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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


Name:                                            Jurisdiction of Formation      Doing Business As:
-----                                            -------------------------      ------------------
<S>                                             <C>                            <C>

Panapage Co. LLC                                 Delaware                       Panavision


Panapage One LLC
                                                 Delaware

Panapage Two LLC                                 Delaware

Panavision International L.P.                    Delaware                       Panavision;
                                                                                Panavision Hollywood;
                                                                                Panavision Dallas;
                                                                                Panavision Florida;
                                                                                Panavision Wilmington;
                                                                                Lee Filters

Panavision Remote Systems Inc.                   California

Panavision U.K. Holdings, Inc.                   Delaware

Panavision (1998) Limited                        New Zealand

Panavision New Zealand Limited                   New Zealand                    Panavision New Zealand

Panavision Europe Limited                        United Kingdom                 Panavision U.K.;
                                                                                Panavision Ireland;
                                                                                Panavision France;
                                                                                Panavision Alga;
                                                                                Panavision Australia;
                                                                                Lee Filters

Panavision Canada Holdings, Inc.                 Ontario, Canada

Panavision Canada Corp.                          Ontario, Canada                Panavision Canada

Lee Filters Limited                              United Kingdom

Camera Bellows Limited                           United Kingdom

Panavision Poland Ltd.                           United Kingdom

Joe Dunton Cameras Limited                       United Kingdom

Lee Lighting Ltd.                                United Kingdom                 Lee Lighting
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I, Udo Henseler, Chairman of the Board and  Chief Executive Officer of
eGene, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report (the "Quarterly Report")on
Form 10-QSB of the Company.

     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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this Quarterly
Report.

     4.   The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

          a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the Company, 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 Company's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this Quarterly Report based on such evaluation; and

          c)   Disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the Company's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial
reporting.

     5.   The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the Company's auditors and the Company's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

          a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

          b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal
control over financial reporting.


Dated: May 11, 2005            By: /s/ Udo Henseler
                                   Udo Henseler
                                   Chairman of the Board and  Chief
                                   Executive Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3168

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

David Charles Schaer

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: May 26, 2015

Filed: June 1, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found David Charles Schaer guilty of conspiring to distribute

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. The
district court1

 sentenced him to 110 months in prison, followed by 5 years of

supervised release. Counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), raising several issues, which Schaer repeats in a pro se supplemental brief. 

Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

This court rejects each of the arguments raised, because (1) the evidence was

sufficient to sustain Schaer’s conviction, see United States v. Ortega, 750 F.3d 1020,

1023-24 (8th Cir. 2014); (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling

Schaer’s objection to the admission of evidence, see United States v. Augustine, 663

F.3d 367, 372 (8th Cir. 2011); (3) the parties stipulated to Schaer’s base offense level,

and therefore this court will not review the issue of drug quantity, see United States

v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993); (4) the district court did not plainly err in failing

to apply, sua sponte, a mitigating-role reduction, see United States v. Marquez, 605

F.3d 604, 611 (8th Cir. 2010); and (5) nothing in the record suggests that the 110-

month prison sentence, at the bottom of the Guidelines range, was unreasonable, see

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). An

independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), reveals no

nonfrivolous issues. 

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-
`[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3603 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 208
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3603

                          [Report No. 111-356]

               To rename the Ocmulgee National Monument.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2009

 Mr. Marshall introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

                            December 7, 2009

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
 [Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed 
                               in italic]
    [For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on 
                          September 17, 2009]





_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
               To rename the Ocmulgee National Monument.


 


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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Ocmulgee National Monument in Macon, Georgia, shall be known 
and redesignated as the ``Ocmulgee Mounds National Monument''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Ocmulgee National Monument shall be 
deemed to be a reference to the ``Ocmulgee Mounds National Monument''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 208

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3603

                          [Report No. 111-356]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

               To rename the Ocmulgee National Monument.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 7, 2009

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed`
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 23

                          Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Bridge View Bancorp:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No.333-19741 on Form S-8 of Bridge View Bancorp of our report dated February 2,
2001, except as to notes 12 and 19 which is as of March 1, 2001, relating to the
consolidated statements of financial condition of Bridge View Bancorp and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bridge View Bancorp for the year ended December
31, 2000.

                                                            /s/ KPMG LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
March 23, 2001


                                       65
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1329

CHARLES MICHAEL FLOYD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BALTIMORE COUNTY, Maryland; MICHAEL DARRELL

GAMBRILL; RICHARD WEITH, Captain; MINDA FOXWELL, Lieutenant; WILLIAM KELLY, JR., Major;

WILLIAM DUTY, Sergeant; ROBERT HULL, Sergeant;

TODD RASSA, in their individual capacities,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; TERRANCE

SHERIDAN; HOWARD HALL, Captain,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97-

206-AMD)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 5, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Michael Allen Jeter, Esq., Randallstown, Maryland, for Appellant.

Virginia Wood Barnhart, County Attorney, Paul McLane Mayhew,

Gregory Edward Gaskins, Assistant County Attorneys, Towson,

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

February 24, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on February 25, 1999. It is the date

the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 58 and 79(a); Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.

1986).

3

PER CURIAM:

Charles Floyd appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to the appellees on Floyd’s claim alleging employment discrimination and a violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West

Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Floyd v. Baltimore County,

No. CA-97-206-AMD (D. Md. Feb. 25, 1999).* We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NEWS RELEASE

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

United States Department of Agriculture • Washington, DC 20250

Ag Statistics Hotline: (800) 727-9540 • www.nass.usda.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: nass-media@usda.gov

 

United States hog inventory up 1%

WASHINGTON, Mar. 28, 2024 – As of March 1, there were 74.6 million hogs and pigs on U.S. farms, 

up 1% from March 2023 but down 2% from Dec. 1, 2023, according to the Quarterly Hogs and Pigs 

report published today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS).

Other key findings in the report were:

• Of the 74.6 million hogs and pigs, 68.6 million were market hogs, while 6.02 million were kept 

for breeding.

• Between December 2023 and February 2024, 33.1 million pigs were weaned on U.S. farms, up 

2% from the same time period one year earlier.

• From December 2023 through February 2024, U.S. hog and pig producers weaned an average of 

11.53 pigs per litter.

• U.S. hog producers intend to have 2.92 million sows farrow between March and May 2024, and 

2.99 million sows farrow between June and August 2024.

• Iowa hog producers accounted for the largest inventory among the states, at 25.2 million head. 

Minnesota had the second largest inventory at 9.10 million head. North Carolina was third with 

7.40 million head.

To obtain an accurate measurement of the U.S. swine industry, NASS surveyed 4,509 operators across the 

nation during the first half of March. The data collected were received online through NASS’s 

Respondent Portal, by mail, telephone and through face-to-face interviews.
There will be a question-and-answer session during a live #StatChat on the @usda_nass X account today 

at 4 p.m. EDT to answer questions about the Quarterly Hogs and Pigs report. To ask a question, include 

#StatChat in posts. The #StatChat happens every quarter after the Quarterly Hogs and Pigs Report is 

released.

The Quarterly Hogs and Pigs report and all other NASS reports are available online 

at www.nass.usda.gov.

###

NASS is the federal statistical agency responsible for producing official data about U.S. agriculture and 

is committed to providing timely, accurate, and useful statistics in service to U.S. agriculture.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. 23 - 0741 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSHUA DEAN WINTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until March 30, 2024, prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court February 23 2024

02/23/2024
Case Number: DA 23-0741
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ROSALIND W. SUTCH, AS EXECUTRIX 

OF THE ESTATE OF ROSALIND 

WILSON, DECEASED,

Petitioner

v.

ROXBOROUGH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, 

SOLIS HEALTHCARE, LP, ANDORRA 

RADIOLOGY ASSOC., TENET 

HEALTHSYSTEM ROXBOROUGH, LLC, 

ROXBOROUGH, LLC, TENET, INC., 

TENET GROUP, LLC, ROXBOROUGH 

EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN 

ASSOCIATES, LLC, BARBARA 

GOLDMAN ROBINS, M.D., ROBERT 

DOMANSKI, M.D., MICHAEL 

DEANGELIS, M.D., ERIN O'MALLEY, 

M.D., JEFFREY GELLER, M.D., AND 

MELANIO AGUIRRE, M.D.,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 313 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.

Justice Wecht dissents.
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 on Form 10-Q of NUI Corporation (the "company") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, A. Mark Abramovic., Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.

 

 

/S/ A. Mark Abramovic

A. Mark Abramovic

Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer

August 14, 2002
Exhibit 32.2


                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

C.W. Gilluly, Chief Financial Officer of AMASYS Corporation (the "Company")
certifies in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the
Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for year ended June 30, 2004 and
that to the best of his or her knowledge:

     1.   the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and
          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.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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



October 7, 2004                                      /s/ C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
                                                     Principal Finance Officer
                                                     (Chief Financial Officer)
Order filed December 6, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00830-CV

____________

MARTIN L. REYES, Appellant

V.

MARY TREVINO, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1082809

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed October 5, 2016. To date, the filing 

fee of $205.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by statute or 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 5. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 to the clerk 

of this court on or before December 16, 2016. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant 

fails to timely pay the fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8070
In Re: JAMES OTIS KELLEY, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition. (CA-94-2295-MJG) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Otis Kelley, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition in this court to order the district court toreverse itself in an action in which the district court denied relief to Petitioner. Mandamus, however, cannot serve as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir.1979). Accordingly, while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we grant the motions to deny the petition for the writ of mandamus and for a writ of pro hibition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. RIC C O LEE B R O W

N, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30311

D.C . No. 1:09-c r-00026-DWM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dona ld W . M olloy , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 23, 2014 * * B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. R ic c o Le e B rown a

p pe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 5 5-m o nth te rm

of supe rvise d re le a se d im pose d upon re voc ation of supervise d re le a se . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . B rown c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt im

pose d a substa ntive ly unre a sona

ble 

# FIL ED OCT 1 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).se nte nc e be c a use the ne w supe rvise d re le a se te rm is gre at e r tha

n ne c e ssa ry to satisfy the goa ls of se nte nc ing. Heargue s tha t the 55-m onth te rm

is punitive

and doe s not se rve the purpose of re ha bilita tion. W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re tion, se e Unite d State s v . C ollins , 684 F.3d 873, 887 (9th C ir. 2012), a nd find none . The supe rvise d re le a se te rm

is substa ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the

18 U.S.C . § 3583(e ) se nte nc ing fa c tors a nd the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, inc l uding B rown’ s re pe at e d bre a c he s of thec ourt’ s trust. Se eUnite d State s v . Miqbe l , 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th C ir. 2006) (a t a re voc ation se nte nc ing, thec ourt m ay sa nc tion the v iola t or for his bre a c h of the c ourt’ s trust). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 0 3 1 1 2