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

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
All subsidiaries do business under their respective names listed below.

                                                               JURISDICTION OF
          NAME                                                   INCORPORATION
=====================                                              ===========

American Communication Services of Columbia, Inc.                     Delaware
American Communication Services of Fort Worth, Inc.                   Delaware
American Communication Services of Greenville, Inc.                   Delaware
American Communication Services of Little Rock, Inc.                  Delaware
American Communication Services of Louisville, Inc.                   Delaware
American Communication Services of Albuquerque, Inc.                  Delaware
American Communication Services of Charleston, Inc.                   Delaware
American Communication Services of Chattanooga, Inc.                  Delaware
American Communication Services of El Paso, Inc.                      Delaware
American Communication Services of Lexington, Inc.                    Delaware
American Communication Services of Pima County, Inc.                  Delaware
American Communication Services of Birmingham, Inc.                   Delaware
American Communication Services of Mobile, Inc.                       Delaware
American Communication Services of Austin, Inc.                       Delaware
American Communication Services of Knoxville, Inc.                    Delaware
American Communication Services of Louisiana, Inc.                    Delaware
ACSI Advanced Technologies, Inc.                                      Maryland
American Communication Services of Irving, Inc.                       Maryland
American Communication Services of Montgomery, Inc.                   Maryland
American Communication Services of Amarillo, Inc.                     Maryland
American Communication Services of Baton Rouge, Inc.                  Maryland
American Communication Services of Jackson, Inc.                      Maryland
American Communication Services of Spartanburg, Inc.                  Maryland
American Communication Services of Columbus, Inc.                     Maryland
American Communication Services of Las Vegas, Inc.                    Maryland
American Communication Services of Maryland, Inc.                     Maryland
American Communication Services of Corpus Christi, Inc.               Maryland
American Communication Services of Colorado Springs, Inc.             Maryland
American Communication Services of Jacksonville, Inc.                 Maryland
American Communication Services of Kansas City, Inc.                  Maryland
American Communication Services of Rio Rancho, Inc.                   Maryland
American Communication Services of Shreveport, Inc.                   Maryland
American Communication Services of Tulsa, Inc.                        Maryland
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Dean BRADLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-15992

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 18, 2006.

Alison Wallace, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Joyce White Vance, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Alison Wallace, appointed counsel for Charles Dean Bradley in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Bradley’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

RICKEY ESTRADA MORA, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0067 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2000-001447 

The Honorable Mark H. Brain, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Andrea L. Kever

Counsel for Respondent

Rickey Estrada Mora, Kingman

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Kent E. Cattani, and Judge 

Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 8-6-2019
STATE v. MORA

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Rickey Estrada Mora seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s second

successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction 

relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying 

the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 

538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of 

discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the 

petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse 

of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
<PAGE>
                                                               EXHIBIT 23.1(b)




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT GEOLOGIST

          I hereby consent to the references to my firm and to my reserve
estimates contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Energy Search,
Incorporated (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998. 
My estimates of the reserves of the Company are contained in my report
dated August 31, 1997 on the oil and gas reserves of the Company as of
December 31, 1996.  I hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
my report and the estimates contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 into the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-58407).

WALBE & ASSOCIATES, INC.


By: /S/ KIM A. WALBE          
    Kim A. Walbe, President

March 29, 1999
Charleston, WV
#### In the Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel Company, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Town of Nassau et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 3, 2012;

decided February 21, 2012

Reported below, 89 AD3d 1178.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action/proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and is not an order of thé type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).
# UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

---

### FORM 8-K

---

# CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): January 7, 2009

---

CyberOptics Corporation
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

|Minnesota                                | (0-16577)             | 41-1472057         
|---------------------------------------- | --------------------- | -------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of          | (Commission File No.) | (I.R.S. Employer   
|incorporation or organization)           |                       | Identification No.)
|                                        
|5900 Golden Hills Drive                  |                       |                    
|Minneapolis, Minnesota                   |                       | 55416              
|(Address of principal executive offices) |                       | (Zip Code)         

(763) 542-5000(Registrants telephone number, including area code)

____________________________________________________________
(Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)

---

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to
simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2.
below):

|o | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|o | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|o | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|o | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





---

Item 2.02.   Results of Operations and Financial Condition



On January 7, 2009, CyberOptics Corporation published a press release
providing revised financial guidance regarding its results of operations and financial
condition for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 and a preliminary outlook for the quarter ending March 31, 2009.



Item 9.01.   Financial Statements and Exhibits



Exhibit 99   Press Release Dated January 7, 2009.



SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



CYBEROPTICS CORPORATIONBy
        /s/   Jeffrey A. BertelsenJeffrey A. Bertelsen, Chief Financial Officer




Dated:   January 7, 2009







---
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
             SECURITY DYNAMICS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
          COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                    YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 1996, 1997 AND 1998
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               1996       1997       1998
                                                              -------    -------    -------
<S>                                                           <C>        <C>        <C>
Basic earnings per share (1):
  Net income per common share...............................  $  0.37    $  0.44    $  0.72
                                                              =======    =======    =======
  Weighted average number of shares outstanding.............   37,165     38,956     40,909
                                                              =======    =======    =======
Diluted earnings per share (1):
  Net income per common share...............................  $  0.35    $  0.42    $  0.69
                                                              =======    =======    =======
Shares:
  Weighted average number of shares outstanding.............   37,165     38,956     40,909
                                                              =======    =======    =======
  Effect of dilutive options................................    2,533      1,692      1,588
                                                              =======    =======    =======
Adjusted weighted average number of shares outstanding......   39,698     40,648     42,497
                                                              =======    =======    =======
</TABLE>
 
---------------
 
(1) Results for all periods prior to the acquisitions have been restated for the
    acquisitions of Intrusion Detection, Inc., DynaSoft AB and RSA Data
    Security, Inc., respectively, which have been accounted for as poolings of
    interests.
 
                                       27
exv10w1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

(Salaried Employees)




     THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is entered into this 17th day of October, 2005, by
and between Dana Shinbaum (“Individual”) and OrthoLogic Corporation, a Delaware corporation
(“Company”).



     1. Employment at Will. Employment by the Company is at-will and either the Company or
Individual can terminate the employment relationship, with or without cause, notice or procedural
formality, for no reason or for any reason not prohibited by law, at any time. No individual
associated with the Company, other than the President, has authority to make any agreement to the
contrary, or any agreement for employment for any specified period of time. Any such agreement by
the President must be in writing and signed by the President to be effective.



     2. Compensation. Company shall pay Individual a salary every two weeks of $8,653.85.
Company reserves the right to change the salary by giving Individual 15 days written notice of the
change. Company may also provide benefits similar to those described in the OrthoLogic Policies
Booklet, however, those benefits may be modified from time to time by the Company and the Policies
Booklet shall not become part of this Agreement. Moreover, because of the Individual’s work
location and the nature of Individual’s job duties, some policies such as Paid Time Off and Family
and Medical Leave may not apply.



     3. Duties. Individual agrees to use his or her best efforts to comply with any and
all rules of conduct established by the Company and to perform any and all assigned duties in a
manner that is acceptable to the Company.



     4. Governing Law. This Agreement is entered into in Arizona and shall in all respects
be interpreted, construed and governed by and in accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona.
By signing this agreement, the parties submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts of the
State of Arizona, located in Maricopa County, for the purpose of resolving any and all disputes
arising out the Individual’s employment with the Company.



     5. Whole Agreement. This Agreement, and the Invention, Confidential Information and
Non-Competition Agreement entered into concurrently with this Agreement embody all the
representations, warranties, covenants and agreements between the parties and no other
representations, warranties, covenants, understandings or agreements exist.



     6. Amendment. This Agreement may not be amended orally but only by an instrument in
writing executed by the Company and the Individual.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Company:	 	Individual:
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Mary Plath
	 	Signature:
	 	/s/ Dana Shinbaum
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	/s/ Human Resources Manager
	 	Print Name:
	 	Dana Shinbaum
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Date:

	 	October 17, 2005
	 	Date:
	 	October 17, 2005
August 26, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PEDRO ERNESTO UMANA, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00168-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 32


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 China Armco Metals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kexuan Yao, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Fengtao Wen, Chief Financial Officer 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 to the best of our knowledge:





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.








March 31, 2011
/s/ Kexuan YaoKexuan Yao

CEO and Chairman

(Principal executive officer)








March 31, 2011
/s/ Fengtao WenFengtao Wen

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal financial and accounting officer)





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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
BALANCE SHEET OF AMERIGAS PARTNERS, L.P. AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) BALANCE SHEET INCLUDED IN
AMERIGAS PARTNERS' ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000945792
<NAME> AMERIGAS FINANCE CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         999
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</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







The
undersigned,Timothy Neher, the ChiefFinancialOfficer
ofMIKOJO INCORPORATED(the "Company"), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.  The
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2010(the
"Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  Information contained in the Report fairly
presents, inall material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this13thday ofMay, 2010.





/s/Timothy
      NeherTimothy
      NeherChief FinancialOfficer





A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided toMIKOJO
INCORPORATEDand will be retained byMIKOJO INCORPORATEDand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### Robert John CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosanne CAMPBELL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-15916.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2010.*

Filed April 22, 2010.

William M. Robinson, Sixth District Appellate Program, Santa Clara, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Allen R. Crown, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Robert John Cruz appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Cruz contends that the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to consider his background and character when it denied his motion to dismiss a prior “strike” conviction, pursuant to California Penal Code § 1385. This contention is belied by the record. Thus, the California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).

Cruz also contends that his sentence of 25 years to life was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); *see also Ewing v. California,*538 U.S. 11, 29-31, 123 S.Ct. 1179, 155 L.Ed.2d 108 (2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.