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



  MICROGRAFX, INC.

  SUBSIDARIES OF REGISTRANT



  Information is set forth below concerning all subsidiaries of the Company as
  of June 30, 1997:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
Name of Subsidiary                       Incorporation      Company
------------------------------------  --------------------  --------
<S>                                   <C>                   <C>
 Micrografx France, SARL              France                    100%
 Micrografx Deutschland GmBH          Germany                   100%
 Micrografx Japan. K.K.               Japan                     100%
 Micrografx B.V.                      The Netherlands           100%
 Micrografx Technology N.V.           Netherlands Antilles      100%
 Micrografx, Ltd.                     United Kingdom            100%
 Micrografx Australia Pty. Limited    Australia                 100%
 Micrografx Italia S.r.l.             Italy                     100%
 Visual Acquisition, Inc.             Delaware                  100%
 AdvanEdge Acquisition, Inc.          Delaware                  100%
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Cutter & Buck Inc. ("the Company") on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 15, 2003 ("the Report"), I, Ernest R. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:

| |  | /s/ERNEST R. JOHNSONErnest R. Johnson
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
1

MEMORANDUM 

To: Sewage Sludge Incinerator Docket 

From: Amy Hambrick, US EPA 

Date: November 23, 2010 

Subject: Meeting with NACWA, November 18, 2010 from 12:00-1:30 pm (D201) 

Attendance 

EPA NACWA ERG 

Amy Hambrick Robert Dominak Roy Oommen 

Ketan Patel Chris Hornbeck Amber Allen 

Robin Dunkins Doug McWilliams 

Wendy Blake 

Peter Tsirigotis 

Eric Ginsburg 

Peter Westlin 

NACWA requested a follow up meeting with EPA held on November 18, 2010. NACWA 

provided EPA with a general verbal overview of their major comments on the SSI proposed rules. 

NACWA communicated to EPA that they will be submitting a comprehensive document to the 

SSI Docket with their complete list of comments.
Argued and submitted February 25,

reversed and remanded May 8, 2002

#### SUSAN MAE POWELL, *Appellant, v.*Michael McGEE, Superintendent, Columbia River Correctional Facility, *Respondent.*

0003-03064; A110225

46 P3d 751

Eric M. Cumfer argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

Lore Bensel, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Kistler, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*465PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from the trial court’s *sua sponte*dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ORS 34.370(2)(b)(A). We reverse and remand.

On appeal, defendant concedes that the trial court’s stated ground for dismissal was erroneous. However, defendant argues that we should affirm on an alternative basis that, given the *sua sponte*dismissal, was never raised in the trial court.

We conclude, without further discussion, that defendant’s confession of error is well-founded. Further, we decline to consider defendant’s proffered alternative basis for affirmance. *See Frady v. Morrow,*169 Or App 250, 255-56, 9 P3d 141 (2000); *see also Jones v. Armenakis,*144 Or App 23, 27, 925 P2d 130 (1996), *on recons*146 Or App 198, 932 P2d 99 (1997).

Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BIRNER
DENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,693,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,987,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                   238,839
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,983,008
<PP&E>                                       5,852,411
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,263,265
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,862,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,505,972
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    18,775,586
<OTHER-SE>                                     533,579
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,862,902
<SALES>                                     21,335,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,335,108
<CGS>                                       17,371,681
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,371,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,179,181
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             362,397
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,421,849
<INCOME-TAX>                                   426,555
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            995,294
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   995,294
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
SCHEDULE 1

N2 PATENTS (As of December 22, 2009)

United States

Patents

 U.S. Patent No. 7,028,782 “System and Method For Suppressing Fires”

 U.S. Patent No. 6,016,874 “Compact Affordable Inert Gas Fire Extinguishing System”

 U.S. Patent No. 6,257,341 “Compact Affordable Inert Gas Fire Extinguishing System”

 U.S. Patent No. 7,455,120 “System and Method For Suppressing Fires”

Patent Applications

 U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/256,841 (Continuation of US Patent No. 7,455,120) 

 U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/878,999 “Sodium Azide Based Suppression of Fires”

 U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/577,011 “System And Method For Sodium Azide Based 

Suppression of Fires” (Continuation-In-Part of 11/878,999)

Japan

Patent Applications

 Japanese Patent Application Serial No. JP2001-559550 “Compact Affordable Inert Gas Fire 

Extinguishing System”

 Japanese Patent Application Serial No. JP2005-509652 “System and Method For Suppressing 

Fires”

 Japanese Patent Application Serial No. JP2009-540562 “Sodium Azide Based Suppression of 

Fires”

Europe

Patents

 European Patent No. 1,251,910 “Compact Affordable Inert Gas Fire Extinguishing System” –

validations completed in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom

Patent Applications

 European Patent Application Serial No. EP 03753190.2 “System and Method For Suppressing 

Fires”

 European Patent Application Serial No. EP 07855516.6 “Sodium Azide Based Suppression of 

Fires” NOTE: Hong Kong protection for this invention has been applied for through prosecution 

of this EPO application, filing certificate to be received at appropriate date.

Australian

Patents

 Australian Patent No. 768429 “Compact Affordable Inert Gas Fire Extinguishing System”

Patent Applications

 Australian Patent Application Serial No. 2007332053 “Sodium Azide Based Suppression of 

Fires”

Canadian

Patent 

 Canadian Patent No. 2,398,019 “Compact Affordable Inert Gas Fire Extinguishing System” 

Patent Application

 Canadian Patent Application No. 2,499,963 “System and Method For Suppressing Fires”

 Canadian Patent Application No. 2,670,709 “Sodium Azide Based Suppression of Fires”

Chinese

Patent Applications
- 2 -

 Chinese Patent Application No. 03823073.9 “System and Method For Suppressing Fires”

 Hong Kong Patent Application No. 06100616.8 “System and Method For Suppressing Fires”

 Chinese Patent Application No. 200780045903.X “Sodium Azide Based Suppression of Fires”

Indian

Patent Applications

 Indian Patent Application No. 3541/DELNP/2009 “Sodium Azide Based Suppression of Fires”
#### Charles ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-495.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 6, 1971.

Jerry Mosca, Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Barry Scott Richard, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Legal Intern, for appellee.

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

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on March 9, 1971 (245 So.2d 304) affirming the judgment of the Criminal Court of Record 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 June 16, 1971 (250 So.2d 1) and mandate now lodged in this court, the judgment of this court was quashed and the cause remanded with directions;

NOW, THEREFORE, It is Ordered that the judgment of this court filed in this cause on March 9, 1971 is vacated as it applies to appellant Robertson, the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, and the cause is remanded to the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, Florida, with instructions that the criminal prosecution upon the charge of conspiracy against Charles Homer Robertson, appealed from in this cause, be dismissed.

It is so ordered.

Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
----

----

**Exhibit      32.1**

|   | 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. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                                                                                |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |  Date:      November                  19, 2007    |   |
|   |   | /s/ Frederic                W.J. Birner                                                        |   |
|   |   | Name:                     Frederic W.J. Birner                             |   |
|   |   | Title:                      Chief Executive Officer                   |   |
|   |   |                                                                                                |   |

|   |        |                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                    |   |
|   |   | /s/ Dennis                  N. Genty                                                                                                                                               |   |
|   |   | Name:       Dennis                    N. GentyTitle:         Chief                    Financial Officer |   |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                    |   |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                    |   |

----

----
#### Murray GOODMAN, as Judge, Criminal Court of Record, Dade County, Florida, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida ex rel., Florence Leasure BUONO, Respondent.

No. 39686.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 20, 1971.

*595Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State Atty., for petitioner.

Jerry Mosca, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, State ex rel. Buono v. Goodman, 233 So.2d 185 (3rd D.C.A. Fla.1970), which allegedly conflicts with the decision rendered by this Court in Kelly v. State, 54 So.2d 431 (Fla.1951), and by the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Gossett v. Hanlon, 195 So.2d 865 (4th D.C.A. Fla.1967).

We have heard arguments on both jurisdiction and merits. On further consideration of the record and the briefs, we find the alleged conflict is dispelled. The writ being improvidently issued, it must now be discharged.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., DREW (Retired), J., and LEAVENGOOD, Circuit Judge, concur.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Anthony Joseph DELANO and Sam Weiner, Relators, v. Honorable B. J. DRIVER, as Circuit Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas and Pasco Counties, Respondent.

No. 72-374.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 25, 1972.

Prohibition denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11.3

                             PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------
                                                           NUMBER             PERCENT         EQUIVALENT
                                                          OF SHARES         OUTSTANDING          SHARES
                                                       --------------    ---------------   ---------------
<S>                                                    <C>                <C>               <C>
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                                     2,300,000           100.00%          2,300,000     
   Stock Options Exercised                                    958,269            87.44%            837,941     
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock               15,310,943           100.00%         15,310,943     
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                             11,242,857           100.00%         11,242,857     
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                              4,323,874           100.00%          4,323,874     
   1996 Common Stock Offering                               6,000,000           100.00%          6,000,000     
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued                  90,641            83.82%             75,972     
   1997 Warrants Exercised                                     48,300           100.00%             48,300     
                                                        -------------                        -------------     
                                                           40,274,884                           40,139,887     
                                                                                                               
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                             40,139,887     
                                                                                                               
NET LOSS                                                                                      $(35,502,854)    
                                                                                                               
NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                            $      (0.88)    
                                                                                              ============     
</TABLE>
No. 00-1185.

#### Dangerfield *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
PELE TET EC ECEE CE RCEE EEL De
gg en BSSSSARRREA SAUCER RIAA SIREN SERRGR
sun yp
spony ge mop do9x9 Mood 9490 1 beeen Sreeeeeenerenredbebaseeteetnentes
Hi 3 AON et Orme © Oo te o me hot merece on
apna | . Bee em
sn pw ongesiny go voyv0ia |
= lala aL 7,
g | Aon emo 2 . tone
ar San pepe eee
g || ssrun pus mune estes |
2 a |e seanee qe ase ew ke sy Rew
g ed ee ‘ ferrets i) eee EE)
3 |
i Te ee
3 supreme prin oayeSuiny josomag | “| et bene eo beed ee yeas
3 2
a rr or a
i 4 [som me ronentinsin | 8
3 wiv | BR] TFT, Se gee aves ee | Re ee eee
spun poe waasangy Jo eH | 8
pla 8 pene eae
seavag waoyey sopun sore | ves Aan anOnEe FN 1 vee
re ce ea ieee eee’ 1. er .
ily. pus cays} Jo F3YOHIA
rr ee es of ee
4, | ean pie xyesinonnh 30 siting |g
H Pe ce rns 00 Cerner
FF sop pave womyane} yo sap | og
3 eed i rs fe ren
rd
2 |i
. a crpeadn pus aayeqyjoramme | Ff vee eee eee rs 20 cere ere)
a= I Ey
S 3 : .
a one oat 2 re Oo Creer
cz open 2
MAAS ry SSNERBPARRGDTERSRSRDORET AF
= nao nn patio neat Joon, ASRAAARASS GBFCHRSAIAREBA RAI VIHaRSAVARSIAS
ev Seceererey = rs sy Tana
a ‘astanumeg) mt padvdua mont fo ssquinyy * Raoee erie or (nine any
i) Bmateae ens z Pr 2 wry
|| snreasrn ent ert sory RRA ASL RSE HRBRUBARGRARS ATLAS SA RSRARSAET SHIT
t
al 2 ghEae "gah wane a_rane aetna
omy sporjqoanimn jo eoujarag a" 8 on : spaee te vee
° “leasnunes nna
e : SARBIEREECS RRSES
S a 9 | SguguageEg qgegeg BEEEELE SIs
a4 Fi 2
& s e a ReRSBRS BERR esate SHRRAQASAS
nm sf omoatatumdn mmotiny | 8 | BBRSRSBRRSE SERR8ERR2 SHRNASAS BABA
it Ef somes go saquay anos saat |S
a 2 2 | ssbRAageang gasasager RBRBR GAAS
a 3
& —
2 | SBRRRRgERRS sRage ASARRA IES BREE
2
§ | ggsaneqageg Harees RSgsEzRAS
4
wy orm ay | g | SR8sSnggrey 29838 perry)
prague Ley Sing ggasengeeeg B85 ARRBASSTS
og [Reith orn oh mut | 2
7 qunnase aanasaaeasanese
3 sermon matuyemen | & | SBCERSRERDE garnegg RIRBARASASSERSS
A | pausorrn so steurn ut |
gE ‘winipym | 2 | SEBRPRZRAMT BRARSATTHABSSIBRARARAAGARAAAIM
4g aan Waaeag eapom NM INT |g
# onsop | 2 | RDSMSGERSS| | EHESPRDABUBRRRARSteaNssRUsatageay
cam puwuayosoqmn ain 708d |g
lanacvorsopensorrmnnazat | 8 Rar geagagey RASARAARARAWRASRGSIRSANTRITA TARA
ba
8 . pene Pree veer e ee eee ee eee eee
i i
ge ¢
‘ Pasay
laddld ils mu eee lt ie ; A 2
sages sa Hi F 4 ; HUE $
5 aL BREE Hina ge EES
gy  panuywog--XA SA TC | ‘WaLSTOUOMAO A.LNNOD
%
#### Robert J. Micoli et al., Respondents, v City of Lockport, Defendant, and City of Lockport Housing Authority, Appellant. City of Lockport et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v Robert Miller Construction, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 891]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Robert J. Micoli (plaintiff), a carpenter employed by third-party defendant, Robert Miller Construction, Inc. was injured on September 11, 1996, at a worksite owned by defendants, City of Lockport and City of Lockport Housing Authority. He and his co-worker were *882constructing a scaffold from which they were to renovate the soffits near the roof of the building. The scaffold was to consist of two ladders placed against the building, with a scaffold pick suspended from ladder jacks between them. Plaintiff’s coworker began to ascend one of the ladders, holding one end of the pick, while plaintiff supported The center of the 24-foot by 22-inch, 200-pound aluminum pick, holding it over his head. When the co-worker had ascended the ladder and his end of the pick was at a height of approximately 12 feet, he lost his grip on the end of the pick. The pick fell, striking plaintiff on the shoulder.

Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff sustained injuries as the result of being struck by an object that was being improperly hoisted to a level above the level at which plaintiff was working *(see, Pope v Supreme-K.R.W. Constr. Corp.,*261 AD2d 523; *Diamond v Reilly Homes Constr. Corp.,*245 AD2d 763, 764). Additionally, Labor Law § 240 (1) protects workers, not only from the dangers of building materials falling from elevated worksites, but also from dangers associated with safety devices or pieces thereof falling and striking them *(see, Jiron v China Buddhist Assn.,*266 AD2d 347). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.
#### INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellant, v. ACME ELECTRIC, INC., Appellee.

No. II-135.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 31, 1978.

David T. Johnson, Jr., and Donald H. Partington of Clark, Partington, Hart & Hart, Pensacola, for appellant.

Danny L. Kepner of Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge, Pensacola, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon considering the briefs, the record and oral argument, the judgment is affirmed on authority of *Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation v. United Filigree Corporation,*298 So.2d 455 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.