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




                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             INFOSAFE SYSTEMS, INC.
                          (a development stage company)

                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

 
 
                                                                                      Three Months Ended
                                                                                          October 31,
                                                                                  1995                 1996
                                                                              ----------            ----------
 

<S>                                                                            <C>                  <C>       
NET (LOSS) ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON
  SHAREHOLDERS............................................                     $(664,547)           $(524,200)
                                                                               =========            ========= 


Weighted average number of Class A common
  shares outstanding......................................                      2,420,913            2,940,309

Weighted average number of Class B common
  shares outstanding......................................                      1,494,987            1,309,549


Less escrow shares........................................                      (781,244)            (781,244)
                                                                              ----------            ----------

WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON
  SHARE AND COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENTS
  OUTSTANDING.............................................                      3,134,656            3,468,614
                                                                                =========            =========

NET (LOSS) PER SHARE OF COMMON SHARE
  AND COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENTS............................                         $(.21)               $(.15)
                                                                                   =====                ===== 

</TABLE>

                   The accompanying notes are an integral part
                    of these condensed financial statements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         352,090
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               401,653
<PP&E>                                          14,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,655
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 433,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,051
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                     313,303
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   313,319
<SALES>                                      1,759,727
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,760,864
<CGS>                                        1,541,162
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,869,978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (104,114)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (94,446)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Harry Chestnut, Appellant, v. The New York Consolidated Railroad Company, Respondent.

The parties hereto having stipulated in open court that this case may be disposed of by a court of four, the decision is as follows: Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, by reason of the charge at folio 184, inasmuch as it seems to withdraw from the jury consideration of the causes of the sign falling which were submitted to the jury in the main charge. At least the jury may have been led to such conclusion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ., concurred.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsString Fragmentation Model in Space Radiation ProblemsString fragmentation models such as the Lund Model fit experimental particle production cross sections very well in the high-energy limit. This paper gives an introduction of the massless relativistic string in the Lund Model and shows how it can be modified with a simple assumption to produce formulas for meson production cross sections for space radiation research. The results of the string model are compared with inclusive pion production data from proton-proton collision experiments.Document ID20020080635Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsTang, Alfred*(Wisconsin Univ. Milwaukee, WI United States)*Johnson, Eloise*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Norbury, John W.*(Wisconsin Univ. Milwaukee, WI United States)*Tripathi, R. K.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 2002Subject CategorySpace RadiationReport/Patent NumberL-18208NASA/TP-2002-211933NAS 1.60:211933Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC1-354CONTRACT_GRANT: NGT1-52217PROJECT: RTOP 755-06-00-03Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20020080635.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
377 P.2d 687

#### Cecil Alvin PECE, Petitioner, v. The STATE of New Mexico and Harold A. Cox et al., Respondents.

No. 16 HC.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 18, 1963.

COMPTON, Chief Justice and CARMODY, CHAVEZ, NOBLE and MOISE, Justices, concurring.

Ordered that the request for free process be and the same is hereby granted, and the petition for writ of habeas corpus be and the same is hereby denied for failure to allege that petitioner has exhausted his district court remedy.
### §5613. Forfeiture of distilled spirits not closed, marked, or branded as required by law

#### (a) Unmarked or unbranded casks or packages

All distilled spirits found in any cask or package required by this chapter or any regulation issued pursuant thereto to bear a mark, brand, or identification, which cask or package is not marked, branded, or identified in compliance with this chapter and regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall be forfeited to the United States.

#### (b) Containers without closures

All distilled spirits found in any container which is required by this chapter to bear a closure or other device and which does not bear a closure or other device in compliance with this chapter shall be forfeited to the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 21, 1958, 72 Stat. 1404; amended Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title IV, §454(c)(12)(A), (B), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 822.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5613, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 685, related to penalty for distilling during prohibited hours, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859. See section 5687 of this title.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior sections 5639 and 5640, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 691, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–369, §454(c)(12)(B), substituted "closed" for "stamped" in section catchline.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–369, §454(c)(12)(A), amended subsec. (b) generally, substituting provisions relating to forfeitures of containers without closures for provisions relating to forfeitures of unstamped containers.

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–369 effective July 1, 1985, see section 456(b) of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as an Effective Date note under section 5101 of this title.
#### Waddell *et al. v.*Ledford.

August 10, 1910.

Probate of will. Before Judge Ereeman. Meriwether sujjerior. court. May 7, 1909.

*McLaughlin, Jones & Jones,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Howell & Hatcher,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

The grounds of the motion for a new trial did. not complain of any charge of the court or ruling in regard to the admission or rejection of evidence, but only attacked the verdict on the grounds that it- was contrary to law and evidence, without evidence to support it, and contrary to certain charges of the court. The evidence was sufficient to support tlie finding of.the jury; and the verdict having been approved by the presiding, judge, this court will not interfere therewith.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beck, J., absent. The other Justices concur.*
#### § 3585.4-2 Terms and conditions.

Leases shall be issued on a form approved by the Director and under such terms and conditions as prescribed in the lease form and subpart 3561 of this title. Where deemed necessary by the authorized officer, special lease stipulations also shall be included for the protection of the surface, its resources and use for recreation.
§ 4.909 How do I request an extension of time? ( a ) If you are a party to an appeal subject to this subpart before the IBLA, and you need additional time after an appeal commences for any purpose, you may obtain an extension of time under this section.
( b ) You must submit a written request for an extension of time before the required filing date. ( 1 ) You must submit your request to the IBLA at Interior Board of Land Appeals, using the U.S. Postal Service, a private delivery or courier service, hand delivery or electronic transmission under the terms of OHA Standing Orders on Electronic Transmission;
( 2 ) If you file a document by telefax, you must send an additional copy of your document to the IBLA using the U.S. Postal Service, a private delivery or courier service or hand delivery so that it is received within 5 business days of your telefax transmission.
( c ) If you are an appellant, in addition to meeting the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, you must agree in writing in your request to extend the period in which the Department must issue a final decision in your appeal under § 4.906 by the amount of time for which you are requesting an extension.
( d ) If you are any other party, the IBLA may require you to submit a written agreement signed by the appellant to extend the period in which the Department must issue a final decision in the appeal under § 4.906 by the amount of time for which you are requesting an extension.
( e ) The IBLA has the discretion to decline any request for an extension of time.
( f ) You must serve your request on all parties to the appeal.
( g ) A document may be electronically transmitted under the terms specified in the OHA Standing Orders on Electronic Transmissions.
[64 FR 26259, May 13, 1999, as amended at 67 FR 4368, Jan. 30, 2002; 88 FR 5794, Jan. 30, 2023]
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549



                                    FORM 8-K
                                 CURRENT REPORT
                      Pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of
                       the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



                                December 20, 2001
                Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)

                                AP HOLDINGS, INC.
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

                                                              06-1269403
      Delaware                     333-50433                 (IRS Employer
(State of Incorporation)    (Commission File Number)       Identification No.)

                             900 N. Michigan Avenue
                          Chicago, Illinois 60611-1542
                     (Address of Principal Executive Office)

                                 (312) 274-2000
              (Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

                                (Not Applicable)
                         (Former Name or Former Address,
                          If Changed Since Last Report)


<PAGE>


Item 5.   OTHER EVENTS

          On December 20,  2001,  APCOA/Standard  Parking,  Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary  of  AP  Holdings,  Inc.,  issued  a  press  release  relating  to an
unregistered exchange offer, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit 99.1.

Item 7.   Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits

          (a)      Financial Statements:

                   None.

          (b)      Pro Forma Financial Information:

                   None.

          (c)      Exhibits:

                   99.1 Press Release dated as of December 20, 2001.


<PAGE>



                                    SIGNATURE

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

                                                     AP Holdings, Inc.


DATE:  December 31, 2001                            By:
                                                        /s/ Robert N.Sacks
                                                        Robert N. Sacks
                                                        Secretary
§ 3601.30 Pre-application activities—how and when may I sample and test mineral materials? ( a ) BLM may authorize you in writing to sample and test mineral materials. The authorization letter expires after 90 days, but BLM may extend it for an additional 90 days if you show us that an extension is necessary. BLM may authorize these activities before issuing a sales contract or free use permit.
( b ) You must submit your sampling and testing findings to BLM. All information you submit under this section is subject to part 2 of this title. That part sets forth the rules of the Department of the Interior relating to public availability of information contained in Departmental records. (*See* § 3601.8.)
( c ) A letter from BLM authorizing you to sample and test mineral materials does not give you a preference right to a sales contract or free use permit.
( d ) BLM may impose bonding and reclamation requirements on sampling and testing that you conduct under an authorization letter.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 57080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21383]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Geological Survey


Patent, Trademark and Copyright Acts

AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of prospective intent to award exclusive license.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is contemplating 
awarding an exclusive license to Westco Scientific Instruments, Inc., 
of Danbury, CT, on U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 10/251,696, 
entitled ``Reduction Devise for Nitrate Determination.''
    Inquiries: If other parties are interested in similar activities, 
or have comments related to the prospective award,please contact Neil 
Mark, USGS, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 201, Reston, Virginia 20192, 
voice (703) 648-4344, fax (703) 648-7219, or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d03000c1f062d181e0a1e430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bdd3d0dccfd6fdc8cedace93dad2cb">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is submitted to meet the 
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 208 et seq.

    Dated: September 3, 2004.
Carol F. Aten,
Chief, Office of Administrative Policy and Services.
[FR Doc. 04-21383 Filed 9-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-Y7-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 32,565

#### Charles Henry Lafler, *Appellee,*v. The Midwest Life and Casualty Association (Revived in the Name of John H. Linn, Receiver), *Appellant.*

(53 P. 2d 801)

Opinion filed January 25, 1936.

*W. A. Dumars,*of Topeka, for the appellant.

*James L. Haley,*of Sabetha, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Thiele, J.:

This was an action to recover on an accident and health insurance policy, and from a judgment in favor of the plain*161tiff the defendant appeals. Its assignments of error are that the trial court- erred in overruling its demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence, in not giving a requested instruction to, the jury, and in denying its motion for a new trial.

Appellant in its abstract makes no statement that plaintiff failed to prove any element of his case. It prints verbatim about three pages of questions and answers with reference to a transcript, from which references we learn there were at least forty pages of plaintiff’s oral testimony in the transcript. We are left to surmise what the unabstracted portions contained.-

After the defendant offered its proof, the jury rendered its verdict in favor of plaintiff and answered four special questions favorably to him. There was no motion to set aside any answer as being unsupported by or contrary to the evidence. For aught the record shows, if there was any defect in plaintiff’s proof it was cured by defendant’s evidence. It has not been made to appear the trial court erred in ruling on the demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence.

There is no showing as to what instructions the court gave the jury. The absence of an abstract makes it impossible for us to determine whether the requested instruction should have been given in any case, or whether if proper, the substance of it was not included in the instructions given.

The motion for a new trial covers every statutory ground, and we are left to assume that the grounds urged to the trial court were the ruling on the demurrer and the refusal to give the requested instruction to the jury. If so, it has not been made to appear the trial court erred in denying the motion.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### § 3809.582 How long must I maintain my financial guarantee?

You must maintain your financial guarantee until you or a new operator replace it with another adequate financial guarantee, subject to BLM's written concurrence, or until BLM releases the requirement to maintain your financial guarantee after you have completed reclamation of your operation according to the requirements of § 3809.320 (for notices), including any measures identified as the result of consultation with BLM under § 3809.313, or § 3809.420 (for plans of operations).
1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2263

___________ Federated Life Insurance Company, * * Appellee, * * v. * * Cindy Roach, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Appellant, * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Union Planters Bank, as Administrator * [UNPUBLISHED] of the Estate of Paxton Roach, * Deceased; Simmons First Bank, * * Defendants. *

___________ Submitted: February 21, 2001 Filed: March 7, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Cindy Roach appeals the District Court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment on her counterclaim for penalties, attorney’s fees, and interest under A RK . C ODE . A NN .-2-

§§ 23-79-208, 23-81-118 (Michie 1999). Roach argues that Federated Life Insurance Com pany improperly filed the instant interpleader action even though it was clear, based on the relevant policy terms and Arkansas law, that she was the proper recipient of the proceeds from her ex-husband’s life insurance policy. After careful de novo review of the record, the applicable law, see Davidv. Tanksley , 218 F.3d 928, 930 (8th Cir. 2000), and the District Court’s interpretation of state law in this diversity case, we agree with the District Court, for the reasons explained in its order, that an award of statutory penalties, fees, and interest was unwarranted. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case 1:20-cv-22107-PAS   Document 49   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2023   Page 1 of 12

Case 1:20-cv-22107-PAS   Document 49   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2023   Page 2 of 12

Case 1:20-cv-22107-PAS   Document 49   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2023   Page 3 of 12

Case 1:20-cv-22107-PAS   Document 49   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2023   Page 4 of 12

Case 1:20-cv-22107-PAS   Document 49   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2023   Page 5 of 12

Case 1:20-cv-22107-PAS   Document 49   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2023   Page 6 of 12

Case 1:20-cv-22107-PAS   Document 49   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2023   Page 7 of 12

Case 1:20-cv-22107-PAS   Document 49   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2023   Page 8 of 12

Case 1:20-cv-22107-PAS   Document 49   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2023   Page 9 of 12

Case 1:20-cv-22107-PAS   Document 49   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2023   Page 10 of 12

Case 1:20-cv-22107-PAS   Document 49   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2023   Page 11 of 12

Case 1:20-cv-22107-PAS   Document 49   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/13/2023   Page 12 of 12