alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11.1  
               GLOBAL MARINE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
             COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
         (Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                                 1996            1995              1994

Shares for primary and fully diluted computations:

<S>                                                          <C>             <C>               <C>
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding           167,915,661     165,142,881       163,828,711
Weighted average shares issuable on 
   assumed exercise of stock options                            1,579,733               -                 -

   Weighted average shares for primary earnings per share     169,495,394     165,142,881       163,828,711

Incremental shares issuable on assumed exercise of stock
   options and sale of incentive stock to reflect maximum
   dilutive effect                                              5,642,548       7,397,435         3,167,667

   Weighted average shares and share equivalents for
       fully diluted earnings per share                       175,137,942     172,540,316       166,996,378

Earnings for primary and
   fully diluted computations:

Income before cumulative effect of 
   change in accounting principle                            $      180.1    $       51.9      $        4.8 
Cumulative effect of change in accounting for
   postemployment benefits                                              -               -              (3.5)

Net income                                                   $      180.1    $       51.9      $        1.3

Primary earnings per share:

Income before cumulative effect of change
   in accounting principle                                   $       1.06    $       0.31       $      0.03 
Cumulative effect of change in accounting for 
   postemployment benefits                                              -               -             (0.02)

Primary net income per common share                          $       1.06    $       0.31       $      0.01

Fully diluted net income per share:

Income before cumulative effect of
   change in accounting principle                            $       1.03    $       0.30       $      0.03
Cumulative effect of change in accounting for
   postemployment benefits                                              -               -             (0.02)

Fully diluted net income per common share                    $       1.03    $       0.30        $     0.01
</TABLE>
### §1412. International Dolphin Conservation Program

The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary, shall seek to secure a binding international agreement to establish an International Dolphin Conservation Program that requires—

(1) that the total annual dolphin mortality in the purse seine fishery for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean shall not exceed 5,000 animals with a commitment and objective to progressively reduce dolphin mortality to a level approaching zero through the setting of annual limits;

(2) the establishment of a per-stock per-year dolphin mortality limit, to be in effect through calendar year 2000, at a level between 0.2 percent and 0.1 percent of the minimum population estimate, as calculated, revised, or approved by the Secretary;

(3) the establishment of a per-stock per-year dolphin mortality limit, beginning with the calendar year 2001, at a level less than or equal to 0.1 percent of the minimum population estimate as calculated, revised, or approved by the Secretary;

(4) that if a dolphin mortality limit is exceeded under—

(A) paragraph (1), all sets on dolphins shall cease for the applicable fishing year; and

(B) paragraph (2) or (3), all sets on the stocks covered under paragraph (2) or (3) and any mixed schools that contain any of those stocks shall cease for the applicable fishing year;

(5) a scientific review and assessment to be conducted in calendar year 1998 to—

(A) assess progress in meeting the objectives set for calendar year 2000 under paragraph (2); and

(B) as appropriate, consider recommendations for meeting these objectives;

(6) a scientific review and assessment to be conducted in calendar year 2000—

(A) to review the stocks covered under paragraph (3); and

(B) as appropriate to consider recommendations to further the objectives set under that paragraph;

(7) the establishment of a per vessel maximum annual dolphin mortality limit consistent with the established per-year mortality limits, as determined under paragraphs (1) through (3); and

(8) the provision of a system of incentives to vessel captains to continue to reduce dolphin mortality, with the goal of eliminating dolphin mortality.

(Pub. L. 92–522, title III, §302, as added Pub. L. 105–42, §6(c), Aug. 15, 1997, 111 Stat. 1130.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1412, Pub. L. 92–522, title III, §302, as added Pub. L. 102–523, §2(a), Oct. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 3426, related to international agreements to establish global moratorium to prohibit certain tuna harvesting practices prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–42, §6(c), Aug. 15, 1997, 111 Stat. 1130.

A prior section 302 of Pub. L. 92–522 was renumbered section 402 and is classified to section 1421a of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

For effective date of section, see section 8 of Pub. L. 105–42, set out as an Effective Date of 1997 Amendment note under section 1362 of this title.
Minnesota Department of Health

717 SE Delaware Street

Minneapolis, MN 55414

612-676-5414 or 1-877-676-5414

www.health.state.mn.us

Minnesota

Antibiotic 

Resistance 

Collaborative
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 18

- 00686

- CR

IN RE Chris SLACK

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 7, 2018

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On September 24 , 201 8

, R elator Chris Slack filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After

considering the petition, this court concludes R elator is not entitled to the relief soug ht

.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding a rises out of Cause No. 2018

- CR

- 0227 , styled State of Texas v. Chris Slack , pending in the 227 th

Judicial Di strict Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Hon o rable Kevin O’Connell presiding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS TABLE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND THE STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000835715
<NAME> KU ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,477,862
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     48,782
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         155,081
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        45,016
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,726,741
<COMMON>                                       308,137
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                         (594)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            341,592
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 649,135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     40,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           546,351
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              51,800
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       21
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 439,434
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,726,741
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      341,769
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            21,262
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     268,049
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     289,311
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         52,458
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               5,359
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  57,817
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        20,904
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,913
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   36,913
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        33,280
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       18,691
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          68,553
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .98
        

</TABLE>
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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of B+H Ocean Carriers Ltd.; (the
“Company”) for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
S.  Hudner, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer and Class A Director 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.
  Date:                      June
8, 2010
  
 By:           /s/ Michael S.
Hudner
 Michael
S. Hudner
 Chairman
of the Board, President and
 Chief
Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23

- 0194 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. EVAN DALE TWIFORD, Defendant and Appellant

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 6 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 30 2023

10/30/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0194
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 the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of NorAm Capital Holdings, Inc. (Registrant) for the annual period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Anthony J. Renteria, Chief Executive Officer, hereby 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:



|    |  |                                                                                                                       
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) |  | This 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 this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Registrant.











|                        |                                                           |                         | 
|----------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | 
|Date: December 29, 2008 | By:                                                       | /s/ Anthony J. Renteria | 
|                        | Anthony J. Renteria
President and Chief Executive Officer |
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Funding Programs 
-  Loans 
-  COVID-19 Relief Options 
-  Shuttered Venue Operators Grant 
-  SVOG Data 

## Section navigation

-  Loans    -  Make a payment to SBA 
  -  7(a) loans 
  -  504 loans 
  -  Microloans 
  -  Lender Match 
  -  COVID-19 relief options      -  Paycheck Protection Program 
    -  COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan 
    -  Shuttered Venue Operators Grant 
    -  Restaurant Revitalization Fund 
    -  COVID-19 recovery information in other languages 
    -  SBA debt relief 
    -  Cross-program eligibility 
    -  Reporting identity theft 
    -  Preventing fraud and identity theft 
-  Investment capital 
-  Disaster assistance 
-  Surety bonds 
-  Grants 

# SVOG data

Federal law requires that information about entities and organizations receiving federal funds be disclosed to the public. This information currently includes the entity's name, amount of the grant, funding agency, and location – among other requirements – and is published on SBA's website as well as on USASpending.gov. 
                  - 2022 SVOG program reports
                  - 2021 SVOG program reports
                  - All SVOG data
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 49 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 49

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
                       flag of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 13, 2019

 Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Barrasso, and 
 Mr. Cramer) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
 authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the 
                       flag of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within 7 years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical 
desecration of the flag of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Equality Investments,  Inc.,
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & 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.
§ 61.5 Typical classes of action. ( a ) The NEPA regulations require agencies to establish three typical classes of action for similar treatment under NEPA. These classes are: actions normally requiring environmental impact statements (EIS), actions normally not requiring assessments or EIS, and actions normally requiring assessments but not necessarily EIS. Typical Department of Justice actions falling within each class have been identified as follows: ( 1 ) *Actions normally requiring EIS.* None, except as noted in the appendices to this part.
( 2 ) *Actions normally not requiring assessments or EIS.* Actions not significantly affecting the human environment.
( 3 ) *Actions normally requiring assessments but not necessarily EIS.* ( i ) Proposals for major federal action;
( ii ) Proposals for legislation developed by or with the significant cooperation and support of the Department of Justice and for which the Department has primary responsibility for the subject matter.
( b ) The Department of Justice shall independently determine whether an EIS or an environmental assessment is required where: ( 1 ) A proposal for agency action is not covered by one of the typical classes of action above; or
( 2 ) For actions which are covered, the presence of extraordinary circumstances indicates that some other level of environmental review may be appropriate.
§ 140.912 Transportation. ( a ) *Employees.* The company's cost of necessary employee transportation and subsistence directly attributable to the project, which is consistent with overall policy of the company, is reimbursable.
( b ) *Materials, supplies, and equipment.* The most economical movement of materials, supplies and equipment to the project and necessary return to storage, including the associated costs of loading and unloading equipment, is reimbursable. Transportation by a railroad company over its own lines in a revenue train is reimbursable at average or actual costs, at rates which are representative of actual costs, or at rates which the company charges its customers for similar shipments provided the rate structure is documented and available to the public. These rates are to be agreed to by the company, SHA, and FHWA. No charge will be made for transportation by work train other than the operating expenses of the work train. When it is more practicable or more economical to move equipment on its own wheels, reimbursement may be made at average or actual costs or at rates which are representative of actual costs and are agreed to by the railroad, SHA, and FHWA.
[40 FR 16057, Apr. 9, 1975, as amended at 47 FR 33955, Aug. 5, 1982]
(55 South. 590.)

No. 18,404.

#### STATE et al. ex rel. CONNELLY, Sheriff, v. SCRUTO.

(June 5, 1911.)

*(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)*

Appeal and Error (§ 365*) — Return Day-Failure *of*Judge to Fix.

Under Act No. 92 of 1900, providing that the judge shall fix the return day in the order granting the appeal, where no return day was fixed, the order for appeal was ineffective.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 365.*]

Appeal from Twentieth Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne; W. P. Martin, Judge.

Action by the State and Parish of Terrebonne, on the relation of A. W. Connelly, Sheriff and Tax Collector, against Charles Scruto. Judgment for relator, and defendant appeals.

Dismissed.

Harris Gagne, for appellant. Hugh M. Wallis, Jr., for appellee.

PROVOSTY, J.

Appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal in this case, on the ground that no return day was fixed in the order granting the appeal, and that appellant suffered more than 60 days to elapse before filing the transcript in this court.

Act 92, p. 150, of 1900, provides that:

> “The judge shall fix the return day in the order granting the appeal, which shall not be less than fifteen days nor more than sixty days from the date of the order.”

No return day having been fixed by the judge, as required by said act, the order for appeal was ineffective. Salles v. Jacquet, 106 La. 643, 31 South. 153.

Appeal dismissed.

SOMMERVILLE, J., takes no part herein.
#### § 48.9 Extensions of time.

Any of the time periods established by these Regulations may be extended for good cause, upon timely application to the Attorney General, or to the administrative law judge if one has been appointed.
§ 29.2 Definitions. For the purposes of this part: ( a ) The Act or the MVTPA means the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act.
( b ) *Owner* means the person or persons whose name(s) appear(s) on the certificate of title or to whom the car is registered. In the instance of a new vehicle awaiting sale or lease or in the instance of a used vehicle where the title has been assigned to a dealership, the term “owner” shall be construed to mean new and used automobile dealerships.
( c ) *The Program* refers to the National Voluntary Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Program implemented pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Prevention Act.
§ 1235.5 Temporary removable windshield placards. ( a ) The State system shall provide for the issuance of a temporary removable windshield placard, upon the application of a person with a disability which limits or impairs the ability to walk. The State system shall require that the issuing authority issue, upon request, one additional temporary removable windshield placard to applicants.
( b ) The State system shall require that the application shall be accompanied by the certification of a licensed physician that the applicant meets the § 1235.2(b) definition of persons with disabilities which limit or impair the ability to walk. The certification shall also include the period of time that the physician determines the applicant will have the disability, not to exceed six months.
( c ) The State system shall require that the temporary removable windshield placard is displayed in such a manner that it may be viewed from the front and rear of the vehicle by hanging it from the front windshield rearview mirror of a vehicle utilizing a parking space reserved for persons with disabilities. When there is no rearview mirror, the placard shall be displayed on the dashboard.
( d ) The State system shall require that the temporary removable windshield placard shall be valid for a period of time for which the physician has determined that the applicant will have the disability, not to exceed six months from the date of issuance.