alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



EXHIBIT 21

COGNEX CORPORATION

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

At December 31, 2002, the registrant had the
following subsidiaries, the financial statements of which are
all included in the consolidated financial statements of the
registrant:

|                                             |  |                                |  |                  
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------ |  | -----------------
|Name of Subsidiary                           |  | State/Country of Incorporation |  | Percent Ownership
|                                             |  |                                |  |                  
|Cognex Technology and Investment Corporation |  | California                     |  | 100%             
|Cognex Canada Technology, Inc.               |  | California                     |  | 100%             
|Cognex Foreign Sales Corporation             |  | Barbados                       |  | 100%             
|Vision Drive, Inc.                           |  | Delaware                       |  | 100%             
|Cognex Canada, Inc.                          |  | Delaware                       |  | 100%             
|Cognex K.K.                                  |  | Japan                          |  | 100%             
|Cognex International, Inc.                   |  | Delaware                       |  | 100%             
|Cognex Europe, Inc.                          |  | Delaware                       |  | 100%             
|Cognex Europe, b.v.                          |  | Netherlands                    |  | 100%             
|Cognex Germany, Inc.                         |  | Massachusetts                  |  | 100%             
|Cognex, Ltd.                                 |  | Ireland                        |  | 100%             
|Cognex UK Ltd.                               |  | United Kingdom                 |  | 100%             
|Cognex Finland Oy                            |  | Finland                        |  | 100%             
|Cognex Singapore, Inc.                       |  | Delaware                       |  | 100%             
|Cognex Korea, Inc.                           |  | Delaware                       |  | 100%             
|Cognex Taiwan, Inc.                          |  | Delaware                       |  | 100%             
|Cognex China, Inc.                           |  | Delaware                       |  | 100%
DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 8, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01236-CV ANIKA GLOVER, Appellant V. APOLLO HOUSING, LP, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-04737-E MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Smith Opinion by Justice Goldstein We reinstate this appeal. In 2016, we abated this case due to Anika Glover’s bankruptcy. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 8.2. The Court conducted an independent review of the federal Public Access to Court El ectronic Records (PACER) system which shows the bankruptcy case associated with this appeal was terminated on October 25, 2018, effectively dissolving the automatic stay. We notified the parties by letter dated May 7, 2021, requesting they inform the Court of the status of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond would result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See id . 42.3(b),(c). To date, neit her party has responded.–2– Because we gave the parties an oppor tunity to show why we should not dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and no one responded, we dismiss this appeal. See id . 42.3(b),(c); Chan v. SLK Builders, LLC. , 2021 WL 2134157, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 26, 2 021, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

161236F.P05 /Bonnie Lee Goldstein / BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ANIKA GLOVER, Appellant

No. 05-16-01236-CV V. APOLLO HOUSING, LP, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-04737- E. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Molberg and Smith participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered June 8, 2021
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 9, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00248

- CR

Michael Cesar FERNANDEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR13555

Ho norable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State’s motion for extension of time to file a brief is granted. We order the brief due

October 28, 2019.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have her eunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of October, 2019

.

___________________________________ LUZ ESTRADA

, Chief Deputy Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6090

JAMES JOSEPH OWENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MARYLAND; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND; JULIA M. FREIT,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 99-6179

JAMES JOSEPH OWENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MARYLAND; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND; JULIA M. FREIT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-98-3943-JFM)
2

Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: May 28, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Joseph Owens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s orders are marked as “filed”

on December 14, 1998 and January 27, 1999, the district court’s

records show that they were entered on the docket sheet on December

16, 1998, and February 1, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order

was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date

of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d

1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

3

PER CURIAM:

James Joseph Owens appeals the district court’s orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See Owens v. Maryland, No. CA-98-3943-JFM (D.

Md. Dec. 16, 1998 & Feb. 1, 1999).* 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.

AFFIRMED
# Aviation Weather Conditions that Will Impact Unmanned Aircraft Flight

• References (Figures and pages are provided in 

# this presentation)

• Faa

- h

- 8083

- 3b.pdf

• https://www.aviationweather.gov/



# • FAA web site for all FAA pilot books etc , weather book http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advi 

# sory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.inform ation/documentid/22268

© Alfred A. Gates, 2014http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2000

-

6A%20Chap%204

- 6.pdf When reducing altitude do not set throttle to idle or the aircraft may disarm and shut power off to motors

© Alfred A. Gates, 2014© Alfred A. Gates, 2014Day: Winds 180 Night: Winds 360

© Alfred A. Gates, 2014Or no wind

This will occur around tree canopies building etc. Shear Zone: This will cause a multicopter to move in pitch and roll to maintain attitude control In the wind be ready to switch modes to ATT for better control authority

© Alfred A. Gates, 2014Still air

Wind

© Alfred A. Gates, 2014Anticipating

• Flight in turbulence (aircraft will move around more)

• Aircraft will be blown in one direction. Pilot is ready to switch modes Wind shear



### Video: Wind shear at top of structure

Aircraft was being blown out of view Above tree canopyLow level temperature inversion causes wind shear

© Alfred A. Gates, 2014You can expect a rapid change is winds if operating a UAS near or under cumulus clouds. You may start out with calm winds.Frontal Activity Cold air mass over taking warm air mass or warm air mass over taking cold air mass. Typically if there is cold/warm front there will be turbulent air and lines of showers and or thunderstormsInstability line may occur away from the front typically in front of the cold fronts Or called a squall line © Alfred A. Gates, 2014Turbulence: Convective currents



### Hot air rising Cool air descending

This is common

You will fly through turbulence flying to target

© Alfred A. Gates, 2014Mechanical Turbulence: This occurs around any structures and vegetation

© Alfred A. Gates, 2014If possible fly clear of structures

Mechanical Turbulence

© Alfred A. Gates, 2014Increased wind velocity between building

Flying aircraft in 20 Mph winds between building could produce a situation where the aircraft experiences 40 Mph winds

© Alfred A. Gates, 2014RIME icing: Flight in freezing temperatures in drizzle. Ice will build up on the propellers and cause loss of controlThunderstormsFlying a multicopter near a developing thunderstorm may cause extreme up draftsAircraft goes up pilot reduces throttle to idle and motor power is disarmed.

Fly aircraft in a circular pattern with a low throttle to decreased altitude.Microburst: lasting up to 15 min, approximately 1 mile in diameter of down drafts

of up to 6000 ft /min and having a ring of 2.5 miles

© Alfred A. Gates, 2014
**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**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of ZaZa Energy Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for the period ended June 30, 2012 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 
| Dated:   September 12, 2012 |                                    |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                        |                                    |
|                        | /s/   Todd A. Brooks                    |
|                        | Todd   A. Brooks                        |
|                        | President   and Chief Executive Officer |
|                        | (Principal   Executive Officer)         |
|                        |                                    |
| Dated: September 12, 2012   |                                    |
|                        |                                    |
|                        | /s/   Ian H. Fay                        |
|                        | Ian   H. Fay                            |
|                        | Chief   Financial Officer               |
|                        | (Principal   Financial Officer)         |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of Wheelchair ADL Solutions Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Matthew Allen, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.   BY: /s/ Matthew Allen Matthew Allen President, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors  Dated: June 25, 2013     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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
exv4w4






EXHIBIT 4.4




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT




     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE RIGHTS AGREEMENT, effective as of March 4, 2004 (the “Amendment”),
among RegeneRx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as Alpha 1 Biomedical, Inc. (the
“Company”) and American Stock Transfer & Trust. (the “Rights Agent”).



     WHEREAS, the parties entered into the Rights Agreement, dated as of April 29, 1994 (the
“Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to modify and further amend the Agreement as set forth
herein;



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26 of the Agreement, the Company may amend the Agreement without
the approval of the Rights Agent or any holder of the rights described therein;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, covenants and agreements hereinafter set
forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:



     1. Amendment to Section 7(a) of the Agreement.



          Section 7(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as
follows:





     (a) Subject to Section 7(e) and except as otherwise provided herein (including Section
11), each Right shall entitle the registered holder thereof, upon exercise thereof as
provided herein, to purchase for the Purchase Price, at any time after the Distribution Date
and at or prior to the earlier of (i) the close of Business on the 20th
anniversary of the date of this Rights Agreement (the Close of Business on such date being
the “Expiration Date”, or (ii) the Redemption Date, the one-thousandth (1/1,000) of a
Preferred Share, subject to adjustment from time to time as provided in Sections 11 and 12.



     2. Miscellaneous.




     (a) The Agreement is incorporated herein by reference.




     (b) Except as otherwise set forth herein, the Agreement, as amended hereby, shall
remain in full force and effect and the parties shall have all the rights and remedies
provided thereunder with the same force and effect as if the Agreement were restated herein
in its entirety.




     (c) The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the
parties and their respective executors, heirs, personal representatives, successors and
assigns.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first
above written.



	 	 	 	 	 

	 

	 	REGENERX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	/s/ J.J. Finkelstein	 	 
	 

	 	 

J.J. Finkelstein
	 	 
	 

	 	President and Chief Executive Officer	 	 






2
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATIONS
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-Q of Cynapsus Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2016 (the “Report”),
the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively,
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 their knowledge:



1.         the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the United States 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.



|Dated: August 10,     2016 | By: | /s/ Anthony Giovinazzo                              | 
|-------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------- | 
|                           |     | Anthony Giovinazzo                                  | 
|                           |     | President and Chief Executive Officer               | 
|                           |     | (principal executive officer)                       | 
|                           |     |                                                     | 
|Dated: August 10,     2016 | By: | /s/ Andrew Williams                                 | 
|                           |     | Andrew Williams                                     | 
|                           |     | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|                           |     | (principal financial officer)                       | 



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Patsy COLTON, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Marc BRANN, M.D., Appellee (Defendant).

No. 90-14.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Feb. 6, 1990.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This case came before the Court on its own motion in connection with a consideration of the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the appeal, and the Court, having reviewed the file and records, finds as follows:

> (1) The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the appellee and judgment was en*881tered on that verdict on September 15, 1989.

> (2) Appellant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for new trial on September 21, 1989. This motion had the effect of extending the usual time for appeal until such time as the motions were denied or deemed denied. W.R.A.P. 2.01; and see W.R.C.P. 50(b) and W.R.C.P. 59(f).

> (3) The district court denied appellant’s motions on November 29, 1989.

> (4) On December 14, 1989, appellee filed a notice of appeal, designating the order from which the appeal was taken as, “Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding The Verdict, And In the Alternative, Motion For A New Trial dated November 29, 1989.” The notice of appeal made no mention of the judgment.

The order from which the appeal was taken is not an appealable final order. In *Sun Land & Cattle Co. v. Brown,*387 P.2d 1004, 1006 (Wyo.1964), we held that an order disposing of a motion for new trial is not an appealable final order. We also held that a notice of appeal which designates both the final judgment, as well as the order denying a motion for new trial does not violate this rule. We iterated this rule in *Rutledge v. Vonfeldt,*564 P.2d 350, 351-352 (Wyo.1977), and further held that without a timely notice of appeal having been filed in a case, we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The time for filing a notice of appeal has long since passed in this case. We note further, that where alternative motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for new trial are denied by the district court, the appeal is from the judgment entered on the verdict. 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2540, p. 617 (1971). In a recent unpublished order of this Court, we dismissed an appeal that was taken from an order denying a motion to alter or amend the judgment. *Parker v. Kahin,*758 P.2d 570 (Wyo.1988). There have been other instances where appeals have been dismissed based on the above-cited authorities. We find that the circumstances presented by this case are indistinguishable from those cases and authorities cited above and we are required to dismiss the appeal. We have chosen to publish this order as a means of reminding the practicing attorneys of this state of this important appellate rule. It is therefore,

ORDERED that the appeal be, and it is hereby, dismissed.
#### Edward Curry et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Allen Meier et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

July 30, 1958.

*Alexander, Ash $ Schwartz*for McDonald Trucking Co., Inc., defendant.

*Walter J. Boyles for*plaintiffs.

Louis L. Friedman, J.

Defendant McDonald Trucking Co., Inc., moves for an order dismissing the complaint herein on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The principal objection to the complaint stems from the fact that paragraph Tenth thereof merely alleges, “ That while said motor truck was being operated as aforesaid, defendant, Meier, negligently and carelessly caused and/or permitted the same to be propelled against and/or to collide with the said Oldsmobile automobile ”, but fails to state the facts from which the conclusion of negligence may be drawn.

Although a complaint must be liberally construed, and even though a complaint, when read together with a bill of particulars, may set forth sufficient particulars of the claimed negligence of the defendant, the court holds that this complaint fails to meet the requirement that a pleading shall contain a statement of the ultimate facts rather than conclusions from such facts. In *Peterson*v. *Eighmie*(175 App. Div. 113, 116) the court held that a complaint which merely contained a conclusion *419such as was contained in this case, was demurrable because it merely stated a conclusion of law with respect to negligence on the part of the defendant, ‘ ‘ without setting forth the *act*of the defendant which it was claimed was *negligently performed*’ While the court must give to a complaint a liberal construction when such a complaint is challenged by a motion to dismiss, such motion must be treated as a demurrer, and it is elementary that a demurrer may only be interposed to a pleading for defects which appear on its face. *(Mitchell*v. *Thorne,*134 N. Y. 536.) Therefore, a bill of particulars which may be furnished subsequent to an answer, may not be considered when the court determines the sufficiency of a complaint. (See *Harmon*v. *Peats Co.,*243 N. Y. 473.) While there may be some instances where a mere allegation of negligence may be sufficient, as when it appears from other allegations in the complaint that the case falls within the doctrine of *res ipsa loquitur,*that is not the situation in the present case.

Under all the circumstances, the court holds that the pleading is inadequate, and the motion to dismiss is granted. Leave is granted to the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint within 20 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered herein, with notice of entry thereof.

Settle order on notice.