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

SUBSIDIARIES

The active subsidiaries of United
Retail Group, Inc. (the Company) are:

|Name                                            | Principal Office Address                        | State of Incorporation
|----------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | ----------------------
|                                                |                                                 |                       
|Avenue Giftcards, Inc.                          | 365 West Passaic Street,Rochelle Park, NJ 07662 | VA                    
|                                                |                                                 |                       
|United Distribution Services, Inc.              | One United Retail PlazaTroy, Ohio 45373         | DE                    
|                                                |                                                 |                       
|United Retail Holding Corporation               | 365 West Passaic Street,Rochelle Park, NJ 07662 | DE                    
|                                                |                                                 |                       
|United Retail Incorporated*                     | 365 West Passaic Street,Rochelle Park, NJ 07662 | DE                    
|                                                |                                                 |                       
|United Retail Logistics Operations Incorporated | One United Retail PlazaTroy, Ohio 45373         | DE                    
|                                                |                                                 |                       

__________

*Doing business as Avenue(R)

The Company's subsidiaries are wholly owned, directly or indirectly.
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700191

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

ROBERT D. STEWART

Master Sergeant (E-8), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Eugene H. Robinson, Jr., USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, Marine Corps 

Installations Pacific, Okinawa, Japan.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Colonel William N. Pigott, 

USMC.

For Appellant: Captain Thomas R. Fricton, USMC.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 31 October 2017

_________________________

Before GLASER-ALLEN, HUTCHISON, and SAYEGH, Appellate Military 

Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
### Served : Ju ly 5 , 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 5 th of July , 2011

INTRA

- ALASKA BUSH

SERVICE MAIL RATES DOCKET OST

- 200 3

- 14694

NOT ICE OF EXTENSION

On June 10 , 201 1 , we directed parties to show cause why we should not make final the rates tentatively set by Order 201 1

- 6

- 14 , with objections due no later than 10 days (J une 20 ) after

the issuance of the order. On J une 14 Peninsula Airw ays, Inc. (PenAir) request ed that we extend the deadline for objections by 1 6 days, i.e., through J uly 7

. By notice dated June 16, we granted the request. On June 29, Mr. Hank Myers, on the behalf of the Consolidated Carriers, requested an extension to J uly 18.

W e have decided to grant the request . All parties should file their comments no later than July 18 , 20 11. We note that this is the second extension we have granted, and we anticipate not granting any additional extensions.

Dennis DeVany, Ch ief, EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.regulations.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

GARY LEE PULLEN

Plaintiff, 

v.

GARY C. MOHR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-386

JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

Magistrate Judge Litkovitz

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s May 18, 2020, 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 36). The Magistrate Judge recommends 

that the Court DISMISS the Plaintiff’s case in its entirety for want of prosecution, 

lack of service, and failure to obey an order of the Court. The R&R advised both 

parties that a failure to object within the 14 days specified by the R&R may result in 

forfeiture of rights on appeal, which includes the right to District Court review. (See 

Doc. 36, #619). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no 

indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district 

judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); Berkshire v. 

Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting “fail[ure] to file an objection to 

the magistrate judge’s R & R ... is forfeiture”); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The time for 

filing objections has long since passed. Perhaps not surprisingly in light of the events 

that have transpired in this case to date, none have been filed. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00386-DRC-KLL Doc #: 39 Filed: 09/21/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 624
2

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 36) and 

DISMISSES the Plaintiff’s action in its entirety. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to 

enter judgment accordingly. 

SO ORDERED.

September 21, 2020 

DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 1:18-cv-00386-DRC-KLL Doc #: 39 Filed: 09/21/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 625
EXHIBIT 99.1

                    Report of Independent Public Accountants

To the Stockholders and
Board of Directors of Joule Inc.:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Joule, Inc. (a
Delaware Corporation) and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2001 and 2000 and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended September 30, 2001.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based
on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our
opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of Joule, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of September 30, 2001 and 2000 and the results of their operations and their
cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended September 30, 2001 in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.



                                       /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

                                       Roseland, New Jersey
                                       November 9, 2001




The report is a copy of a previously issued report. Arthur Andersen LLP has not
reissued the report.
Order entered November 17, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00036
- CV SEIKILOS HOLDINGS, L LC, SEIKILOS FX STUD IOS, LLC, JOHN C. GOLFIS AND J ULIE NGUYEN, Appellant s V. EDWARD “LANNY” HOULLION, INDIVIDUAL LY AND AS GENERAL PARTNER OF HOULLION FAMILY, LP AND HOULLION FAMI LY, LP, Appellee s On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 12
- 13053 

### O RDER
In an order dated October 6, 2015, we granted appellants’ fifth m otion for an extension of time to provide this Court with the name, State Bar number, address, and telephone number of new counsel. Appellants did not provide the required attorney information by November 5, 2015. Rather, on November 2, 2015, they filed their sixth motion for an extension of time to file both the required attorney information and a brief. In their motion, appellants state they “just got the transcripts from the Court” and they are “in the process of reviewing all the transcripts with

cou ple attorneys [sic] and need the extra time to prepare the required brief.” The reporter’s record was filed on September 3, 2015 and a postcard notice was sent to appellants on that date informing them of the filing.We GRANT appellants’ motion TO THE EXT ENT we ORDER appellants to provide this Court, by DECEMBER 2, 2015 , (1) the name, State Bar number, address, and telephone number of new counsel and (2) updated mailing addresses, tele phone numbers , and any email addresses for appellants John C. Golfis and Julie Nguyen. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.1(b) (documents filed by unrepr esented party must include par ty’s mailing address, telephone number, and any email address es ). If the Court does not receive the required attorney information by DECEMBER 2, 2015 , we wi ll dismiss appellants Seikilos Holdings, LLC and Seikilos FX Studios, LLC as parties to this appeal without further notice

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 7; Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp. , 937 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam) (corporate appellants may only appear through counsel). We further ORDER the brief of appellants John C. Golfis and Julie Nguyen and the brief of appellants Seikilos Holdings, LLC and Seikilos FX Studios, LLC , a ssuming they timely obtained counsel and provided this Court with the attorney information, be filed no later than
DE CEMBER 17, 2015

. No further extensions will be granted and we caution appellants that if a brief is not filed by DECEMBER 17, 2015 , the appeal will be dismissed in its entirety for want of pro secution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1).

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 32 

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of United Retail Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for theperiod ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), we, Raphael Benaroya, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and George R. Remeta, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,that based on our 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 results of operations of the Company. 

(A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Commission or its staff upon request.) 

/s/ RAPHAEL BENAROYARaphael BenaroyaChief Executive OfficerFebruary 16, 2005/s/ GEORGE R. REMETAGeorge R. RemetaChief Financial OfficerFebruary 16, 2005
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of Aethlon Medical, Inc., Inc.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aethlon Medical, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
A. Joyce, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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. JOYCE
                         ------------------
                         JAMES A. JOYCE
                         CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         FEBRUARY 19, 2003
#### People v Liggion,

No. 90970;

Court of Appeals No. 117033.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 September 3, 2013

p0826

Order 

Clerk

September 3, 2013

147139

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147139

COA: 309262

Oakland CC: 2011-238414-FC

ROLANDO FLORES, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 11, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Daniel M. Bradbury, thePresident and Chief Executive Officer of Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the“Company”), and Mark G. Foletta, the Senior Vice President, Finance and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best ofhis knowledge:

 

**1.****            **The Company’s QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

**2.****            **The information contained inthe Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the PeriodicReport and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by thePeriodic Report.

 

 

Dated:  July 31, 2008

 
| /S/  DANIEL M. BRADBURY                |   | /S/ MARK G. FOLETTA                                          |
|----------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| Daniel  M. Bradbury                    |   | Mark  G. Foletta                                             |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |   | Senior  Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
#### Rhea *v.*State.

4835

291 S. W. 2d 521

Opinion delivered June 25, 1956.

*Kenneth C. G of felt,*for appellant.

*Tom Gentry,*Attorney General, *Ben J. Harrison,*Asst. Atty. General, for appellee.

Sam RobiNSON, Associate Justice.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny; he was charged with stealing an automobile. On appeal, it is contended that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that appellant committed other crimes similar to the one for which he was on trial. In arguing before the trial court the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, the prosecuting attorney said: “The purpose of calling said witness is to show a scheme or design on the part of defendant in the commission of crimes and for no other purpose. It is a separate and distinct offense.” Over the objection and exception of the appellant, the State *665was then permitted to introduce evidence that the appellant had stolen two other ears at times subsequent to the offense for which he was then on trial.

In many cases, this court has been confronted with the question involved here. In *Alford*v. *State,*223 Ark. 330, 266 S. W. 2d 804, a judgment of conviction was reversed because evidence of the commission of another offense of a similar nature was admitted at the trial. In that case, it was pointed out that the question had been considered by us more than one hundred times, and prior decisions were reviewed extensively. We can add nothing to what was said in the *Alford*case, and it is controlling here. The evidence of other offenses was not admissible.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice McF addiN concurs. Mr. Justice Millwee dissents.
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 100 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 100 Filed 08/04/2005 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND THE RELATED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1997 AND THE NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STEMENTS AND NOTES.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         166,583
<SECURITIES>                                   288,127
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,858
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               498,417
<PP&E>                                          48,946
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,798
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 821,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,141
<BONDS>                                        287,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       533,047
<OTHER-SE>                                    (50,750)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   821,105
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,867
<CGS>                                           23,373
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,645
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,752
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,357
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,395
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,395
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

IN RE: DAVOL, INC./C.R. BARD, 

INC., POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA 

MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION 

This document relates to:

Johns v. CR Bard et al,

Case No. 2:18-cv-01509 

 Case No. 2:18-md-2846 

 JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. 

 Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”) 

Motion to Temporarily Seal Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Red Oak Sales to Produce a 

Conpletely Unredacted Document (ECF No. 396), which was filed pursuant to Case 

Management Order (“CMO”) 26-A (ECF No. 345). The PSC files this motion in the event 

that its briefing pertains to materials marked “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” by 

Defendants pursuant to CMOs 7 and 7-A (No. 18-md-2846, ECF Nos. 48, 190).

CMO 26-A governs the unique situations of a party filing documents claimed by 

another party as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under CMO 7 and 7-A and 

balances the need for such confidentiality being preserved with the public’s right to access 

court filings that are used to adjudicate substantive issues in this litigation. 

Accordingly, the PSC’s Motion to Temporarily Seal (ECF No. 396) is 

GRANTED. The Clerk shall accept filing of Plaintiff’s briefing in Case No. 2:18-cv1509, and the motion shall be sealed for seven days. If the party or third party that 

produced the “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” information cited in Plaintiff’s 

Underlying Motion to Compel fails to file a Motion to Seal within seven days of service 

January 13, 2021 10:05A January 13, 2021 10:05A

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 467 Filed: 01/20/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 6098
2

of the Motion to Compel, the Clerk shall promptly remove the documents filed under 

seal and make it publicly accessible on the docket. If the producing party files a Motion 

to Seal within seven days of service of the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff’s Underlying 

Motion to Compel will remain under seal until the Court rules on the Motion to Seal. The 

parties must separately move to seal pursuant to CMO 26-A any documents related to 

Plaintiff’s Underlying Supplements or this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1/13/2021 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. 

DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

11/13/2020 s/Kimberly A. Jolson 

DATE KIMBERLY A. JOLSON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 467 Filed: 01/20/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 6099
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 5 

Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of a President pro 

tempore. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of 

a President pro tempore. 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives be noti2 fied of the election of the Honorable Chuck E. Grassley 

3 as President of the Senate pro tempore. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS