alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21

                       LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

SourceOne  Group,  Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
ITEC.

Dealseekers.com,  Inc.,  a  Delaware  corporation,  71.4%  owned  by  ITEC.

Quik  Pix,  Inc.,  a  Delaware  corporation,  85%  owned  by  ITEC.

Greenland  Corporation,  a  Nevada  corporation,  88%  owned  by  ITEC.

EnStructure,  Inc.,  a Nevada corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of ITEC.

EduAdvantage.com,  Inc.,  a California corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary
of  ITEC.  (Inactive)

Laser Printer Accessories Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary  of  ITEC  (Inactive).

Personal  Computer  Products,  Inc.,  doing  business  as  PCPI  Technologies, a
California  corporation  and  a  wholly-owned  subsidiary  of  ITEC  (Inactive)

Co-Processors,  Inc.,  a California corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
ITEC  (Inactive).

NewGen  Imaging  Systems,  Inc.,  a  California  corporation  and a wholly-owned
subsidiary  of  ITEC  (Inactive).

Prima,  Inc.,  a  California  corporation  and a wholly-owned subsidiary of ITEC
(Inactive).

McMican  Corporation,  a California corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
ITEC  (Inactive)

Color Solutions, Inc., a California corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
ITEC.

ExpertHR,  a  Nevada  corporation  and  a  wholly-owned  subsidiary of Greenland
Corporation.

ExpertHR-Oklahoma,  Inc.,  a Nevada corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Greenland  Corporation

Check  Central,  Inc.,  a  Nevada  corporation  and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Greenland  Corporation
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                TOUCHSTONE APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC.
                             AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                EXHIBIT II
                                                                ----------


                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                 ----------------------------------------

                                        2 0 0 0         1 9 9 9         1 9 9 8
                                        -------         -------         -------
<S>                               <C>            <C>              <C>
Basic earnings:

Net income (loss)                    $(1,165,638)    $  180,757       $  131,202
                                     -----------     ----------       ----------

Shares:
Weighted common shares outstanding     2,438,167      2,141,801        2,127,051
                                     -----------     ----------       ----------

Basic earnings (loss) per share      $      (.48)    $      .08       $      .06
                                     ===========     ==========       ==========

Diluted earnings:

Net income (loss)                    $(1,165,638)    $  180,757       $  131,202
                                     -----------     ----------       ----------

Shares:
Weighted common shares outstanding     2,438,167      2,141,801        2,127,051
Employee stock options                        --          4,004           12,892
Warrants                                      --        199,249           35,946
Consultants stock options                     --            395            4,370
Directors stock options                       --             --               --
Underwriter options                           --             --               --
                                     -----------     ----------       ----------

Total weighted shares outstanding      2,438,167      2,345,449        2,180,259
                                     -----------     ----------       ----------

Diluted earnings (loss)
  per common share                   $      (.48)    $      .08       $      .06
                                     ===========     ==========       ==========

</TABLE>
amndmt Ex 10-3






 

AMENDMENT

 




THIS AMENDMENT is entered into as of the 15 day of June, 2004 ("Effective Date"), between Skinvisible Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Nevada corporation having its principal place of business at Unit #10 - 6320 South Sandhill Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 ("Skinvisible"); and Cross Global Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 113 Barksdale Professional Center, Newark Delaware 19711 ("Cross Global").




WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a Distribution Agreement, dated June 9, 2004 ("Agreement"), whereby Cross Global has been given the exclusive right to distribute, sell, market, and promote certain Products within the Territory, as those terms are defined in the Agreement; and




WHEREAS, the Parties have found several typographical errors in the Agreement, which they would like to correct.




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants expressed herein, the Parties agree as follows:




1.   At the end of the third sentence of Section 2.3, delete the second period.




2.   In Sections 9.1, 9.4, and 9.7, change "Section 11" to "Article 9".




3.   In Section 10.1, Line 3, change "Section 10.1" to Section 10.2".




4.   All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed through their duly authorized and empowered representatives as of the date set forth above.







SKINVISIBLE PHARMACEUTICALS,       CROSS GLOBAL INC.

INC.




By:        /s/ Terry Howlett                    By:         /s/ Eliezer Parker               




Name:   Terry Howlett                                                             Name:   Eliezer Parker                     




Title:      President                                                                    Title:      C.E.O.                              




Date:     June 15/04                                                                  Date:     June 16, 2004                         






	 	1
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OPNET Technologies, Inc. (the Company), I, Marc A. Cohen, Chief
Executive 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, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                                     
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|Dated: August 8, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Marc A. Cohen                   
|                      |  |     |  | Marc A. Cohen                       
|                      |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10149 Conference Calendar

JIM LOPEZ, a/k/a Santiago C. Lopez, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TOM GREEN COUNTY, TX.; SAN ANGELO, TEXAS, CITY OF, and its Local Government Officials, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:95-CV-056-C

- - - - - - - - - - August 21, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jim Lopez (#427372) appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous. Lopez’ claims against several state judges should have been dismissed under the doctrine of absolute immunity. See Boyd v. Biggers , 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir. 1994). Lopez does not deny that his complaint challenges the fact of his confinement. Lopez has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Lopez’ remaining claimsNo. 96-10149 - 2 - under the rule in Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), now § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. Rule 42.2. Lopez’ motion to expedite the appeal is DENIED AS MOOT. We caution Lopez that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Lopez is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<PAGE>


Exhibit 21


               SUBSIDIARIES OF EXECUTONE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                 JURISDICTION OF      %
NAME                             INCORPORATION      OWNERSHIP        BUSINESS

<S>                              <C>                <C>            <C>
eLottery, Inc.                   Delaware           100%          Lottery Services and Systems

UniStar Entertainment, Inc.          Idaho                 100%        Lottery Management

Executone Systems Canada Inc.         Canada               100%        Marketing in Canada

</TABLE>

All listed subsidiaries do business only under their corporate names listed
above. Certain inactive and immaterial subsidiaries, which if considered in the
aggregate as a single subsidiary would not constitute a "significant subsidiary"
as defined in Rule 1-02(w) of the Commission, as of December 31, 1998, are not
listed.



<PAGE>
#### William Clarence DEKLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27426.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant-.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austip, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment is assessed at a fine of $750.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit
      23.4**


**** (Consent
      of Webb & Company, P.A., Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for
      incorporation by reference of their report into Form 10-Q filed
      herewith)





Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-8 filed on March 12, 2008 (File No. 333-149669) and the Registration Statement
      on Form SB-2 filed on October 29, 2007 (File No. 333-140147) of Waytronx, Inc.
      of our report dated March 20, 2008, with respect to the financial statements
      of
      Waytronx, Inc. (fka Onscreen Technologies, Inc.) as of December 31, 2007 and
      for
      the year ended December 31, 2007, which report is included in the Annual Report
      on Form 10-KSB of Waytronx, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
      2007.








WEBB
      & COMPANY, P.A.


Boynton
      Beach, Florida


August
      11, 2008
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.31







Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC
Non-Employee Director Compensation Arrangement
As revised by the Board of Directors on December 15, 2016
Beginning January 1, 2017
Directors of Southcross Energy Partners GP, LLC who are not officers, employees or paid consultants are entitled to be paid the following (pro-rated for time served):
		
	i.
	An annual retainer of $65,000, to be paid quarterly in February, April, July and October;


		
	ii. 
	An annual retainer of $15,000 for the Chairperson of the Audit Committee, to be paid quarterly in February, April, July and October;


		
	iii. 
	An annual retainer of $5,000 for the Chairperson of the Compensation Committee, to be paid quarterly in February, April, July and October;


		
	iv. 
	An annual retainer of $7,500 for the Chairperson of the Conflicts Committee, to be paid quarterly in February, April, July and October;


		
	v. 
	An annual retainer of $5,000 for each Independent Director for each committee in which they are a member (in addition to any fees they receive as a Chairperson), to be paid quarterly in February, April, July and October; and


		
	vi.
	$75,000 in cash in lieu of an equity grant.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00455

- CV
Johnny Lee Davis v. The City of Aransas Pass, Aransas Pass Police Dept., Aransas Pass City Government Chief of Police Eric Blanchard, Captain Kyle Rhodes, Detective Leo Martinez
On Appeal from the 343rd District Court of San Patricio County , Texas Trial Cause No. S

- 14

- 5942CV

- C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgmen t of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant Johnny Lee Davis , although he is exempt from payment due to his inability to pay court costs. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 29, 2018
S. 268

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

An Act

To authorize the collection of fees for expenses for triploid grass carp certification

inspections, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COLLECTION OF FEES FOR TRIPLOID GRASS CARP CERTIFICATION INSPECTIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service (referred to in this

section as the ‘‘Director’’), may charge reasonable fees for expenses

to the Federal Government for triploid grass carp certification

inspections requested by a person who owns or operates an aquaculture facility. (b) AVAILABILITY.—All fees collected under subsection (a) shall

be available to the Director until expended, without further appropriations.

(c) USE.—The Director shall use all fees collected under subsection (a) to carry out the activities referred to in subsection

(a).

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
MEMORANDUM

TO:    Docket ID: EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0009

FROM:    Anita Lee, EPA Region 9

DATE:    October 14, 2014

SUBJECT: Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Navajo Nation; Regional Haze Requirements for

Navajo Generating Station; Re‐Posting of Attachment Missing From EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0009‐

0389

EPA posted document number EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0009‐0389, titled “Comment from Arizona Public Services

(APS), Chas Spell, Director of Environmental Policies and Programs,” to www.regulations.gov on January 9, 2014.

EPA intended to post the comment letter as an attachment to the document number.

The commenters submitted this letter to EPA prior to the January 6, 2014 close of the comment period, and EPA

posted it to our docket shortly thereafter.  

The final rule was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2014.

On October 9, 2014, EPA was informed that no letter was included as an attachment to document number 0389.

EPA had attached this letter elsewhere in the docket, in a duplicate posting. See document number 0315 titled,

“Comment from Arizona Public Service (APS), Chas Spell, Director of Environmental Policy Program, dated

January 6, 2014.”  

Although the comment letter already exists in the electronic docket at www.regulations.gov, for clarity, EPA is

re‐posting the missing comment letter under a new document ID number within EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0009.
1 Attachment 

Please refer to attachment.

  

  

  

--- NOTICE --- 

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain confidential, privileged or proprietary 

information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the 

original and any copy or printout. Unintended recipients are prohibited from making any other use of 

this e-mail. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, we accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments, or 

for any delay or errors or omissions in the contents which result from e-mail transmission. 

Comments on Proposed BART for Navajo Generating Station

Charles.Spell 

to: 

R9ngsbart 

01/06/2014 11:47 AM 

Hide Details 

From: <Charles.Spell@aps.com> 

To: R9ngsbart@EPA, 

NGS BART Comments.pdf

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Users\alee07\AppData\Local\Temp\notes5524D1\~web1844.htm 1/7/2014
<pre>

Exhibit 10.34

PROMISSORY NOTE


Borrower:    Conectisys Corp. of Valencia, CA
Lender:      Black Dog Ranch, LLC.
Principal Amount:    $170,000.00


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Conectisys Corp. promises to pay to Black Dog Ranch, LLC.
at such address as may be provided in writing to Conectisys Corp., the
principal sum of one hundred seventy thousand ( $170,000.00 ) USD, with
interest payable on the unpaid principal at the rate of 18.0 percent per
annum, calculated monthly not in advance.


This Note will be repaid in full on September 1, 2004.


At any time while not in default under this Note, Conectisys Corp. may pay the
outstanding balance then owing under this Note to Black Dog Ranch, LLC.
without further bonus or penalty.


This Note will be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
State of California.


All costs, expenses and expenditures including, and without limitation, the
complete legal costs incurred by Black Dog Ranch, LLC. in enforcing this Note
as a result of any default by Conectisys Corp., will be added to the principal
then outstanding and will immediately be paid by Conectisys Corp..


This Note will enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective
heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of Conectisys Corp.
and Black Dog Ranch, LLC.. Conectisys Corp. waives presentment for payment,
notice of non-payment, protest and notice of protest.


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF Conectisys Corp. has duly affixed its signature by a duly
 authorized officer under seal on this 1st  day of September, 2003.

SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED
this 1st day of September, 2003.


Conectisys Corp.

/S/ Robert Spigno
---------------------
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

131227 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver (17) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131227 COA: 266403 Wayne CC: 00-008455-01 SHAMU DOMINGO MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court's October 31, 2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

l0220 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2007

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7298
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CATALINO BENITEZ-VALLEJO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-121, CA-00-1061-1) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Catalino Benitez-Vallejo, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Catalino Benitez-Vallejo seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Benitez-Vallejo has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S.Ct. 1029 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1891

___________ Sylvester Barbee, *
* Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Correctional Medical Services; Jan * Alexander, Medical Director, * [UNPUBLISHED] Diagnostic Unit, ADC; Nnamdi * Ifediora, Dr., Diagnostic Unit, ADC; * James Blackmon, Dr., Cummins Unit, * ADC; Does, John, Doctor, or Jane, * Nurse, Correctional Medical * Services, *
* Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 18, 2010 Filed: August 23, 2010

___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated cases filed by Sylv ester Barbee, the district court granted summary judgment to defendants Jan Alex ander, Nnamdi Ifediora, and James Blackmon, and dismissed the claims against them with prejudice; and also dismissed with prejudice, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a se parate amended complaint against the-2- remaining defendants for failure to state a claim for relief. Barbee appeals. We affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part.

We agree with the district court thatthe separate amended complaint was properly dismissed for failureto state a claim. See Cooper v. Schriro , 189 F.3d 781 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo re view). However, as to the grant of summary judgment, see Meuir v. Greene County Jail Employees , 487 F.3d 1115, 1118 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court should not have reached the merits of Barbee’s clai ms against defendants Alexander, Ifediora, and Blackmon, who raised as an affirmative defense that Barbee failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (no ac tion may be brought with respect to prison conditions by prisoner confined in correctional facility until such administrative remedies as ar e available are exhausted). The district court found, and we agree, that the record supported this affirmative defense. Once the court determined that the claims were unexhauste d, it was required to dismiss them without prejudice. See Johnson v. Jones , 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (if exhaustion was not completed at time of filing suit, dismissal is mandatory); Lyon v. Vande Krol , 305 F.3d 806, 807, 809 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (although case went to trial, dismissal of complaint was required because inmate faile d to exhaust administrative remedies and defendants did not waive defense).

Accordingly, we affirm the dismi ssal of the amended complaint, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, but we vacate the grant of summary j udgment to defendants Alexander, Ifediora, and Blackmon and remand with instructions to dismiss the claims against these defendants without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, see Chelette v. Harris , 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000) (remanding with directions to dismiss complaint without prejudice where record showed failure to exhaust). We also deny Barbee’s pending motion.

______________________________