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

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


SUBSIDIARY                                                    JURISDICTION
----------                                                    ------------

Sybron Dental Management, Inc.                                Delaware

LRS Acquisition Corp.                                         Delaware
Ormco Corporation                                             Delaware
Allesee Orthodontic Appliances, Inc.                          Wisconsin
Maquiladora Aci-Mex, S.A. de C.V.                             Mexico
Ormco B.V.                                                    The Netherlands
Ormco Europe B.V.                                             The Netherlands
Ormco de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                                 Mexico
Ormco (Europe) AG                                             Switzerland
Ormco GmbH                                                    Germany
Ormco Pty. Limited                                            Australia
Ormex S.A. de C.V.                                            Mexico
Socodent S.A.                                                 France
Aida International                                            France
Ormodent Belgique, S.A.                                       Belgium
Ormodent L.D.A.                                               Portugal
Ormodent S.A.                                                 France
SDS de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                                   Mexico

Kerr Corporation                                              Delaware
Kerr Australia Pty. Limited                                   New South Wales
Kerr (Europe) A.G.                                            Switzerland
Kerr GmbH                                                     Germany
Kerr Italia S.p.A.                                            Italy
Metrex Research Corporation                                   Wisconsin
Sybron Dental Specialties Japan, Inc.                         Japan

Sybron Canada Holdings, Inc.                                  Delaware
Sybron Canada Limited Partner Company                         Nova Scotia
Sybron Canada General Partner Company                         Nova Scotia
Sybron Canada Funding Limited Partnership                     Nova Scotia
Sybron Canada Limited                                         Canada
Hawe Neos Holding AG                                          Switzerland
KerrHawe S.A.                                                 Switzerland

Kerr U.K. Limited                                             England
Analytic Endodontics U.K. Limited                             England

Pinnacle Products, Inc.                                       Wisconsin
#### In the Matter of Debra Ann D. and Another. Rockland County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Donna D., Appellant.

In two proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the parental rights of the mother of two children on the ground that the children are permanently neglected, the mother appeals from a dispositional order of *84the Family Court, Rockland County (Stanger, J.), dated July 28, 1986, which, after a hearing, revoked the suspended judgment of the same court dated February 26, 1985, terminated the mother’s parental rights with respect to the children, and transferred guardianship and custody of the children to the petitioner Rockland County Department of Social Services (hereinafter the DSS).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The record indicates that at the time of the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, the respondent mother knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered her plea of admission to the allegations that she had permanently neglected her children contained in the petition filed against her by the DSS, thus satisfying the burden of proof necessary for the court’s finding of permanent neglect *(see,*Family Ct Act § 622). Our review of the record in this case gives us no cause, moreover, to disagree with the Family Court’s later determination, following a hearing, that the mother violated the terms and conditions of the suspended judgment that had been negotiated by the parties at the time of the mother’s plea of admission *(see,*Family Ct Act § 633; 22 NYCRR 205.50).

The mother’s further contention that the DSS failed to meet its obligation to use diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship during the pendency of the suspended judgment is without merit *(cf., Matter of Julius P.,*63 NY2d 477; *Matter of Anonymous [St. Christopher’s Home],*40 NY2d 96, 102-103). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Lazare Kaplan International Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated
August 19, 2004, included in the 2005 Annual Report to Shareholders of Lazare
Kaplan International Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8, No. 333-40225 and No. 333-92077) pertaining to the
Lazare Kaplan International Inc. 1997 Long Term Stock Incentive Plan and
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement (Form S-8, No.
333-52303) pertaining to the Lazare Kaplan International Inc. 401(k) Plan for
Savings and Investment of our reports dated August 19, 2004, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Lazare Kaplan
International Inc. and subsidiaries included and/or incorporated by reference
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended May 31, 2005.




                                               /s/ Ernst & Young, LLP



New York, New York
August 22, 2005
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 on Form 10-K of Metabolix, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Richard P. Eno, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive
Officer of the Company and Joseph D. Hill, Chief Finacial Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:



This
certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of the Report, nor is it to be deemed to be "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.

METABOLIX, INC.March 12, 2009

By:

/s/ RICHARD P. ENO Richard P. Eno
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)March 12, 2009

By:

/s/ JOSEPH D. HILL Joseph D. Hill
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
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 Transportation

###### Coast Guard 

          - 33 CFR Part 117 
          - [CGD13-00-029] 
          - RIN 2115-AE87 

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DOT. 

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of proposed rule.

# SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is withdrawing the proposed rulemaking to amend the operating regulations of the dual bascule drawbridges on First Avenue South across the Duwamish River, mile 2.5, at Seattle, Washington. This rulemaking is being withdrawn because of the insufficient road traffic volume and congestion data provided by the bridge owner to justify the proposed change and because of objections made by navigational interests. Three marine transport companies objected to the proposed addition of one hour to the existing afternoon closed period. The bridge currently is closed to vessels of less than 5000 gross tons for six hours each day Monday through Friday. These objectors are major commercial users of the Duwamish Waterway and all are engaged in various degrees with major shipping to Alaska from Seattle. One of these also observed that the dual drawspans are not operated simultaneously. Simultaneous operation could reduce the length of the operating cycle and therefore reduce the time that roadway traffic is obstructed by draw span operations. 

# DATES:

The proposed rulemaking is withdrawn effective April 24, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section, Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch, Thirteenth Coast Guard District, (206) 220-7282. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This notice withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking for the amendment of drawbridge operations regulations, published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , August 18, 2000 (65 FR 50480, CGD13-00-029).                 

Dated: 10 April 2001. 

Erroll Brown, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District

[FR Doc. 01-10138 Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-15-U
#### FUSSELL, Respondent, v. CULLEN, Appellant.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 7, 1894.)

Appeal from second district court.

Action by George G. Fussell against Richard J. Cullen.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOFF, and PRYOR, JJ.

Niles & Johnson, for appellant.

P. Q. Eckerson, for respondent.

No opinion. Ordered that the appeal be discontinued, without costs.
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 of Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2007 (the Report), I, Alan L. Wells, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                                                                                                     
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 29, 2008 |  | /s/    ALAN L.
WELLS                                                                                
|                        |  | Alan L. Wells President, Chief Executive Officer and Director Iowa Telecommunications Services,
Inc.
Exhibit 99.1




                            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 Quarterly Report of Enviro Voraxial  Technology Inc. (the
Company) on  Amendment  1 to Form  10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2002 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
Report),  I, Alberto Dibella,  , Chief Financial Officer,  Principal  Accounting
Officer and Chief Executive Officer 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.

/s/ Alberto DiBella
-------------------
Alberto Dibella,  Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and
Chief Executive Officer
August 15, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6303 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6303

To preserve Medicare beneficiary choice by repealing section 3204(a) of 
            the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2010

Mr. Arcuri (for himself and Mr. McMahon) introduced the following bill; 
which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition 
      to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To preserve Medicare beneficiary choice by repealing section 3204(a) of 
            the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    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 ``Medicare Beneficiary Choice 
Preservation Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF MEDICARE BENEFICIARY CHOICE.

    Effective as if included in the enactment of the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), subsection (a) of section 
3204 of such Act (relating to changes in the annual continuous open 
enrollment and disenrollment period under Medicare Advantage) is 
repealed and the provision of law amended by paragraph (1) of such 
subsection is restored as if subsection had never been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Intermec, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended October 1, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry D. Brady, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:

(1)               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Larry D. Brady         |     |
|----------------------------|----------|
| Larry D. Brady             |     |
| *Chief  Executive Officer* | * * |
| November 9, 2006           |     |

 

----
[J-79-2015]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Appellant**

**v.**

**TYRONE LOWE,**

**Appellee :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 134 MAP 2014** 

**Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered on May 7, 2014 at No.**  **1178 MDA 2013, affirming in part and reversing in part the Judgment** 

**of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Criminal**  **Division, entered on February 6, 2013 at**

**No. CP-67-CP-4522-2012**

**SUBMITTED: November 12, 2015**

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: February 16, 2016

AND NOW **, this 16th day of February, 2016, the appeal is dismi ssed as having** 

**been** IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

**Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this** 

**matter.**
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Matilda Guarino, Respondent, v Town of Islip Highway Department et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

— Kane, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 12, 1986.

The only issue to be resolved upon this appeal is whether the Workers’ Compensation Board was authorized to reopen this case and award death benefits after a lapse of more than seven years from the date of death of claimant’s decedent *(see,*Workers’ Compensation Law § 123).

Claimant’s decedent suffered a compensable heart attack on March 2, 1963, and died on August 31, 1969. His attending physician, Dr. John A. Matheson, filed a report of injury dated September 3, 1969 in which he stated that the fatal infarction in 1969 was causally related to the first work-induced heart attack of 1963. Claimant thereafter actively pursued her claim for death benefits, but inexplicably, Dr. Matheson refused to *882honor notices, directions and subpoenas seeking his testimony at various hearings between 1972 and 1976. The services of another medical expert, Dr. Irwin Friedman, were obtained, but, again, he too refused to make himself available to testify as a witness at a hearing. As a result, a decision filed May 5, 1977 provided, "This case is closed until such time as medical evidence of causally related disability is submitted. Case closed.” On August 1, 1980, claimant requested the Board to reopen the case based upon a request of Dr. Friedman dated July 25, 1980 in which he confirmed Dr. Matheson’s opinion as to causal relationship. The request was granted and a hearing was held at which Dr. Friedman testified. Ultimately, the Board determined that there was substantial evidence, upon the entire record, that the case was not closed within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 123, citing *Matter of Caputo v Ozone Metal Prods. Co.*(78 AD2d 738).

We agree that there was never a "true closing” of this case within the contemplation of the statute since further medical evidence was clearly intended. The unexplained delay in obtaining the report of Dr. Friedman does not detract from proper exercise of the discretion of the Board in adhering to the request for reopening *(see, Matter of Scalesse v Printing Adv. Corp.,*30 NY2d 234, 237-238; *Matter of Price v New York City Tr. Auth.,*106 AD2d 754, *lv denied*64 NY2d 609).

Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board. Kane, J. P., Main, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          56,784
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,328
<INVENTORY>                                     66,279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               239,133
<PP&E>                                         854,124
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,907
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,982,503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,611
<BONDS>                                      1,330,181
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       749,722
<OTHER-SE>                                   (219,641)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,982,503
<SALES>                                        202,567
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,567
<CGS>                                           39,582
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  180,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,279
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,973
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,607)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,569
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,176)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (5,523)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,699)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered September 24, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 21 - 00330 - CV LOUISIANA PACIFIC CORPORATION , ET AL., Appellant s V. NEWPORT CLASSIC HOMES, L.P., ET AL., Appellee s On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199 - 02044 - 2016

O RDER Before the Court is appellees’ September 23, 2021 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file their brief on the merits . We GRANT the motion and extend the time to October 18, 2021

. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 00-2382

MICHAEL D. COTANT, APPELLANT,

 V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before FARLEY, IVERS, and STEINBERG, Judges.

O R D E R

The appellant, through counsel, seeks review of an August 21, 2000, decision of the Board

of Veterans' Appeals (Board) that denied the appellant's claim for Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA) service connection, based on a theory of aggravation of a preexisting injury or disease, for

degenerative joint disease of the right hip. On January 11, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued an opinion in Davis (John F.) v. Principi, 276 F.3d 1341

(Fed. Cir. 2002). In that opinion, the Federal Circuit held that 38 U.S.C. § 1153 (which requires that

there be an increase in disability from such a preexisting injury or disease during service and existing

at discharge in order for the presumption of aggravation to attach) was applicable in a case where

the preexisting condition was not noted at entry, as provided for in 38 U.S.C. § 1111, but had been

found by the Board based on clear and unmistakable evidence rebutting the presumption of sound

condition established by section 1111. Davis (John F.), 276 F.3d at 1343-44. The Court notes that

the appellant in both his principal and reply brief in the instant case, and the Secretary in his brief,

presents arguments as to whether the Board properly applied section 1153 to the appellant's appeal.

Because the Federal Circuit's opinion in Davis may be applicable to this Court's review of the Board

decision in this case, see Brewer v. West, 11 Vet.App. 228, 233-34 (1998) (holding that judicial

decisions are generally retroactive), the Court requires further briefing from the parties addressing

the relevance and impact, if any, of Davis regarding the instant appeal. On consideration of the

foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, not later than 30 days after the date of this order, the appellant file, and

serve on the Secretary, a supplemental brief addressing the impact, if any, of Davis, supra, on the

appellant's appeal. It is further

ORDERED that, not later than 30 days after service of the appellant's supplemental brief, the

Secretary file, and serve on the appellant, a supplemental brief in response. It is further
2

ORDERED that, not later than 15 days after service of the Secretary's supplemental brief, the

appellant may file a reply thereto.

DATED: February 22, 2002 PER CURIAM.