D D . CRAS E DANFANKHAUSE R CHBI S LA W

MATTHE WC . ALLE N Cit y Manage r MEUND AA . HiTZ , CP A Financ e Directo r RANDAL LD . GKISEL L Cit y Counselo r

C n r ADMINISTHATIV B CENTE R 301N . 8 TM P.O . Bo x 99 8 GARDE N Cnr , K S 67846-099 8 620.276.116 0 FAX 620.276.116 9 www.garden-city.or g 

### - • RTMENTO F ^NSPORWiO N B OPERATION S J 5 

### ! h AR

: 0 5 

# ^ocl?--^V^^^-^^ ^

Augus t 5 , 201 1 Denni s J . DeVany , Chie f EA S an dDomesti c Analysi s Divisio n Office o f Aviatio n Analysi s Unite dStat e Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jerse y Ave S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Dear Mr . DeVany , I n respons e t o th e proposal s fo r Essentia l Ai r

Servic e receive db y virtu e o f Orde r 2011-4-4 , th e City o

f Garde n City , Kansa s Cit y Commissio n a t

thei r Jun e 7 , 201 1 meetin g unanimousl y endorse dth e bi do f America n Eagl e fo

r servic e t o Dalla s - For t WorthInternationa l Airport . Thi s proposa l was als o supporte db y th e Garde n City Are aChambe r

o f Commerc e (attached) . If yo u hav e question s o r

woul dUt e t o furthe r

discus s ou r

community s endorsemen t o f thi s propo6al,y{J^ease contac t m e a t (620 ) 276-1160 . Sincer e Mat t tuie n City Manage r Att : Jul y 7 , 201 1 Lette r

fromD . Pati l Joseph , Garde n Cit y Are aChambe r o f Commerc e t o Denni s DeVany .
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1660

GWENDOLYN SINGLETON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ORANGEBURG COUNTY DISABILITIES SPECIAL NEEDS BOARD,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Orangeburg. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (5:19-cv-00347-TLW)

Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gwendolyn Singleton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gwendolyn Singleton appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation to dismiss, without prejudice, Singleton’s employment 

discrimination action.

*

 The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that Singleton’s action 

be dismissed and advised Singleton that failure to file timely and specific objections to the

recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. See Wright v. Collins, 

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Singleton waived appellate review of the district court’s disposition by failing to file 

objections specifically challenging the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Singleton also 

fails to challenge the district court’s disposition in her informal brief, which further 

supports the conclusion that she has waived appellate review of the appealed-from order. 

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 

* Although the district court dismissed the action without prejudice, we have 

jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 615 (4th Cir. 

2020).
3

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
32.1








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 Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended September
30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey T. Slovin,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The
                                         Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|January
    21, 2016 | /s/
    Jeffrey T. Slovin
|-------------------- | -------------------------
|                     | Name:                    
|                     | Title:                   
|                     |                          
|                     |                          



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 Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2005057EN.01000801.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/8

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 20 January 2005

in Case C-245/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'État): Merck, Sharp & Dohme BV v État belge (1)

1

(Directive 89/105/EEC - Medicinal products for human use - Application for entry on a positive list - Nature of the time-limit for responding - Mandatory nature - Consequences of exceeding the time-limit)

(2005/C 57/14)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-245/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (Belgium), by decision of 9 May 2003, received at the Court on 10 June 2003, in the proceedings, between Merck, Sharp & Dohme BV and État belge – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen and G. Arestis, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it has ruled:

| 1. | The time-limit laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems is a mandatory time-limit which the national authorities are not entitled to exceed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The time-limit laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems is a mandatory time-limit which the national authorities are not entitled to exceed.

| 2. | The first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 89/105 does not impose the automatic entry of a medicinal product on the list of proprietary medicinal products covered by the sickness insurance system where the time-limit laid down in that article is exceeded. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 89/105 does not impose the automatic entry of a medicinal product on the list of proprietary medicinal products covered by the sickness insurance system where the time-limit laid down in that article is exceeded.

---

(1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.

1

---
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/24

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 24 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL
•

MP—SEC-REF

faiNATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

•

WASHINGTON. D.C.

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

8 March 1977

NENMIANIX14 ICSI MAR MURAL STASSR N. HOLCCMS, =MARY ASSISTANT

TO THE SECREIRRY CI' DEFENSE

SUBJECT: Briefing to President Cartier

I have been asked to give a three-minute presentatice to the

President an the organization and programs of the MO during a

special WM meeting prior to the maearing-in of Admiral Stanfield

'Ammer as DCI tomorrow at 1245. We have also been asked to discuss

our key concerns. I will be one of several intelligence prcgram

managers who will briefly cover their activities.

Attached for your review are copies of the viewgraptss I

intend to use in the briefing. If Dr. Brown would like to review

the briefing in the morning, I am available at his commie:ace.

Charles W. Cook

Acting Director

Attachments

Distributicm:

DD

.Del a

(Office of Berard)

v EF-1

I )11(4.."..c.i--sit, '7 —

CoNTIRO SYETC m

aiNswiNp_s_ mom MOM SENLAAL •=1 COEIDELE OR

EXECUTNE OEM EXEMPTION CATE- Ter-SECRET t's'l SO 011CLAIIMPY WM OCT.

cowrnot. NO

COPY OF COIN Es

PAGE OF 1 PAGES
•
MISSION

NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

THE NRO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,

ACOUISMON AND OPERATION OF ALL UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT RECONNAISSANCE SATELLITES.
PROGRAM SCOPE

NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAM

(SATELLITE SYSTEMS)

RESEARCH

DEVELOPMENT

ACQUISITION

OPERATION '

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

REQUIREMENTS

•

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

EXPLOITATION
I1RE TOR

NATIONAL

RECONNAISSANCE

OFFICE 

FILICT

IEYIEM

MINIM

RECTO

CEITIAL.

MUM

IIITELLIGENCE

uAu

110 .111111E11E1T OVERVIEW

PEWEE

SECRETARY

IF DEFENSE

CIIIFTAILLEI STAFF

MAW A IP116NAN I

ISO f CIA

FROM C

NAVY
MANAGEMENT STYLE'

STRONG INRI LINE MANAGEMENT AITIORITY

PROGRAM DIRECTORS RESPONSIBLE FIR TOTAL SYSTEM .LIFE CYCLE:

UNIQUE CONTRACTOR INCENTIVES ANI RESPOIMIMUTIES

EVOLUTIONARY SYSTEM DESIGNS •

FINDING AND MANAGEMENT FLEXIMLITT

LEAN AND SELECTIVE MANNING

DISCIPLINED SECURITY ENVMONMENY

•
•

KEY CONCERNS

Arniummir •

• SYSTEM SORMAINUTY

MANAGEMENT NORMALIZATION

SECURITY PERMISSIVENESS

*SPACE PIM.
**Exhibit 23.01**



CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Exodus Communications, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (Nos. 333-48273, 333-72525, 333-83179, 333-85325, 333-92745, 333-
32422, 333-79059, 333-93505, and 333-95935) on Forms S-8 and S-3 of Exodus
Communications, Inc. of our report dated January 25, 2000, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Exodus Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 1998 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' (deficit) equity and comprehensive loss, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999,
and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears herein.

KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
March 28, 2000



---