alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF CRESCENT OPERATING, INC.

<TABLE>
<S>                                                                 <C>
Name of Subsidiary                                                  State of Incorporation or Organization

COI Hotel Group, Inc.                                               Texas

WOCOI Investment Company                                            Texas

RoseStar Management LLC                                             Texas

Desert Mountain Development Corporation                             Delaware

Woodlands Land Company, Inc.                                        Texas

Crescent CS Holdings Corporation                                    Delaware

Crescent CS Holding II Corporation                                  Delaware

RSCR Arizona Corp.                                                  Delaware

RSSW Corp.                                                          Delaware

Crescent Machinery Company (formerly, Moody-Day, Inc.)              Texas

COPI Colorado, LP                                                   Delaware

CRL Investments, Inc.                                               Texas

COI Arena Company                                                   Texas

Crescent Development Management Corp.                               Delaware

Desert Mountain Properties, LP                                      Delaware

Western Traction Company                                            California

E.L. Lester & Company, Inc.                                         Texas

Solveson Crane Rental, Inc.                                         California

COPI Cold Storage, LLC                                              Delaware
</TABLE>
null

2010-10-26

574.19104

eng - Argued: 2010-10-26. Docket number: 5-09-0354WC
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 Amended Quarterly Report of Power-Save Energy Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Louis Fox, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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.

















/s/Louis Fox


By: Louis Fox


Chief Financial Officer





Dated: December 23, 2011





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.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. REGINALD PRATHER.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

830.1 

CAF 10-01379 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF KELLY A. MAIDA, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN CAPRARO, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

 

KELLY A. HOBAICA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Herkimer County

(Anthony J. Garramone, J.H.O.), entered April 27, 2010 in a proceeding

pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted the motion

of respondent to dismiss the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is 

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother commenced this proceeding alleging

that respondent father was in violation of a prior order pursuant to

which the parties had joint custody of their youngest child, with the

mother having primary physical custody. According to the mother, the

father violated the order by keeping the child in South Carolina and

refusing to allow the mother to bring her to New York. Family Court

properly granted the father’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack

of jurisdiction. Where a court of this state has made an initial

custody determination, it has “exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over

the determination until . . . [, inter alia,] a court of this state

determines that neither the child, the child and one parent, nor the

child and a person acting as a parent have a significant connection

with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available

in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and

personal relationships” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]; see

Matter of Gulyamova v Abdullaev, 53 AD3d 489). Here, the parties and

the child moved to South Carolina in 2007, and the father, with the

mother’s consent, has had primary physical custody of the child since

December 2007. The mother did not move back to New York until

approximately the time she filed the violation petition in February

2010. We thus conclude that the child did not have “a significant

connection with New York, and substantial evidence was no longer

available in New York” concerning, inter alia, her care (Gulyamova, 53

AD3d at 490; see Matter of Felicia McM. v Jerrold L.W., 51 AD3d 501;

Matter of Zippo v Zippo, 41 AD3d 915, 916). 

Entered: July 1, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan 

 Clerk of the Court
584 A.2d 213

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTONIO VEGA.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 

POLARIS IP, LLC)

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

YAHOO! INC., 

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________ 

2012-1045, 2013-1124

__________________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in case no. 07-CV-0371, Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

O R D E R

The parties jointly move to withdraw the above captioned appeals.

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

 (1) The motion is granted. The appeals are dismissed. 

Case: 12-1045 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 03/26/2013
BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC V. YAHOO! INC. 2

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly

 Clerk

s21

Issued As A Mandate: March 26, 2013

Case: 12-1045 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 03/26/2013
585 A.2d 338

#### DANIEL J. SAUL v. MIDLANTIC NATIONAL BANK/SOUTH.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 240 *N.J.Super.*62, 572 A.2d 650)
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25614]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel, Secondary Data Analysis R03s: 
Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: October 27, 2010.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Jayalakshmi Raman, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Dental and 
Craniofacial Research, One Democracy Plaza, Room 670, Bethesda, MD 
20892-4878, 301-594-2904, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e89a8985898682a885898184c6868180c68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b392a262a25210b262a222765252223652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel, Special Emphasis Panel: Secondary 
Data Analysis R03s.
    Date: October 29, 2010.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Jayalakshmi Raman, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Dental and 
Craniofacial Research, One Democracy Plaza, Room 670, Bethesda, MD 
20892-4878, 301-594-2904, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d1f0c000c03072d000c040143030405430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="05776468646b6f4568646c692b6b6c6d2b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 5, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-25614 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 34.8



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services,
Inc. (the Company), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider (the Platform), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v),
1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts
calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with
the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.

February 4, 2016



LOGO



LOGO
585 A.2d 339

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ABAYOMI CYRUS BRYANT, SR.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
|   | 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:      May 5, 2009 | By: /s/      Michael      Forster            |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Michael      Forster                                                                                     |
|                    | Chief      Executive Officer                                                                             |
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EMORY M. GHANA.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Larry B. JONES v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2442.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 2010.

In re Jones, Larry B.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 386-088; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1318.

Denied. Untimely and not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.
585 A.2d 393

#### IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS AS TO VIOLATIONS OF LAW AND THE NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE BY CARMINE FRANCO AND COMPANY, INC., AND CARMINE FRANCO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF CARMINE FRANCO AND COMPANY, INC.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                 Exhibit 11.1

                   Photoelectron Corporation and Subsidiary
                         (a Development Stage Company)
                Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                              Three Months Ended:


                                                   30-Mar -96        29-Mar-97
<S>                                          <C>                     <C>
                                                             
Computation of Primary                                       
Net Loss Per Share:                                ($960,106)    ($1,081,480)
                                                             
Net Loss                                                     
                                                             
Shares:                                                      
                                                             
   Weighted average shares outstanding             1,583,554       4,937,074
                                                             
   Shares issuable from the assumed                          
   conversion of Series C Preferred Stock                    
   issued within one year of the Company's                   
   initial public offering                            33,106          10,667
                                                             
   Weighted average common and common              _________       _________
   equivalent shares outstanding:                  1,616,660       4,947,741
                                                             
Primary Net Loss Per Share:                           ($0.59)         ($0.22)
                                                             
Computation of Fully Diluted                                 
Net Loss Per Share:                                ($960,106)    ($1,081,480)
                                                             
Net Loss                                                     
                                                             
Shares:                                                      
                                                             
   Weighted average shares outstanding             1,583,554       4,937,074
                                                             
   Shares issuable from the assumed                          
   conversion of Series C Preferred Stock                    
   issued within one year of the Company's                   
   initial public offering                            33,106          10,667
                                                             
   Weighted average common and common              _________       _________
   equivalent shares outstanding:                  1,616,660       4,947,741
                                                             
Fully Diluted Net Loss Per Share:                     ($0.59)         ($0.22)
 
</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1





RF MONOLITHICS, INC.





CERTIFICATE PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906


OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, David M. Kirk, Chief Executive Officer and President of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





| | 1. |  | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 13th day of January 2003.





/s/ David M. KirkName: David M. Kirk Title: Chief Executive Officer and President
Exhibit 4.5


 


WARRANT
CANCELLATION AGREEMENT


 


THIS
WARRANT CANCELLATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made as of this 10th day of December 2021 (the “Effective
Date”), by and between Maris-Tech Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Israel, registration number 514135730,
having its principal place of business at 2 Yitzhak Modai Street, Rehovot, Israel 7608804, Israel (the “Company”)
and L.I.A. Pure Capital Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Israel, registration number 514408715, having its
principal place of business at 20 Raoul Wallenberg St., Tel Aviv, Israel (“Pure Capital”). Each a “Party”,
and collectively, as the “Parties”.


 


WHEREAS,
the Company has issued to Pure Capital on May 9, 2021, that certain warrant to purchase shares of Company, a copy of which is as
Schedule A (as adjusted following the reverse stock split mentioned below, the “Warrant”) issued pursuant to
that certain Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of March 24, 2021, as amended and restated; and


 


WHEREAS,
subsequent to issuance of the Warrant to purchase 97,963 ordinary shares of the Company (“Ordinary Shares”), the
Company approved a 1-for-4 reverse split on August 25, 2021, resulting in the Warrant representing the right to purchase 24,491 Ordinary
Shares; and


 


WHEREAS,
no portion of the Warrant has been exercised to date and the Parties wish to cancel the Warrant;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth herein, the Parties hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	Cancellation
                                            of Warrant. By execution of this Agreement, the Warrant is hereby, as of the Effective
                                            Date, cancelled and of no further effect. The parties agree that Pure Capital does not hold
                                            any warrants or other rights to purchase Ordinary Shares of the Company.



 


		2.	This
                                            Agreement shall be governed by and construed exclusively according to the laws of the State
                                            of Israel, without regard to the conflict of laws provisions thereof. Any dispute arising
                                            under, or in relation to, this Agreement shall be resolved exclusively in the competent Court
                                            in the District of Tel Aviv and each of the Parties hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive
                                            jurisdiction of such Court.



 






     


     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by its officers thereunto duly authorized.


 


	 	MARIS-TECH
    LTD.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Israel Bar 
	 	 	Israel
    Bar
	 	 	CEO
	 	 	 
	 	 	L.I.A.
    Pure Capital Ltd.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Kfir Silberman 
	 	 	Kfir
    Silberman
	 	 	CEO