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

**Subsidiaries of Kensey Nash Corporation**

Kensey Nash Holding Corporation 

A DelawareCorporation 

108 Webster Building 

3411 Silverside Road 

Wilmington, DE 19810

Kensey Nash BVF Technology LLC 

ADelaware Limited Liability Company 

108 Webster Building 

3411 Silverside Road 

Wilmington, DE 19810

Kensey Nash Closure Technology LLC 

A Delaware Limited Liability Company 

108Webster Building 

3411 Silverside Road 

Wilmington, DE 19810 

Kensey Nash CRDTechnology LLC 

A Delaware Limited Liability Company 

108 Webster Building 

3411 Silverside Road

Wilmington, DE 19810 

Kensey NashECM Technology LLC 

A Delaware Limited Liability Company 

108 Webster Building 

3411 Silverside Road

Wilmington, DE 19810 

ILTAcquisition Sub, Inc. 

A Delaware Corporation 

Corporation Trust Center 

1209 Orange Street

Wilmington, DE 19810 

MacroPoreAcquisition Sub, Inc. 

A Delaware Corporation 

Corporation Trust Center 

1209 Orange Street

Wilmington, DE 19810
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

ANTHONY HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No.: 3:17-cv-419

District Judge Walter H. Rice

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Commissioner’s Motion to Reinstate the Case. 

(Doc. No. 16). The Commissioner indicates that upon remand under Sentence Six of 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g), the ALJ “found no change in his earlier conclusion that Plaintiff has not 

been under a disability from the date of alleged onset, January 2, 2012, through the date of 

the ALJ’s most recent decision, July 7, 2021.” (Doc. No. 16, PageID 637). Accordingly, 

the Commissioner requests that Plaintiff’s claim be reinstated for judicial review of the 

ALJ’s decision and that the Court issue a new decision on the merits of Plaintiff’s claim. 

For good cause shown, this case is hereby REINSTATED on the docket of this 

Court. Defendant is ORDERED to file a supplemental certified administrative record. 

Plaintiff must file his Statement of Specific Errors not later than forty-five (45) days after 

service of the supplemental certified administrative record. See Local Rule 8.1.A(c). The 

Commissioner shall have forty-five (45) days after service of Plaintiff’s Statement of 

Case: 3:17-cv-00419-WHR-SLO Doc #: 17 Filed: 10/27/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 639
Specific Errors to file its Response. Id. Plaintiff may file his Reply not later than fifteen 

(15) days after service of the Commissioner’s Response. Id. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

October 27, 2021 s/Sharon L. Ovington

Sharon L. Ovington

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 3:17-cv-00419-WHR-SLO Doc #: 17 Filed: 10/27/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 640
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4314 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4314

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine

                                 An Act

 
         To permit continued financing of Government operations.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONTINUED FINANCING OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS.
    Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is 
amended by striking the dollar amount contained therein and inserting 
``$12,394,000,000,000''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4306 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4306

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
 15-year recovery period for qualified leasehold improvement property, 
    qualified restaurant property, and qualified retail improvement 
                               property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2009

Mr. Meek of Florida (for himself, Mr. Tiberi, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Crowley, 
 Mr. Davis of Alabama, and Mr. Herger) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
 15-year recovery period for qualified leasehold improvement property, 
    qualified restaurant property, and qualified retail improvement 
                               property.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF TREATMENT OF QUALIFED LEASEHOLD 
              IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY AS 15-YEAR PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF 
              DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 168(e)(3)(E) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``placed in 
service before January 1, 2010''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to property placed in service after December 31, 2009.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF TREATMENT OF QUALIFED RESTAURANT 
              PROPERTY AS 15-YEAR PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF DEPRECIATION 
              DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Clause (v) of section 168(e)(3)(E) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``placed in service before 
January 1, 2010''.
    (b) Treatment To Include New Construction.--Clause (i) of section 
168(e)(7)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ``, and before January 
1, 2010''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2009.

SEC. 3. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF TREATMENT OF QUALIFED RETAIL IMPROVEMENT 
              PROPERTY AS 15-YEAR PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF DEPRECIATION 
              DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Clause (ix) of section 168(e)(3)(E) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``, and before 
January 1, 2010''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to property placed in service after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; HHS-NIH-CDC-SBIR PHS 2022-1 Phase I: Data Science Tools for Infectious and Immune-Mediated Disease Research (Topic 111).                    

*Date:*                         February 8, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G42, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sandip Bhattacharyya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G42, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 282-0189,                         *sandip.bhattacharyya@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 27, 2021. 

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-28411 Filed 12-30-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
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 Form 10-Q of Microtune, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, James A. Fontaine, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JAMES A. FONTAINE                                              
|James A. Fontaine                                                  
|Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)

Date: January 22, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 423 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 423

To provide compensation for certain World War II veterans who survived 
    the Bataan Death March and were held as prisoners of war by the 
                               Japanese.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2009

   Mr. Mica introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide compensation for certain World War II veterans who survived 
    the Bataan Death March and were held as prisoners of war by the 
                               Japanese.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Samuel B. Moody Bataan Death March 
Compensation Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT TO WORLD WAR II VETERANS WHO SURVIVED BATAAN DEATH 
              MARCH.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the military department concerned 
shall pay, upon request, to an individual described in subsection (b) 
the amount determined with respect to that individual under subsection 
(c).
    (b) Covered Individuals.--A payment under subsection (a) shall be 
made to any individual who as a member of the Armed Forces during World 
War II--
            (1) was captured on the peninsula of Bataan or island of 
        Corregidor in the territory of the Philippines by Japanese 
        forces; and
            (2) participated in and survived the Bataan Death March.
    (c) Amount To Be Paid.--The amount of a payment under subsection 
(a) to an individual shall be $4 for each day during which the 
individual was held in captivity by Japanese forces during World War 
II, compounded annually at a 3 percent annual rate of interest.
    (d) Payment to Survivors.--In the case of an individual described 
in subsection (b) who is deceased, payment under this section with 
respect to that individual shall be made to that individual's nearest 
surviving relative, as determined by the Secretary concerned.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 19, 2018

s1212 

# Order

Clerk December 19, 2018

157679

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 157679

COA: 340042

Ingham CC: 09

- 000230

- FH

BARRY C. SHIFFER

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 9 , 2018 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-12-00422-CV

____________________

IN RE COMMITMENT OF MICHAEL MARKS

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 05-08-06849 CV

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The appellant, Michael Marks, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is 

voluntarily made by the appellant prior to any decision of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.1(a)(1). No other party filed notice of appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the 

appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

 ________________________________

 CHARLES KREGER

 Justice

Opinion Delivered March 14, 2013

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on December 16, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, has been added as a party to this venture.                

Also, Sai Sanigepalli (individual member), Freemont, CA, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 15, 2021. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 5, 2021 (86 FR 55003).                

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-00604 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTINE BAKER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-16218 

D.C. Nos. 3:13-cv-08169-SPL 

3:13-cv-08193-SPL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021**

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Christine Baker appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

her action alleging claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review for an abuse of discretion. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-16218 

Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1233-34 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal as a sanction under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1984) (dismissal for 

failure to prosecute). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Baker’s action 

for failure to prosecute after Baker failed to attend her deposition. See Pagtalunan 

v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth five-factor test to be 

considered before dismissing for failure to prosecute); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 

833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (same five factors for dismissal under Rule 37); 

see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although 

“dismissal is a harsh penalty,” the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed 

absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of 

judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Baker’s challenge to the 

district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 

(9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, 

are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to 

prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM E. MARTIN, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:17-cv-1145 

 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Deavers 

JOHN R. KASICH, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On January 9, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Initial 

Screen Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis be granted and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a 

claim. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 5). 

The parties were advised of their right to object to the Order and Initial Screen Report 

and Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Order 

and Initial Screen Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 6). The Court will consider the 

matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

 In his objections, Plaintiff asks for counsel to be appointed because he is losing his 

eyesight and is disabled. However, due to the recommendation that this matter be dismissed, the 

Court does not find that counsel should be appointed in this case and the request is denied. 

Plaintiff also raises a new claim that was not asserted in his Complaint, that Defendants have 

denied him his civil rights in post-deprivation remedies. Plaintiff asserts that he is currently 

under no sentence in Ohio and should be free. However, this Court has no authority over the 
2 

State of Ohio Parole Board. Further, this issue is not properly before the Court as it was not 

plead, not considered by the Magistrate Judge in the Order and Initial Screen Report and 

Recommendation. 

 Therefore, for the reasons stated above and as set forth in detail in the Order and Initial 

Screen Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit 

and are hereby OVERRULED. 

The Order and Initial Screen Report and Recommendation, Document 5, is ADOPTED

and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 

The Clerk shall remove Document 5 from the Court’s pending motions list. The Clerk 

shall terminate this case. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT