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



SUBSIDIARIES



|                                       |  |                        |  |                             
|-------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Subsidiary                             |  | State of Incorporation |  | % Owned                     
|StatSpin Inc.                          |  | Massachusetts          |  | 100%                        
|                                       |  |                       
|Iris Global Network, Inc.              |  | Delaware               |  | 100%                        
|                                       |  |                       
|Poly U/A Systems, Inc.                 |  | Delaware               |  | 100%                        
|                                       |  |                       
|Advanced Digital Imaging Research, LLC |  | Texas                  |  | 100% owned by StatSpin, Inc.
#### LARAINE D. KIRKMAN v. JESS L. WILLARD.

(Filed 20 March 1963.)

Appeal by defendant from *Bone, J.,*October 1962 Term of New HANOVER.

Civil action to recover for personal injury and property damage occasioned by a collision of automobiles at a street intersection in the city of Wilmington.

About 1:15 P.M., 13 March 1958, plaintiff was driving northwardly on North Fifteenth Street, and defendant was driving eastwardly on Chestnut Street. At the intersection of these streets each is 25 to 30 feet wide. There were “Yield Right of Way” signs facing trafile on Fifteenth. A light rain was falling and the street was wet.

Plaintiff’s version of the accident: Plaintiff stopped before entering the intersection and had a clear view one and a half blocks to her left *136on Chestnut. She saw no moving vehicle. She started through the intersection at a speed of 2 to 5 miles per hour. She heard brakes squeal. Defendant, about three car-lengths away, was approaching at a speed estimated to be 45 to 50 miles per hour. The front of defendant’s car struck plaintiff’s oar about the left rear door and fender. At the time of impact the rear of plaintiff’s car was about the center of Chestnut Street. The force of the impact turned her car around so that it faced West and stopped about half a car-length north of the intersection. Defendant’s car stopped at the point of impact. Plaintiff was injured and her automobile was damaged.

Defendant’s version: Defendant was travelling eastwardly on Chestnut Street at about 20 to 25 miles per hour. When about 60 feet from the intersection he saw plaintiff’s car which was about 25 feet south of the intersection. Her speed was 25 to 30 miles per hour. She appeared to slacken speed as if to stop and then increased speed and attempted to cross the intersection in front of defendant. At the time of impact her speed was about 35 miles per hour. Defendant applied brakes, swerved slightly to the left, and skidded about 10 feet before striking plaintiff’s car. Defendant’s car stopped upon impact. It was barely moving at the time of the collision.

The jury answered issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages in favor of plaintiff. Prom judgment in accordance with the verdict defendant appeals.

*J. H. Ferguson and W. G. Smith for plaintiff.*

*Poisson, Marshall, Barnhill & Williams, and L. Bradford Tillery for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The court properly overruled defendant’s motion -for nonsuit. When considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff the evidence presented issues of fact for jury determination. The assignments of error based -on exceptions to the admission and exclusion of evidence do not disclose error sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.

No error.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of
Mercury Air Group, Inc. (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report of the Company
on Form 10-Q for the Three Month Period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company as and the results of
the operations of the Company.


/s/ Joseph Czyzyk                           Dated: November 14, 2002
---------------------------------
Joseph Czyzyk
President and Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Robert Schlax                           Dated: November 14, 2002
---------------------------------
Robert Schlax
Vice President Finance
(Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
COMPANY                                                       INCORPORATION
-------                                                       -------------
<S>                                                           <C>
American Down & Textile Company.............................  Wisconsin
Brawn of California, Inc. ..................................  California
Company Store Holdings, Inc.................................  Delaware
Gump's By Mail, Inc.........................................  Delaware
Gump's Corp.................................................  California
Hanover Direct Pennsylvania, Inc. ..........................  Pennsylvania
Hanover Direct Virginia, Inc. ..............................  Delaware
LWI Holdings, Inc...........................................  Delaware
Scandia Down Corporation....................................  Delaware
Hanover Holding Corp. ......................................  Delaware
Gump's, Holdings, Inc. .....................................  Delaware
D.M. Advertising, Inc. .....................................  New Jersey
Hanover Realty, Inc. .......................................  Virginia
The Company Store Factory, Inc..............................  Delaware
The Company Office, Inc. ...................................  Delaware
Austad Holdings, Inc........................................  Delaware
The Austad Company..........................................  South Dakota
Colonial Garden Kitchens, Inc...............................  Delaware
Keystone Fulfillment, Inc...................................  Delaware
Silhouettes, LLC............................................  Delaware
Tweeds, LLC.................................................  Delaware
Hanover Women's Apparel, LLC................................  Delaware
Hanover Home Fashion Group, LLC.............................  Delaware
Domestications, LLC.........................................  Delaware
Hanover Company Store, LLC..................................  Delaware
The Horn & Hardart Company, Inc.............................  New York
Aegis Catalog Corporation...................................  Delaware
Aegis Retail Corporation....................................  Delaware
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**
     We hereby consent to the inclusion in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,2001, and to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-10631, 33-56772, 33-82560,333-19265, 333-31391, 333-45348, 333-31393, 333-63304 and333-65547) and Forms S-3 (File No’s. 333-27189, 333-37946,333-86617 and 333-48097) of our report dated March 5, 2002,relating to the audit of the consolidated balance sheet ofInternational Remote Imaging Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries asof December 31, 2001 and the consolidated results of theiroperations, cash flows, shareholders’ equity andcomprehensive income for the year ended December 31, 2001,which appears in this Form 10-K.
 /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP	
Los Angeles, CaliforniaMarch 5, 2002
Exhibit 10.2


 


 


  


Second
Amendment to Employment Agreement 


 


This second
amendment (this “Second Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement, dated March 18, 2019, as amended March 10, 2020 (the “Agreement”),
is made this 28th day of February 2022, by and between OptimizeRx Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”),
and Stephen Silvestro (the “Executive”).


 


Base Salary: The
Executive shall be entitled to receive a base salary at a rate of $350,000.00 per annum, which base salary shall be payable in accordance
with the payroll practices of the Company, with such increases (but no decreases) as may be determined by the Compensation Committee of
the Board (the “Compensation Committee”) from time to time (as increased from time to time, the “Base Salary”). 


 


Annual Bonuses: In
addition to the Base Salary, the Executive shall be eligible to receive annual cash bonuses under the Company’s 2022 Cash Bonus
Plan and/or any other cash incentive plan maintained by the Company (such plan, the “Bonus Plan”), as determined by
the Compensation Committee in its sole discretion within the parameters of the Bonus Plan.


 


Equity: Following the Effective Date, the Executive may
receive grants of awards under the Company’s 2021 Equity Incentive Plan and/or any other equity-related incentive plan maintained
by the Company (such plan, the “Stock Plan”), as determined by the Compensation Committee in its sole discretion within
the parameters of the Stock Plan. The treatment of any equity awards held by the Executive under the Stock Plan in connection with
the termination of the Executive’s employment shall be determined under the Stock Plan and/or award agreement relating to such award.


 


Additional Compensation. The Executive shall be eligible
to receive such other compensation as may from time to time be awarded to him by the Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion.


 


Effective
Date: January 1, 2022


 


Acknowledgment:


 


Except as
expressly set forth herein, all other terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 


	OptimizeRx Corporation	 
	 	 
	By:	/s/ William J. Febbo	 
	Name:	William J. Febbo	 
	Its:	Chief Executive Officer	 
	Date:	28 February 2022	 


 


Acknowledged and agreed:


 


	Stephen Silvestro	 	 
	Printed Name	 	 
	
     

    /s/ Stephen
    Silvestro
	 	02/28/2022
	Signature	 	Date
#### HEWETT v. GARRETT.

Case below: 1 N.C. App. 234.

Petition of Mrs. Willa Branch Hewett for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 14 June 1968. Case is set for argument first week of Fall Term 1968.
#### CITY OF PATERSON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RELATOR, v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.

Submitted October 19, 1931

Decided February 8, 1932.

Before Justices Trenchakd, Daly and Donges.

Dor the relator, *Salvatore D. Viviano*and *Charles F. Lynch.*

Dor the respondent, *William A. Stevens,*attorney-general, *Walter S. Bacon, Jr.,*chief counsel state highway commission, and *George T. Vickers,*assistant attorney-general.

Pee Cueiam.

On petition and affidavits filed in the above entitled cause, it was ordered that the state highway commission of the State of Uew Jersey, show cause why a peremptory or alternative writ of *mandamus*should not issue commanding the *232state highway commission of the State of Few Jersey to take such steps and proceedings and enter into such negotiations as may be appropriate for the ascertainment by agreement, if possible, of the amount of compensation to be awarded and paid to the city of Paterson for the taking and/or diminution in value, or deprivation of beneficial user and enjoyment in the lands and appurtenances of the city of Paterson, consisting of seventy-three twelve-one-hundredths city lots, twenty-five by one hundred feet each, as laid out upon a certain map entitled “Boulevard Overlook avenue to Broadway, Paterson, Few Jersey,” made by H. J. Harder, city engineer of the city of Paterson, and upon failure or inability to agree with said city of Paterson upon the amount of sitch award, to institute and diligently prosecute and consummate such proceedings for the condemnation of said lands and appurtenances and/or the interest of said city of Paterson therein and/or the fixing and awarding of compensation for damages thereto sustained as are provided and directed by the provisions of the Eminent Domain act of the legislature of the State of Few Jersey of 1900 and the amendments thereof and supplements thereto.

Our examination of the “stipulation of facts” results in the conclusion that sufficient appears to justify the award of an alternative writ, but not a peremptory writ. The legal right is not clear, and there seems to be some dispute as to what may well be pertinent matters of fact. In such case the court will ordinarily award an alternative writ to the end that an issue may be made and the facts ascertained, and thereby an opportunity given for review in error. *Hugg*v. *Camden,*39 *N. J. L.*620; *Schnitzler*v. *New York Transportation Co.*76 *Id.*171.

Accordingly an alternative writ will be awarded.
# L_2008032DE.01003101.xml

| 6.2.2008 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 32/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2008

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 32/31

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1522/2007 der Kommission vom 19. Dezember 2007 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 795/2004 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Betriebsprämienregelung gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1782/2003 des Rates

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 335 vom 20. Dezember 2007
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 335 vom 20. Dezember 2007

S. 27 bis 30 — der gesamte Text der Verordnung wird wie folgt berichtigt:

anstatt:

„Baumschulen“

muss es heißen:

„Reb- und Baumschulen“.

---
**Exhibit
      32.3**




**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of AFP Imaging Corporation (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Elise Nissen, Chief Financial Officer of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.








/s/       Elise
      Nissen




Elise
      Nissen,


Chief
      Financial Officer


October
      12, 2007
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                        MICROS SYSTEMS, INC. SUBSIDIARIES

                                                        Jurisdiction
                                                             Of
Name of Subsidiary                                      Incorporation
------------------                                      -------------
<S>                                                <C>
MICROS-Fidelio Australia Pty Ltd.                         Australia

MICROS Foreign Sales Corporation                          Barbados

Merchants Information Solutions, Ltd.                      Canada

MICROS of Delaware, Inc.                                  Delaware

MSI Delaware, Inc.                                        Delaware

MICROS-Fidelio Software Deutschland GmbH             Federal Republic of Germany

MICROS Systems Holdings GmbH                         Federal Republic of  Germany

MICROS Systems Services GmbH                         Federal Republic of Germany

Fidelio Cruise GmbH                                  Federal Republic of Germany

MICROS-Fidelio Software GmbH & Co. KG.               Federal Republic of Germany

Fidelio Technologies, Inc.                                 Florida

Fidelio-MICROS France, S.A.                                France

Fidelio Software Ltd.                                     Hong Kong

Fidelio India Private Ltd.                                  India

MICROS-Fidelio Italia S.r.l.                               Italy

MICROS-Fidelio Japan Ltd..                                 Japan

Merchants Information Solutions, Inc.                     Maryland

Fidelio Nordic Norway A/S                                  Norway

MICROS-Fidelio Software Portugal, ULDA                    Portugal

Fidelio Software (Pte) Ltd.                               Singapore

Fidelio South Africa (Pty.) Ltd.                        South Africa

MICROS-Fidelio Hispania                                     Spain

Fidelio Nordic Sweden A.B.                                  Sweden

Fidelio Software (China) Ltd.                               China

MICROS-Fidelio Software (Thailand) Co. Ltd.                Thailand

MICROS-Fidelio U.K. Ltd.                                United Kingdom

</TABLE>

The Company has additional subsidiaries, which considered in the aggregate as a
single subsidiary, do not constitute a significant subsidiary.
Opinion filed March 31, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-22-00061-CR

__________

IN RE RONNY MARK ALDRIDGE

Original Mandamus Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator, Ronny Mark Aldridge, has filed a pro se petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. He requests mandamus relief against the “Texas Board of 

Pardons & Paroles” and the “Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Review 

Department.” We dismiss Relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

An intermediate court of appeals has no general writ power over a person 

other than certain judges “in the court of appeals district”—unless issuance of the 

writ is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals. TEX. GOV’T 

CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West Supp. 2021). Relator has not asserted that a writ 

of mandamus directed to the respondents named in the petition is necessary to 

enforce this court’s jurisdiction. Furthermore, we have no general writ power over
2

the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles or the Parole Review Department of the 

TDCJ. See id. § 22.221(b) (general mandamus jurisdiction over certain judges only);

In re Wilson, No. 01-20-00557-CR, 2020 WL 6140178, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] Oct. 20, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication) (holding that court of appeals had no jurisdiction to issue a mandamus

against the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles). Because we do not have 

jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against either of the respondents named in 

Relator’s petition, we must dismiss Relator’s petition.

Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

March 31, 2022

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
#### MEADOW BROOK NURSERIES, INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT, v. BENJAMIN LEVY, APPELLANT.

Submitted January term, 1932

Decided April 26, 1932.

Before Justices Campbell, Lloyd and Bodine.

For the appellant, *John J. Fallon, Jr.*

For the respondent, *George M. Fichler.*

*601Pee Cubiam.

The action in this case was to recover a balance alleged to be dne for grading the lawn and planting trees, hedges, bushes, shrubbery and grass in front of the defendant’s apartment house in accordance with a contract entered into between the parties for that purpose, together with a small sum for extra work and materials. The ease was heard by the judge without a jury and judgment given for the plaintiff in the sum of $170.75, apparently representing a balance of $150 on the contract and $20.75 for extra work.

Payments had been made from time to time until the above balance remained and the controversy in the case was whether or not the work was done to the satisfaction of the defendant. There was evidence we think from which it could be inferred that the claim of dissatisfaction put forth by the defendant was not in good faith. This being true, it became a question of fact for the trial judge and his finding cannot be disturbed.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF JOURNAL EMPLOYES' STOCK TRUST AS OF AND FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,052<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,052<F1>
<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-PRIMARY>                                        0<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>The only revenue and expense associated with the trust pertains to 
dividends received and paid out.  All dividends received are in turn 
paid out, accounting for net income of zero ($0).
<F2>Earnings per share is not applicable as net income is zero ($0).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 23, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2232

Lower Tribunal No. F89-37297

________________

Christopher Cole,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Miranda, Judge.

Christopher Cole, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Cole v. State, 786 So. 2d 1203, 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2001) (“In view of the response of the Florida Parole Commission stating that 

Defendant is parole eligible, and defendant's supplemental reply, we find that 

the court correctly determined that the terms of defendant's plea agreement 

were satisfied.”)
#### STATE v. PARKER

No. 123 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 334.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 dismissed 31 January 1977.
#### PRICE v. TOMRICH CORPORATION

No. 26 PC.

Case below: 3 N.C. App. 402.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 1 April 1969.