alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   infomration  extracted  from
     EGRET, INC. June 30, 1996 financial  statements and is qualified in its
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000894533
<NAME>                        EGRET, INC.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996

<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996

<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>                                             1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                          (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<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-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DASHON HINES , ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 2 4

- 17 34 (UNA) ) FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION , ) ) Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the C ourt on initial review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis , ECF No. 2. The C ourt will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the c omplaint without preju dice

. Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards” than those applied to pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, pro

se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch , 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon w hich the court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. F ED
. R. C IV
. P

. 8(a). It “does not require detailed factual allega tions, but it demands more than an unadorned, the

- defendant

unlawfully

- harmed

- me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). In addition, Rule 8(d) states that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” F ED
. R. C IV
. P . 8(d)(1). “Taken together, [those provisions] underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.” Ciralsky v. CIA , 355 F.3d 661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendan ts receive fair notice of2 the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer, mount an adequate defense, and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. See Brown v. Califano , 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiff, a resident of Buffalo, New York, alleges the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) discriminated against him by refusing “to issue credit cards, hire, allow boarding of aircrafts, and entry to airports due to race and financial income.” Compl. at 4. Th ere simply are no facts to support plaintiff’s discrimination claim. For starters, there are no factual allegations to establish that the FAA itself issues credit cards . Nor are there allegations that plaintiff attempted to enter a specific airport, or b oard a particular flight, or applied for and was denied employment. The attachments that accompany the complaint are of little help either. Th ose that even relate t o the FAA are generic policy documents, which do no t illuminate the gravamen of
p laintiff ’ s injury. As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). The Court, therefore, will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. A n Order is issued

se parately

.

DATE: July 24, 2024 TREVOR N. McFADDEN United States District Judge
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 11

                               KAYDON CORPORATION
          CALCULATION OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
       THREE MONTHS AND SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 28, 1997 AND JUNE 29, 1996

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


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              THREE MONTHS ENDED                        SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                          June 28, 1997     June 29, 1996          June 28 1997     June 29, 1996
                                          -------------     -------------          ------------     -------------
<S>                                         <C>               <C>                   <C>               <C>
Primary Earnings Per Share:
-------------------------- 

Net income                                  $15,904,000       $13,081,000           $29,785,000       $25,361,000
                                            -----------       -----------           -----------       -----------


Weighted average common
  shares outstanding                         16,490,000        16,534,000            16,490,000        16,534,000

Net common shares issuable in respect
  to common stock equivalents, with
  a dilutive effect                              72,000            50,000                63,000            12,000
                                              ---------        ----------             ---------        ----------

Total weighted average common and
  common share equivalents                   16,562,000        16,584,000            16,553,000        16,546,000

Primary earnings per common share                 $0.96             $0.79                 $1.80             $1.53



Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share:
-------------------------------- 

Net income                                  $15,904,000       $13,081,000           $29,785,000       $25,361,000
                                            -----------       -----------           -----------       -----------


Weighted average common
  shares outstanding                         16,490,000        16,534,000            16,490,000        16,534,000

Net common shares issuable in respect
  to common stock equivalents, with
  a dilutive effect                              78,000            65,000                76,000            25,000
                                              ---------        ----------               -------        ----------

Total weighted average common and
  common share equivalents                   16,568,000        16,599,000            16,566,000        16,559,000

Fully diluted earnings per common share           $0.96             $0.79                 $1.80             $1.53

</TABLE>




                                      E-1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY ELEV

 725.50

 722.58

 718.20

 712.73

 710.00

 711.98

 713.52

 714.83

 715.88

 714.45

 715.44

 716.35

 717.66

 716.50

 717.73

 716.79

 715.03

 714.01

 715.81

 715.96

 718.80

 716.50

 716.45

 716.04

 715.92

 717.43

 720.86

 725.07

 1,393

 1,280

 1,122

 943

 861

 920

 968

 1,010

 1,044

 997

 1,030

 1,060

 1,103

 1,065

 1,106

 1,074

 1,016

 983

 1,042

 1,047

 1,143

 1,065

 1,063

 1,049

 1,045

 1,096

 1,217

 1,376

STORAGE

-78

-113

-158

-179

-82

+59

+48

+42

+34

-47

+33

+30

+43

-38

+41

-32

-58

-33

+59

+5

+96

-78

-2

-14

-4

+51

+121

+159

CHANGE

21

11

3

-10

-2

30

24

21

18

4

17

15

22

15

21

4

2

6

30

78

71

28

30

22

21

27

84

122

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 60

 68

 83

 80

 39

 0

 0

 0

 1

 28

 0

 0

 0

 34

 0

 20

 31

 23

 0

 75

 23

 67

 31

 29

 23

 1

 23

 42

 0920

 1040

 0955

 1030

TIME

 .16

 .11

 .08

 .14

COPPER

 .42

 .33

 .31

 .52

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2005 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: May 12, 2005

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -95 735 0 781

ACRE-FEET -95 1,458 0 1,549

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 1,549

 1,549

 1,471

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L

 .003

 .004

 .004

 .003

Table 7
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vladimir SALGADO-BRITO, also known as Pablo Alvarez-Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40241.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

*207Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pursuant to a written agreement, Vladimir Salgado-Brito pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal from the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826(a), (b). He appeals his conviction and sentence of 33 months of imprisonment.

Salgado-Brito argues for the first time on appeal that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. We need not decide the applicability of the waiver in this case because the issue that Salgado-Brito raises is foreclosed.

Salgado-Brito’s constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Edüd 350 (1998). Although Salgado-Brito contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *AlmendarezTorres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Salgado-Brito properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *AlmendarezTorres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### §745. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1207, §5, 68 Stat. 1100, which related to transfer of tribal real property that is under supervision of the United States, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
§ 3730.0-1 Purpose; lands open. ( a ) The purpose of the Mining Claims Rights Restoration Act of August 11, 1955 (Act), is to permit the mining, development, and utilization of the mineral resources of all public lands withdrawn or reserved for power development and other purposes, except for lands that: ( 1 ) Are included in any project operating or being constructed under a license or permit issued under the Federal Power Act or other Act of Congress, or
( 2 ) Are under examination and survey by a prospective licensee of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under an uncancelled preliminary permit that has not been renewed more than once.
( b ) Locations made under the Act on lands withdrawn or reserved for power development within the revested Oregon and California Railroad and Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands are also subject to the provisions of the Act of April 8, 1948 (62 Stat. 162). See subpart 3821 of this title.
[59 FR 44856, Aug. 30, 1994]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsError Estimation and Uncertainty Propagation in Computational Fluid MechanicsNumerical simulation has now become an integral part of engineering design process. Critical design decisions are routinely made based on the simulation results and conclusions. Verification and validation of the reliability of the numerical simulation is therefore vitally important in the engineering design processes. We propose to develop theories and methodologies that can automatically provide quantitative information about the reliability of the numerical simulation by estimating numerical approximation error, computational model induced errors and the uncertainties contained in the mathematical models so that the reliability of the numerical simulation can be verified and validated. We also propose to develop and implement methodologies and techniques that can control the error and uncertainty during the numerical simulation so that the reliability of the numerical simulation can be improved.Document ID20020074979Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsZhu, J. Z.*(Academia Sinica Beijing,  China)*He, Guowei*(Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering Hampton, VA United States)*Bushnell, Dennis M.Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 2002Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And ThermodynamicsReport/Patent NumberICASE-IR-41NAS 1.26:211744NASA/CR-2002-211744Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-97046PROJECT: RTOP 505-90-52-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20020074979.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### In the Matter of Anna Kirschenbaum, Appellant, against Maurice Finkelstein et al., Constituting the Temporary City Housing Rent Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.

Johnston, Acting P. J., Sneed and MacCrate, JJ., concur; Adel, J., dissents and votes to reverse, to annul the determination of the respondents, and to direct the issuance of the certificate, with the following memorandum, in which Wenzel, J., concurs: The appellant landlord is the owner of a one-family house, validly occupied as a one-family dwelling under a certificate of occupancy issued on April 21, 1942. The landlord rented the basement of the house to a tenant for use as a dwelling, and the tenant so occupies it. On February 27, 1947, the department of housing and buildings notified the appellant that the use of the premises was in violation of law because it was occupied by two families, contrary to the one-family use permitted by the certificate of occupancy. Summary proceedings to evict the tenant, properly instituted, resulted in a judgment against the tenant, but the landlord has not been able to obtain a certificate of eviction under the New York City Emergency Rent Control Law. Application to the commission for a certificate was denied on the ground that “ Correction of the violation of the Department of Housing and Buildings does not require the eviction of the tenant.” The landlord brought this proceeding to annul respondents’ determination and for the issuance of a certificate of eviction. The application was. denied at Special Term. From the order entered thereon this appeal is taken. It appears from the record that during the pendency of the proceeding before respondents, they sought information from the department of housing and buildings concerning the violation. The information furnished is the basis upon which respondents acted and is as follows: “ There are violations now pending in this Department based upon: (a) Health hazards (b) Safety hazards which do not require eviction of the tenant.” As a result of that advice respondents denied the landlord’s application for a certificate of eviction. In my opinion there should be reversal of the order denying the application, the determination of respondents should be annulled, and a direction made to issue the certificate of eviction. The tenant’s occupancy of the premises results in two violations of law, set forth by the department of housing and buildings. One violation, it is said, can be removed without eviction of the tenant. This, however, is a mere conclusion. No qualification is made with reference to the other violation. The landlord cannot continue to use the premises as a two-family dwelling without violating the law and subjecting herself to the possibility of punishment for such violation. Respondents have no power to require structural changes in the building to *684comply with the demand of the department of housing and buildings. (Cf. *Matter of Lyons*v. *Prince,*257 App. Div. 202.)
#### § 3583.0-3 Authority.

Authority for leasing mineral deposits within the Shasta and Trinity Units of the Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area administered by the Forest Service is cited in § 3500.0-3(c)(4) of this title.
#### § 30.242 When does the judge's order on a petition for rehearing become final?

The order on a petition for rehearing will become final on the expiration of the 30 days allowed for the filing of a notice of appeal, as provided in this part and § 4.320 of this chapter. The jurisdiction of the judge terminates when he or she issues an order finally disposing of a petition for rehearing, except for the reopening of a case under this part.

[86 FR 72087, Dec. 20, 2021]
Exhibit 23.6



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT





We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on
Form S-3 of Newmont Mining Corporation (Newmont) of our audit report dated
August 21, 2001, except for Notes 40 and 41 as to which the date is September
12, 2002, (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph relating to the restatement of the reconciliation to accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America in Note 40, as
discussed in Note 41), on the financial statements of Normandy Mining Limited as
of June 30, 2001 and 2000 for the years then ended, appearing in Amendment No. 2
to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Newmont on April 15, 2003.

We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such
Prospectus.



/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu



Adelaide, Australia

January 22, 2004



The liability of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, is limited by, and to the extent
of,the Accountants' Scheme under the Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW).
Exhibit 23  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  Callisto
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. New
York, New York  We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S­8 (Nos. 333-119648 and 333-130716) of Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Subsidiaries (a development stage company) of our report dated April 15,
2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appear in this
Form 10-K.  Our report contains an
explanatory paragraph regarding the Companys ability to continue as a going
concern.   /s/BDO
  Seidman, LLPNew
  York, NYApril
  15, 2009
**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**








I,
      Timothy J. Koziol, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report on Form 10QSB of General Environmental Management, Inc. for the quarterly
      period ending September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
      contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB fairly presents in all material
      respects the financial condition and results of operations of General
      Environmental Management, Inc. of Nevada.


Date:
                  November
                  14, 2007
              By:
              /s/ Timothy
                J. KoziolTimothy
                J. KoziolCEOand
                  Chairmanof
                  the Board of Directors