alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.0

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF LASERVISION

<TABLE>
<C>  <S>
     Laservision (Europe) Limited
 1.  -- incorporated under the laws of England;
     Laser Vision Centres Limited
 2.  -- incorporated under the laws of England;
     Laser Vision Limited
 3.  -- incorporated under the laws of England;
     Laservision Harley Street Limited
     -- incorporated under the laws of England
     -- doing business under the name Harley Street Laser Vision
 4.  Centre;
     LVCI Holdings, Inc.
 5.  -- incorporated under the laws of Delaware
     Midwest Surgical Services, Inc.;
 6.  -- incorporated under the laws of Minnesota
     Refractive Surgical Resources, Inc.;
 7.  -- incorporated under the laws of Minnesota
     LVCI Management (Ontario) Inc.;
     -- incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario,
     Canada;
     -- doing business under the name St. Catharines Laser Vision
 8.  Center;
     Refractive Laser Partnership No. 1, LP;
 9.  -- incorporated under the laws of Delaware;
     Laser Access of Indiana, LLC;
10.  -- incorporated under the laws of Indiana;
     Northwestern Laser Vision, LLC;
11.  -- incorporated under the laws of Delaware;
     San Jose Refractive, LLC;
12.  -- incorporated under the laws of Delaware;
     Wisconsin Refractive, LLC;
13.  -- incorporated under the laws of Delaware;
     New Mexico Refractive, LLC;
14.  -- incorporated under the laws of New Mexico;
     New Vision Strategies, LLC ;
15.  -- incorporated under the laws of Delaware;
     Beverly Hills Refractive, LLC
16.  -- incorporated under the laws of Delaware;
     Massachusetts Mobile Refractive, LLC
17.  -- incorporated under the laws of Delaware;
     Massachusetts Refractive, LLC
18.  -- incorporated under the laws of Delaware;
     Long Island Refractive, LLC
19.  -- incorporated under the laws of Delaware;
     California Refractive, LLC
20.  -- incorporated under the laws of Delaware;
     Edina Laser Eye Center, LLC
21.  -- incorporated under the laws of Minnesota;
     Southeast Medical, Inc.
22.  -- incorporated under the laws of Louisiana;
     Valley Laser Eye Center, LLC
23.  -- incorporated under the laws of North Dakota;
     Southern Ophthalmics, Inc.
24.  -- incorporated under the laws of South Carolina;
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Joseph Sevely, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Aspen Group, Inc.; and



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.





Date: August 28, 2019



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph Sevely                                                  
|Joseph Sevely
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32

 

FORM OF 906 CERTIFICATION

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2, 2004 (the "Report") for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

David G. Whalen, the Chief Executive Officer and Gary S. Simpson, the Chief Accounting Officer of A.T. Cross Company, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
Exhibit 32

 

FORM OF 906 CERTIFICATION

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 3, 2004 (the "Report") for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

David G. Whalen, the Chief Executive Officer and John T. Ruggieri, the Chief Financial Officer of A.T. Cross Company, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
<Page>

                                                                  Exhibit 99.1.2

   Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Joan S. Freilich, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc.
(the "Company") certify that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, which this statement accompanies,
(the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and
that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                      /s/ Joan S. Freilich
                                      Joan S. Freilich


Dated: August 12, 2002
#### Hubert ENGLAND et al., Appellants, v. The Honorable James T. CARLISLE in his official capacity as Judge of the County Court, Criminal Division, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1227.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 2, 1973.

Prohibition denied.
#### Mary NICHOLSON, Appellant, v. P. B. UNDERWOOD, Appellee.

No. EE-407.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 8, 1977.

G. Robert Barron of Smith, Brimsley, Barron & Remington, Fort Walton Beach, for appellant.

George Ralph Miller of Andrews & Miller, De Funiak Springs, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks relief from an adverse final judgment entered following a non-jury trial, by which it was determined and held that appellee was entitled to receive a real estate commission from appellant by virtue of appellee having been the procuring cause of the transaction.

The evidence in this case is subject to the same interpretation as that discussed by this Court in *Realty Marts, Inc. v. Barlow,*312 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and *Realty Marts, International, Inc. v. Barlow,*348 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Finding as we do that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the findings of the learned trial judge, sitting as trier of the facts, we affirm.

Another point, inferentially addressed by appellant, deserves our attention. During the trial appellee called as a witness one of the purchasers of appellant’s property whose testimony was not favorable to ap-pellee and in many respects substantiated the contentions of appellant. In *Parker v. Miracle Strip Boat & Motors Hdqtrs.,*341 So.2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), this Court stated:

> “* * * The overwhelming majority rule on that issue is that notwithstanding the rule that a party cannot impeach his own witness the party may establish, by other witnesses that the facts are otherwise then as stated by a particular witness. * * * It has been observed that even where a witness has not been called as an adverse witness, plaintiff is not always bound by the unfavorable testimony of such a witness. * * *” (341 So.2d at page 199)

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66843-66844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33079]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region 2 Docket No. NY 26-2-176b, FRL-5936-7]

Determination of Attainment of the One-Hour Ozone Standard for 
the Poughkeepsie, New York Nonattainment Area and Determination 
Regarding Applicability of Certain Reasonable Further Progress and 
Attainment Demonstration Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to find that the Poughkeepsie ozone 
nonattainment area in New York has attained the one-hour National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and that certain 
reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration requirements, 
along with certain related requirements of Part D of Title I of the 
Clean Air Act are not applicable for as long as the area continues to 
attain the one-hour ozone standard. In the Final Rules section of this 
Federal Register, EPA is making these determinations without prior 
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial activity 
and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this 
activity is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments 
are received in response to that direct final rule no further activity 
is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA receives 
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all 
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this document. Any parties

[[Page 66844]]

interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 21, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be mailed to Ronald Borsellino, Chief, 
Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866. Copies of the air quality data cited 
in the notice are available for inspection during normal business hours 
at: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs 
Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Kelly, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, at the above address. Phone: 
212-637-4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct 
final rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: December 4, 1997.
William J. Muszynski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 97-33079 Filed 12-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          3,220,603
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                  0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                1,700,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                        0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     2,054,141
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          3,508,157
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            3,576,588
<LOANS>                                        23,557,972
<ALLOWANCE>                                       179,247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,728,679
<DEPOSITS>                                     31,454,714
<SHORT-TERM>                                            0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               320,768
<LONG-TERM>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          625,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      2,316,297
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 34,728,679
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 1,990,859
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 350,887
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  103,434
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                2,445,180
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              1,151,318
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,151,318
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           1,293,862
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      21,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                      0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   865,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   539,297
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        539,297
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      380,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        6.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        6.08
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       4.50
<LOANS-NON>                                        28,855
<LOANS-PAST>                                          479
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  135,484
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  180,631
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      24,716
<RECOVERIES>                                        2,332
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 179,247
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              179,247
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           119,028
        


</TABLE>
256 La. 373

#### George ALEXANDER et al. v. Sarah Williams ALEXANDER.

No. 50599.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: George Alexander et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa. 233 So.2d 343.

The application is denied. There appears no error of láw in the judgment complained of.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 15, 2005, on the consolidated financialstatements of Cryo-Cell International, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of and for the years then ended November 30, 2004 and 2003, included in the Company’s form 10-KSB dated February 25, 2005, into the following registration statementspreviously filed by the Company: Form S-8 (File No. 333-92991); Form S-8 (File No. 333-65418). 

 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP **

 

 

Tampa, FL 

February 15, 2005 

 

63
#### Isaac E. McCRAY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42919.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 12, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         263,033
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,795,253
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (66,845)
<INVENTORY>                                    483,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,532,924
<PP&E>                                       1,434,883
<DEPRECIATION>                                (529,383)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,721,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          731,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,499,153
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,562,787)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,721,190
<SALES>                                      2,903,723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,903,723
<CGS>                                        1,461,453
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,461,453
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,594,092
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             3,636,362
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,795,744)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,425
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,756,319)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,756,319)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.84)
        

</TABLE>
#### GENERAL FRANCHISING CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Jean DESNOYER and Yvette Desnoyer, Individually and trading as “La Crepe de France”, Appellees.

No. 71-1076.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 15, 1973.

James W. Crabtree, of Smathers & Thompson, Miami, for appellant.

Robert A. Brown, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been made to clearly appear. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed. See Abner’s Beef House Corp. v. Abner’s Internat’l, Inc., *170Fla.1969, 227 So.2d 865; Junior Food Stores of W. Fla. v. Jr. Food Stores, Inc., Fla.1969, 226 So.2d 393; Tampa Wholesale Co. v. Foodtown, U.S.A., Inc., Fla.App. 1964, 166 So.2d 711; and Stagg Shop of Miami, Inc. v. Moss, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 39. See also Hot Shoppes, Inc. v. Hot Shoppe, Incorporated, D.C.M.D.N.C. 1962, 203 F.Supp. 777; and Hanover Star Milling Co. v. Metcalf, 1915, 240 U.S. 403, 36 S.Ct. 357, 60 L.Ed. 713.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
BRIAN QUINN

Chief Justice

JAMES T. CAMPBELL

Justice

MACKEY K. HANCOCK

Justice

PATRICK A. PIRTLE

Justice 

# Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas

Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A

Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449

www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx VIVIAN LONG

Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105-9540

(806) 342-2650

April 13, 2016

Eric Coats

Attorney at Law

1716 S. Polk

Amarillo, TX 79102

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Kristy Wright

Asst. Criminal District Attorney

2309 Russell Long Blvd., Suite 120

Canyon, TX 79015

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Numbers: 07-15-00246-CR, 07-15-00286-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 17,917-A

Style: Ricky Dan Allee v. The State of Texas

Dear Counsel:

The Court this day issued an opinion and judgment in the captioned causes.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.

In addition, pursuant to Texas Government Code, Sec. 51.204(b)(2), exhibits on

file with this Court, if any

, will be destroyed three years after final disposition of the case

or at an earlier date if ordered by the Court.

Very truly yours, 

# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

xc: Honorable Dan L. Schaap (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Jo Carter (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33082]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Counties Water Conservation Plan and 
Environmental Impact Statement, Bexar, Medina, Atascosa Counties, Texas

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability of record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: John P. Burt, State Conservationist, responsible Federal 
Officer for projects administered under the provisions of Public Law 
83-566, 16 U.S.C. 1001-1008, in the State of Texas, is hereby providing 
notification that a Record of Decision to proceed with the Bexar-
Medina-Atascosa Counties Water Conservation Plan is available. Single 
copies of this Record of Decision may be obtained from John P. Burt at 
the address shown below.
    For further information contact John P. Burt, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, 101 South Main, Temple, Texas 76501-7682, 
telephone 254-742-9800.

(This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood 
Prevention, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 
12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with state and 
local officials)

    Dated: December 8, 1997.
John P. Burt,
State Conservationist.
[FR Doc. 97-33082 Filed 12-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-M
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 22-50022 Summary Calendar

United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus Rene Ramirez-Nery, Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:18-CR-244-1

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Rene Ramirez-Nery, federal prisoner # 04937-480, appeals the district court’s denial in part and dismissal in part of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court determined that Ramirez-Nery’s claim of sentencing error was not an

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 8, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50022 Document: 00516465173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2022No. 22-50022

2 extraordinary or compelling reason for a sentence reduction. It also found that Ramirez-Nery had failed to show he was not a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, and that he had failed to show that the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) supported his release. Finally, the district court dismissed his claim of e rror in the calculation of his sentence; it reasoned that such a claim must be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, that the Western District of Texas was not the proper venue, and that he had not shown he had exhausted his administrative remedies. In his brief on appeal, Ramirez-Nery repeats the assertions in his original motion and does not specifica lly challenge any part of the district court’s analysis. His failu re to challenge the distri ct court’s determinations on appeal means he ha s waived these issues. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5 th Cir. 1987). Because the appeal lacks arguable merit and it is therefore frivolous, it is DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2

. Case: 22-50022 Document: 00516465173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2022