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


 
                                                                         
                                                                          
                                                            State of      
                                                          Incorporation   
                                                               or          
     Subsidiary                                           Organization    
     ----------                                           ------------
<C>  <S>                                                  <C>  
1.   Back Bay Advisors, Inc.                              Massachusetts
 
2.   Back Bay Advisors, L.P.                              Delaware
 
3.   Graystone Partners, Inc.                             Delaware
 
4.   Graystone Partners, L.P.                             Delaware
 
5.   Harris Associates, Inc.                              Delaware
 
6.   Harris Associates, L.P.                              Delaware
 
7.   Loomis, Sayles & Company, Inc.                       Massachusetts

8.   Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.                       Delaware

9.   MC Management, Inc.                                  Massachusetts
 
10.  MC Management, L.P.                                  Delaware
 
11.  Marlborough Capital Advisors, Inc.                   Massachusetts

12.  Marlborough Capital Advisors, L.P.                   Delaware

13.  NEF Corporation                                      Massachusetts
 
14.  New England Funds, L.P.                              Delaware
 
15.  New England Funds Management, L.P.                   Delaware

16.  Westpeak Investment Advisors, Inc.                   Massachusetts

17.  Westpeak Investment Advisors, L.P.                   Delaware

18.  Copley Investment Group, Inc. (includes 23 real      Massachusetts
     estate investment subsidiaries, all of
     which operate in the United States)
 
19.  New England Investment Associates, Inc.              Delaware

20.  Reich & Tang Distributors, L.P.                      Delaware

21.  Reich & Tang Services, L.P.                          Delaware

22.  Reich & Tang Asset Management, Inc.                  Massachusetts

23.  Reich & Tang Asset Management, L.P.                  Delaware

24.  NEIC Holdings, Inc.                                  Massachusetts
 
</TABLE>
**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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A  of
  Aslahan Enterprises Ltd. (the "Registrant") for the fiscal quarter ended
  November 30,
  2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
  I, Tina Sangha, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial
  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 the best of our
  knowledge and belief:





(1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
  material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
  Registrant.





Date:May
        25, 2007
      By:
      /s/ Tina SanghaTina SanghaChief Executive Officer, President  and Principal Financial Officer





A
  signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
  document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
  that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
  statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will
  be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
  Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 21
SUBSIDIARIES OF BNP RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, INC.
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                              State of        Business
                            Subsidiary Name                                 Organization         Name
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- ------------
<S>                                                                     <C>                  <C>
BNP Residential Properties Limited Partnership                           Delaware             Same

Subsidiaries of BNP Residential Properties Limited Partnership:
BNP Realty, LLC                                                          North Carolina       Same
BNP/Chrysson Phase I, LLC                                                North Carolina       Same
BNP Chason Ridge, LLC                                                    North Carolina       Same
BNP/Paces Commons, LLC                                                   Delaware             Same
BNP Residential Management Services, LLC                                 North Carolina       Same
BNP/Oakbrook, LLC                                                        Delaware             Same
Barrington Place Associates, LLC                                         North Carolina       Same
BNP/Brookford Place Associates, LLC                                      Delaware             Same
BNP/PC Annex, LLC                                                        North Carolina       Same
BNP/Harbour, LLC                                                         North Carolina       Same

Subsidiary of BNP Realty, LLC:
BNP Management, Inc.                                                     North Carolina       Same
</TABLE>


                                       76
<PAGE>
EXHIBT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Northeast Automotive Holdings, Inc. for the three months ended June 30, 2012, I, William Solko, Chief Executive
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of Northeast Automotive Holdings, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



|1. | Such Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2012, 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 such Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2012, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Northeast Automotive Holdings, Inc.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: August 20, 2012                                                          
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|Northeast Automotive Holdings,  Inc.                                           
|                                                                               
|By:                                                                            
|William Solko, Chief Executive Officer and
        Principal Accounting Officer
# covid2_Alabama
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 84 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress must 

amend the United States Code to prevent any future lapse in appropriations, and to permanently end government shutdowns. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2019 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI (for himself, Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. COSTA, Ms. HILL of 

California, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Ms. LOFGREN, and Mr. HARDER of California) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Reform, 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 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

Congress must amend the United States Code to prevent 

any future lapse in appropriations, and to permanently 

end government shutdowns. 

Whereas government shutdowns halt or significantly limit the 

efficacy of critical government programs that Americans 

depend on for their health, safety, and prosperity; 

Whereas both partial and full government shutdowns force 

hundreds of thousands of Federal employees and contractors to work without pay, which causes financial instaVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:20 Jan 30, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR84.IH HR84

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 84 IH 

bility for working families and creates economic distress 

in local communities; 

Whereas government shutdowns cause disarray in national 

and international financial markets, diminishing the 

strength of our economy and faith in our public institutions; 

Whereas government shutdowns cause long-term damage to 

our national infrastructure, and hinder Americans’ ability 

to travel safely and securely; 

Whereas government shutdowns create an immediate and 

pressing crisis across the country; and 

Whereas Congress and Administrations have an obligation to 

work on a collaborative basis to resolve policy issues and 

implement long-term solutions in a variety of areas, including but not limited to: economic growth, environmental sustainability, affordable healthcare, workforce 

development, education, veterans affairs, infrastructure, 

and national security, and government shutdowns interfere with these efforts: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives commits 

2 to— 

3 (1) take meaningful bipartisan action to amend 

4 the United States Code to prevent any future lapse 

5 in appropriations, and to permanently end govern6 ment shutdowns; and 

7 (2) ensuring that no Americans, including Fed8 eral employees, contractors, and citizens who depend 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 84 IH 

1 on critical government services, have to suffer the 

2 consequences of future government shutdowns. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VS Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas
A. Tolworthy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of VS Holdings, Inc.
|---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 13, 2008



/s/ Thomas A. TolworthyThomas A. TolworthyChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of this Report.
#### WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. VITAMIN TECHNOLOGISTS, Inc.

No. 565-M.

District Court, S. D. California, Central Division.

Dec. 8, 1939.

*9George I. Haight, of Chicago, 111., Mortimer Kline and Lewis W. Andrews, both of Los Angeles, Cal., and Ward Ross and Frank Parker Davis, both of Chicago, 111., for plaintiff.

R. Welton Whann and Edwin W. Taylor, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant.

McCORMICK, District Judge.

The motion of defendant under Rule 12 (e) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for an order .requiring plaintiff to file a more definite statement or a bill of particulars amplifying the complaint is granted as to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7a, 7b, 10a, 11a and lib of said motion. Compliance with this order is required to be made by plaintiff within thirty (30) days from notice of this ruling. Exceptions allowed plaintiff.

The motion of defendant under Rule 12 (e) aforesaid, except as to matters covered by order made herein November 29, 1939, is denied as to all other demands other than those required to be answered as herein-above stated, without prejudice to any available procedure by defendant under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Exceptions allowed defendant.

Information as to evidentiary matters which is obtainable on interrogatories, depositions and discovery under the Federal Rules of Procedure may not be obtained by a bill of particulars under Rule 12(e). Rule 12(e) should be applied in a manner to not unduly expand the pleadings, discovery being the proper method for obtaining information that falls outside the category of ultimate facts, and a complaint in a suit for infringement of patent which meets the requirements of Mumm v. Decker & Sons, 301 U.S. 168, 57 S.Ct. 675, 81 L.Ed. 983, should not he expanded under Rule 12 (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Dupont Textile Mills, Inc., D.C., 26 F. Supp. 236; Sure-Fit Products Co. v. Med-Vogue Corp., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 489; Fischback v. Solvay Process Co., D.C., 29 F. Supp. 583.
Exhibit 32.1




                  Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                       As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of Procyon Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, the undersigned
President and acting Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer of
the Company, do certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
     Company.

Dated: September 27, 2004

/s/ John C. Anderson
-----------------------------------------
John C. Anderson
President and acting Principal Executive,
Financial and Accounting Officer
#### Anthony J. Harris, Respondent, v Fenton Morrison et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[851 NYS2d 871]

Plaintiff showed “sufficient cause . . . why the complaint should not be dismissed” (CPLR 3215 [c]). Acceptance of the excuse offered for the relatively short delay was, under the circumstances, a proper exercise of judicial discretion *(see Pappoe v Custodio,*156 AD2d 211 [1989]). Concur-Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
# Result 18
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6300

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES ROBERT CASEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-89-429-A, CA-96-1668-AM)

Submitted: May 20, 1997 Decided: June 12, 1997

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Robert Casey, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Casey, Nos. CR-89-

429-A, CA-96-1668-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
32.2





Certification of Principal
Financial Officer


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 SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Anthony C. Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Anthony C.
  PintsopoulosAnthony
      C. PintsopoulosPrincipal
      Financial OfficerApril
      22, 2009
Exhibit
32.01





CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







I,
Michael Neufeld, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation.





By:
            
            /s/    MICHAEL
      NEUFELDDate:
      November 12, 2009
            
            Name:
            
            Michael
      NeufeldTitle:
            
            Chief Executive Officer




I,
Richard Lindermanis, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Pegasi Energy Resources Corporation.





By:
            
            /s/    RICHARD
      LINDERMANISDate:
      November 12, 2009
            
            Name:
            
            Richard
      LindermanisTitle:
            
            Chief
      Financial Officer
(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report), filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
  /s/ Marc J. Eisenberg

Marc J. EisenbergPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A2038. DARRYL WILSON et al. v. BROOKS CHADWICK, LLC et al.

Darryl and Sherrae Wilson filed a pro se complaint in superior court seeking

to appeal the rezoning of certain property. The trial court granted summary judgment

to defendantsBrooksChadwick, LLC and the CobbCountyBoard ofCommissioners.

The Wilsons filed this direct appeal, and Brooks Chadwick has filed both a motion

to transfer to the Supreme Court and a motion to dismiss. 

According to Brooks Chadwick, this case should be transferred to the Supreme

Court because the Wilsons raised a constitutional challenge to the zoning decision.

The Supreme Court “has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving construction

of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and of the United States and all cases in

which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision has been

called into question.” Atlanta Independent School System v. Lane, 266 Ga. 657 (1)

(469 SE2d 22) (1996); Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Para. II. “However, in

order to invoke that jurisdiction, the record mustshow that the trial court specifically

passed on the constitutional issue.” City of Decatur v. DeKalb County, 284 Ga. 234,

436 (1) (668 SE2d 247) (2008) (punctuation omitted). As the trial court did not rule

on any alleged constitutional issue, the motion to transfer is hereby DENIED.

We agree, however, that this appeal is subject to dismissal. Under OCGA § 5-

6-35 (a) (1), “[a]ppeals from the decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions

of . . . state and local administrative agencies . . . by certiorari or de novo

proceedings” must be made by filing an application for discretionary appeal in this

Court. See Consolidated Government of Columbus v. Barwick, 274 Ga. 176, 177 (1)

(549 SE2d 73) (2001); Brown v. City of Marietta, 214 Ga. App. 840, 840-842 (1)

July 14, 2015
(449 SE2d 540) (1994). This statute also applies when plaintiffs file a direct action

in superior court if the substance of that action pertains to judicial review of a zoning

decision. See Hamryka v. City of Dawsonville, 291 Ga. 124, 125 (2) (728 SE2d 197)

(2012) (discretionary application required where case commenced as

mandamus/declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate zoning). 

Because the Wilsons did not follow the discretionary appeal procedure, we lack

jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and

this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/14/2015
<PAGE>


Sorrento Networks Corporation
San Diego, California


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting a part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No's.
333-103930, 333-18967, 333-112358) of our report dated April 9, 2004, except
for Note Q which is as of April 22, 2004, related to the consolidated financial
statements of Sorrento Networks Corporation (the "Company") appearing in the
Company's Annual Report on From 10-K/A for the year ended January 31, 2004.


BDO Seidman, LLP
BDO Seidman, LLP
Los Angeles, California


May 10, 2004