alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        State or Jurisdiction     Type of      Percent
  Subsidiary or Partnership               of Incorporation       Interest*      Owned      Owned by
  -------------------------               ----------------       ---------      -----      --------
<S>                                     <C>                      <C>          <C>          <C>
Chicago Miniature Lamp (Canada) Inc.         Ontario                   C         100%      CML
IDI Internacional S.A.                       Costa Rica                C         100%      CML
Badalex Limited                              England                   C         100%      CML
Chicago Miniature Lamp
    Europe Limited                           England                   C         100%      Badalex
CML Fiberoptics, Inc.                        Massachusetts             C         100%      CML
Alba Speziallampen Holding
    GmbH ("Alba Holding")                    Germany                 LLC         100%      CML
Power Lighting Products, Inc.                Delaware                  C         100%      CML
Gustav Bruckner GmbH                         Germany                   C         100%      CML
Chicago Miniature Lamp
    Sylvania Lighting International Inc.
    ("CML/SLI")                              Delaware                  C         100%      CML
Sylvania Lighting International, B.V.        Netherlands               C         100%      CML/SLI
Schott-CML Fiberoptics, Inc.                 Delaware                LLC          51%      CML
</TABLE>

*   C=Corporation, LLC=Limited Liability Company, LP=Limited Partnership 
    Interest, GP=General Partnership Interest
#### Douglas A. SINCLAIR and Club Sea, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, an Illinois corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-1049.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 16, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### John CAHALEY et al., Appellants, v. James W. TOLBERT, Appellee.

No. 72-120.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 21, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Report of Real Property Available for Transfer to Federal Agencies (Continuation Sheet)

                - Title:  Report of Real Property Available for Transfer to Federal Agencies (Continuation Sheet) 
                - Form #:         SF13327A      
                - Current Revision Date:  05/2008
                - Authority or Regulation: 

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
** **

**Exhibit99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), S. James Miller,Jr., Chief Executive Officer of ImageWare Systems, Inc. (the ***“Company”***), and WayneWetherell, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifiesthat, to the best of his knowledge:

 

**1.****                                     **The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the periodended December 31, 2002, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit99.1 (the “***Report”***)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

**2.****                                     **The information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end ofthe periods covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Companyfor the periods covered by the Report.

 
| **Dated:  April 30, 2003** |                    |
|---------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                            |                    |
|                            |                    |
| /s/  S. JAMES  MILLER, JR. |                    | /s/  WAYNE WETHERELL |   |
| S. James Miller, Jr.            | Wayne Wetherell         |
| Chief Executive Officer         | Chief Financial Officer |
|                                 |                         |  |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ImageWareSystems, Inc. and will be retained by ImageWare Systems, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Verizon Florida Inc.



EXHIBIT 12





COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|(Dollars in Millions)                                                                            |  | Nine Months EndedSeptember 30, 2003
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|Income before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle |  | $                                  
|Interest expense                                                                                 |  |                                    
|Portion of rent expense representing interest                                                    |  |                                    
|Amortization of capitalized interest                                                             |  |                                    
|                                                                                                 |  |                                    
|Earnings, as adjusted                                                                            |  | $                                  
|                                                                                                 |  |                                    
|                                                                                                 | 
|Fixed charges:                                                                                   |  |                                    
|Interest expense                                                                                 |  | $                                  
|Portion of rent expense representing interest                                                    |  |                                    
|Capitalized interest                                                                             |  |                                    
|                                                                                                 |  |                                    
|Fixed charges                                                                                    |  | $                                  
|                                                                                                 |  |                                    
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                               |  |                                    
|                                                                                                 |  |                                    



|
|

|
|

|
|

|
|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Mena, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 942]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered September 24, 1986, convicting defendant in absentia, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent prison terms of 20 years to life and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the People’s summation are unpreserved, because defendant either did not object or made generalized objections, or requested no further relief after his objections were sustained, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice *(see, People v Franceschi,*215 AD2d 330, 331, *lv denied 86*NY2d 794). Were we to review them, we would find the challenged comments to be fair comment upon the evidence within the bounds of permissible rhetoric, in proper response to the defense summation *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396).

Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the court’s instructions to the jury concerning the process of deliberation and we decline to review it in the interest of justice *(see, People v Autry,*75 NY2d 836, 839). Were we to review it, we would find that the instruction, read as a whole, conveyed the proper standards.

Defendant’s contention that the court should have charged the jury that knowledge of the weight of the controlled substance was an element of the crime is unpreserved *(see, People v Gray, 86*NY2d 10, 18), and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice.

*234We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.
#### In the matter of Negro HANNAH a slave of RICHARD COOPER.

The liability of the owner of a slave discharged after thirty-five years of age, to repay the trustees of the poor the expense of maintaining such slave; extends to the children and legatees of such owner.

In the Court of General Sessions for Kent county, *Comegys,*for the trustees of the poor, obtained a rule on *Clarissa Cooper,*administratrix d. b. n. c. t. a. of Richard Cooper, deceased, William H. Cooper, Ignatius T. Cooper, and Henry Pratt, administrator of Richard J. Cooper, deceased, children and heirs at law of said Richard Cooper, to show cause why an order should not be made on them, as the heirs and legal representatives of said Richard Cooper, to reimburse the said trustees of the poor the expenses incurrred by them in support of negro Hannah, a slave of said Richard Cooper, dischargéd from his service after she was *thirty-five*years of age; and for funeral expenses of the said slave. At the hearing, the order was resisted, on the ground that no one but the master or mistress was liable under the statute, *(Digest,*415, *sec.*3;) but the court, on the equity of that act, made the rule absolute, and ordered that the said widow and administratrix, and the said children of Richard *366Cooper, who were also his devisees and legatees, should pay to the trustees of the poor of Kent county, the sum of $168, to reimburse them their expenses in the premises.

Comegys, for the rule.

*Frame,*contra.

■Rule absolute.
Operator’s name and address;

Charles Choe

15902 Marlinton Dr

Whittier, CA 90604

The specific applicable regulations from which relief is required (CFRs);

14 CFR Section 333

How the operator will maintain an equivalent level of safety or no adverse impact to safety;

- As a current commercial rotary helicopter pilot, I will continue to learn and review the latest FAA 

regulation on drone operation. I will maintain visual contact with the drone and terminate the 

operation when deemed unsafe at any time. 

How granting the exemption would be in the public interest;

- I plan to use drone to take aerial photos of infrastructure construction to assist the contractor so 

they can build the project with quality and on time so the public can use it.

The proposed operations; and,

- I plan to take aerial photos of public infrastructure construction. 

The make and model of the aircraft for proposed operations (aircraft manuals are not necessary).

DJI Phantom 3

Docket, FAA-2007-3330-0001
## 82^%-o P,toJbDL.a.-2£>& . CAPxT^L STATIQlV -TDCLl\-a0^ IBZS&8M 

### j^iMarU »Ti. ^oT I\ i-AC-C 6udt. i\ iJurr

UL At)£L A/2CKTA. 

## GvJ4*l£_-fcHouu3LJfr.Tft/H Pfr It 0/^,1 in ,Q_£j2ntZ- Z££} - \ , pp/yirv lj&- £2, Si B - AI -bra. 3a-fc5^^ToLJ! iau. CG/u^caIcd A\3&jt as ljiU' L^L_\dA-lL_£iJ U u A^P^L'^^L x-T^J U

ULTRAS .bE£U faiCd . /Vjr) UU dcC££X SM££T tojCj&itD UlEuJ d ATE5 dUrJ LlEAAL P&5Cfc3u£iL CGUrliXLlEd Il\ -kh£j£. O&Sfc^Lid UA«JUC2_. :lil_\ 0£rifc2_TO PiC£££r) AULA CS\Y\£2_ 

## L££&L f5T£f> LlLrie^TO ££S£>\\f£l MU C42s£ /kid TO &££cd Ptose L2rr Aj<d u^a^sTo^^Cfijcrb.TD-Cc^fErrtu 6oae ^jcoour to l^iaat Wvs Dceu d&JC:iKA mu L£^\L 

### P/ZAC££di^l65,rL ujculri WLkI&U 7nO_Afr^LL ID UOuSi£. 

# RECEIVED IN ^^ Jd^t^ A, COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS £j2£l.\£\X3 /£lA£dA-MATA 

### APR 0! 2015 • T^rMC** \82^D8M AbalAeosftLCferk
## ~ < • 

# ' l

1 

# '

. 

# .**~-** : 

# t i



# . ' ! i 

# ' < 

## '

< 

### • 

# ' • 

## • 

# ' ' ' 

## ' • • i**~** ;: 

### l .il 

### j l**-~** 

### l 

# '
I**~** 

### 1 

# I ; 

# I . . .**~ ~**  

## n l**~ l~** **li-l'h~**

,.**~i! ~** **·ll;~~** 

# •'l**~~l~l~Ol'l S~-** **~.§1~-g** 

## H 

# '•"" .•**,--~~** 

# .•

, 

# ,. , 

# ....**~··I,· ~n~R·** **li~** -" p !.oi:l

### ~-~d!-!i~{~-::~**~hn ~~f-lllJ** 

## ~;l!Ht!~di!**5~i** 

# ....**~~-&·~;**



# ...**,.,~····** - 

# . 

# ,, . -:>-"""' II.**.~** 

## •t¥j**<:ld!<;;.t,'ti~g**

-- •"**~a-** 

### ocp·"•j••j'

## ~~d**-u~:n** 

# 1 • '!''**,1!~-"'l** "- •- n 0

-**ll-~_z~g~"!:~!** M •l'"odi"**~-"11!** r**_..-.-~** .. :;·;;**~~nn~li-~-:** 11 0 •• 

# ,.;:,!**..,;;sl!!d'"~~~ ~**  .• , • .,-">">->-**u~~J ~~-·~~'1** 

### ~"§~~ ..

### :oa~~;~ 

# I

# ~ 

# ! !Iii! i 

## i I 

## I ' I 

# II 

# T I 

# I i ' : I 

## oi lill : ' I I , - , I ' i :

. I 

# I • ' I " : ,


# ' ' I 

### I

! I 

### I '' 

## "
0 "I i}i 

## " '

- I**~ .,·~r~,~-u** **~** ·**~~~ ~**  "lm•mr 

# l !!iitl'i;ill' 

# !i!f:lt**,!1---.'dr~!** if' 

# '!I**ll[~ ~;(!l!fi,l',~-'""**  

# .. '**~-~-~.~~ -~** 

!**-~1"·"·~-,"** I I 'il'l-"l"'iij

- 1 

# i I

### ;·-~_h, 

# :

I

### ··--·----------··----------**-----------------~-·--·-·-** --·-"
#### William Clinton HELTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-234.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 21, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Official Journal L 212/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 212 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6017 August 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 212

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6017 August 2017

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion plants
  (notified under document C(2017) 5225)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion plants
  (notified under document C(2017) 5225)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2017) 5225)

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
[No. 368-41675-2.

Division Two.

July 30, 1971.]

#### William J. Russell *et al., Appellants,*v. Tenna Stockwell, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Mason County, No. 8761, Joseph H. Johnston, J., entered April 19, 1968. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
#### Beatrice S. ORLOWITZ, Appellant, v. Ellis K. ORLOWITZ, Appellee.

Nos. 65-524, 65-533.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 11, 1967.

Daniel Neal Heller, Miami, for appellant.

John W. Prunty and Michael C. Slotnick, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on June 14, 1966 (187 So.2d 670) affirming as modified the final decree and order amending the final decree of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed March 1, 1967 (199 So.2d 97) and mandate dated June 13, 1967, now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment with directions to remand the cause to the chancellor for further proceedings consistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida;

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court issued in this cause on June 30, 1966 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed June 14, 1966 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and this cause is reversed and remanded to the chancellor for further proceedings consistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16(b) Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         919,832
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,731,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (11,035)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,870,337
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,191,547
<PP&E>                                      57,779,200
<DEPRECIATION>                             (21,822,381)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              89,120,235
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,494,871
<BONDS>                                     76,673,914
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,577,000
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (16,559,924)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                89,120,235
<SALES>                                     11,532,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,436,125
<CGS>                                        3,434,178
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,300,089
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                78,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,160,718
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,024,682)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (867,481)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,157,201)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (288,600)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,638,035)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (327.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (327.61)
        

</TABLE>
No. 10765.

#### Burke *v.*The City of Portsmouth.

Decided February 23, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Scioto county.

*Messrs. Evans & Moulton,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Cecil S. Miller,*city solicitor, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Shaucic and Price, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6311

RANDALL VAN YOUNG,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, District Judge.

(CA-01-445-2)

Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 30, 2002

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall Van Young, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Randall Van Young appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See Young v. Angelone, No. CA-01-445-2 (E.D. Va.

Jan. 24, 2002). 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
258 La. 919

#### SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al.

No. 51476.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 11, 1971.

In re: South Central Bell Telephone Company applying for writ of certiorari.

Considering the petition of Louisiana Public Service Commission, the Court’s order of June 8, 1971 in this matter is vacated and set aside, and it is now ordered that the application of relator for certiorari be granted with a stay order.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Luther F. Cole, Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 17th day of June, 1971, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through its counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

It is further ordered that, in the meantime and until the further orders of this court, all proceedings against the relator in said Nineteenth Judicial District Court shall be stayed and suspended.
# Volunteer Service Agreement - Natural and Cultural Resources - Volunteer Sign-up Form for Groups (Spanish)

                - Title:  Volunteer Service Agreement - Natural and Cultural Resources - Volunteer Sign-up Form for Groups (Spanish) 
                - Form #:         OF301B-S      
                - Current Revision Date:  10/2021
                - Authority or Regulation: 

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
4.A Office of Administrative Law Form 400 (contains OAL approval of regulation) with attachments.