alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                  YP.NET, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   Exhibit 11



                                                  SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
<S>                                              <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Common shares outstanding, beginning of period            39,156,853

Effects of reverse merger:
   Reverse Merger Adjustment                             (16,933,096)
                                                 --------------------

Weighted average number of common shares                  22,223,757
                                                 ====================
   outstanding

Net Income                                       $     (4,363,867.00)
                                                 ====================

Earnings Per Share                               $             (0.20)
                                                 ====================


DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE: (NOTE 1)

Common shares outstanding, beginning of period            39,156,853


Effects of reverse merger:
   Reverse Merger Adjustment                             (16,933,069)

Weighted average number of common shares and
   common equivalent shares outstanding                   22,223,784
                                                 ====================

Net Income                                       $     (4,363,687.00)
                                                 ====================

Earnings Per Share                               $             (0.20)
                                                 ====================
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 28-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2020 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32(ii)





Certification of Chief Financial Officer Regarding Periodic Report Containing Financial Statements pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-K filed by Crescent Financial Corporation (the “Issuer”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.





Date: March 29, 2011
/s/ Bruce W. ElderBruce W. ElderVice President (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 31.2

SHOE CARNIVAL, INC.CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



|I, W. Kerry Jackson, certify that:
|----------------------------------
|                                  
|1.                                
|                                  
|2.                                
|                                  
|3.                                
|                                  
|4.                                
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|5.                                
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  

|Date: | June 11, 2008 | By:/s/ W. Kerry Jackson      | 
|----- | ------------- | ---------------------------- | 
|      |               | W. Kerry Jackson             | 
|      |               | Executive Vice President and | 
|      |               | Chief Financial Officer      | 



---
#### § 146.405 Penalty procedures.

Agencies shall impose and collect civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. sections 3803 (except subsection (c)), 3804, 3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, and 3812, insofar as these provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements herein.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- Turner Construction Company Under ContractNo. N40080-16-C-0156 APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 62071

Robert J. Symon, Esq. Amy E. Garber, Esq.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP Washington, DC Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy ChiefTrial Attorney Ellen M. Evans, Esq. Julie C. Ruggieri, Esq.

Trial Attorneys ORDER OF DISMISSAL This appeal was docketed on May 17, 2019. On July 16, 2019, prior to the filing ofa complaint, appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal withoutprejudice. The government does not objectto appellant's request. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed from the Board's docket without prejudice. Dated: August 22, 2019

Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62071, Appeal ofTurner Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter.
Dated: PA ULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals 

# I
Editorial Note on Part 126
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 126 appear at 72 FR 50041, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 126.612 When may a CO award sole source contracts to HUBZone small business concerns? A contracting officer may award a sole source contract to a HUBZone small business concern only when the contracting officer determines that: ( a ) None of the provisions of §§ 126.605 or 126.607 apply;
( b ) The anticipated award price of the contract, including options, will not exceed: ( 1 ) $7,000,000 for a contract assigned a manufacturing NAICS code, or
( 2 ) $4,500,000 for all other contracts.
( c ) Two or more HUBZone small business concerns are not likely to submit offers;
( d ) A HUBZone small business concern is a responsible contractor able to perform the contract; and
( e ) In the estimation of the CO, contract award can be made at a fair and reasonable price.
[63 FR 31908, June 11, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 29425, May 24, 2004; 74 FR 46887, Sept. 14, 2009; 83 FR 12852, Mar. 26, 2018; 84 FR 65248, Nov. 26, 2019; 86 FR 61673, Nov. 8, 2021]
§ 204.52 Application and approval procedures for a subgrant under a fire management assistance grant. ( a ) *Request for Fire Management Assistance.* ( 1 ) State, local, and tribal governments interested in applying for fire management assistance subgrants must submit a Request for Fire Management Assistance subgrant to the recipient in accordance with State procedures and within timelines set by the recipient, but no longer than 30 days after the close of the incident period.
( 2 ) The recipient will review and forward the Request to the Regional Administrator for final review and determination. The recipient may also forward a recommendation for approval of the Request to the Regional Administrator when appropriate.
( 3 ) The Regional Administrator will approve or deny the request based on the eligibility requirements outlined in § 204.41.
( 4 ) The Regional Administrator will notify the recipient of his/her determination; the recipient will inform the applicant.
( b ) *Preparing a Project Worksheet.* ( 1 ) Once the Regional Administrator approves an applicant's Request for Fire Management Assistance, the Regional Administrator's staff may begin to work with the recipient and local staff to prepare Project Worksheets.
( 2 ) The Regional Administrator may request the Principal Advisor to assist in the preparation of Project Worksheets.
( 3 ) The State will be the primary contact for transactions with and on behalf of the applicant.
( c ) *Submitting a Project Worksheet.* ( 1 ) Applicants should submit all Project Worksheets through the recipient for approval and transmittal to the Regional Administrator as part of the State's application.
( 2 ) The recipient will determine the deadline for an applicant to submit completed Project Worksheets, but the deadline must be no later than six months from close of the incident period.
( 3 ) At the request of the recipient, the Regional Administrator may extend the time limitations in this section for up to 6 months when the recipient justifies and makes a request in writing.
( 4 ) Project Worksheets will not be accepted after the deadline in paragraph (c)(2) of this section has expired, or, if applicable, after an extension specified by the Regional Administrator in paragraph (c)(3) of this section has expired.
( 5 ) *$1,000 Project Worksheet minimum.* When the costs reported are less than $1,000, that work is not eligible and FEMA will not approve that Project Worksheet. This minimum threshold does not apply to Project Worksheets submitted for the direct and indirect costs of administration of a fire grant, as defined in § 204.63.
[66 FR 57347, Nov. 14, 2001, as amended at 79 FR 63546, Oct. 24, 2014; 82 FR 42, Jan. 3, 2017]
### §1551. Baseline study of costs and benefits

#### (a) In general

No later than 18 months after March 22, 1995, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (hereafter in this subchapter referred to as the "Advisory Commission"), in consultation with the Director, shall complete a study to examine the measurement and definition issues involved in calculating the total costs and benefits to State, local, and tribal governments of compliance with Federal law.

#### (b) Considerations

The study required by this section shall consider—

(1) the feasibility of measuring indirect costs and benefits as well as direct costs and benefits of the Federal, State, local, and tribal relationship; and

(2) how to measure both the direct and indirect benefits of Federal financial assistance and tax benefits to State, local, and tribal governments.

(Pub. L. 104–4, title III, §301, Mar. 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 67.)
#### Etta Slemo, Respondent, v. John Slemo, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
FW: E.O. 12866 Meeitng on the NSPS and EG: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units: Reconsideration 

and Proposed Amendments; Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste: Proposed Rule

Higgins, Cortney 

to:

David Cozzie, Amy Hambrick, Nick Hilosky, Marc Thomas, George Faison, Alan Carpien

06/01/2012 10:30 AM

Hi all,

Attached is the handout from yesterday’s EO 12866 meeting.

Regards,

Cortney

-----Original Appointment-----

From: Echols, Mabel E. 

Subject: E.O. 12866 Meeitng on the NSPS and EG: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units: Reconsideration and 

Proposed Amendments; Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste: Proposed Rule 

When: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:30 PM-2:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: Room 10103 New Executive Office Building

This meeting has been requested by Doug Green, Venable LLP on behalf of NORA.

(See attached file: 2060-AR15_2012_5_31_NORA_Handout.pdf)
Exhibit
      32





CERTIFICATION
      OF THE


PRINCIPAL
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Peter
      J. Bergmann, the Chief Executive Officer of YP Corp., certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of YP Corp. on Form 10-K for the fiscal
      year
      ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects
      the
      financial condition and results of operations of YP Corp.





Date:
                December 16, 2005
            */s/
                Peter J. Bergmann*Peter
                J. BergmannChief
                Executive Officer





I,
      W.
      Chris Broquist, the Chief Financial Officer of YP Corp., certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of YP Corp. on Form 10-K for the fiscal
      year
      ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects
      the
      financial condition and results of operations of YP Corp.





Date:
                December 16, 2005
            */s/
                W. Chris Broquist*W.
                Chris BroquistChief
                Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23473]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License; Correction

    In the Federal Register Notice published October 6, 2004 (69 FR 
59928) the reference to Waterline Pakistan (PVT) Ltd. is corrected to 
read: ``Waterlink Pakistan (PVT) Ltd.''

    Dated: October 15, 2004.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-23473 Filed 10-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
SCI 001399

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-158 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 2
SCI 001400

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-158 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 2 of 2
### §665. Variations, tolerances, and exemptions from required provisions; procedure; duration

The Secretary, on the record, after notice and opportunity for a hearing may provide such reasonable limitations and may make such rules and regulations allowing reasonable variations, tolerances, and exemptions to and from any or all provisions of this chapter as he may find necessary and proper to avoid serious impairment of the national defense. Such action shall not be in effect for more than six months without notification to affected employees and an opportunity being afforded for a hearing.

(Pub. L. 91–596, §16, Dec. 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 1606.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 1:20-cv-20089-UU

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOOTERS OF AMERICA, LLC,,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal 

With Prejudice, D.E. 12 (the “Stipulation”), and the Court having considered the Stipulation and 

being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Stipulation is approved, and this case is hereby 

dismissed with prejudice as to all parties and all claims, each party to bear its own costs and 

attorney’s fees except as agreed upon by the parties. The case remains closed.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida this _12th__ day of August, 2020.

__________________________________

URSULA UNGARO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished:

All counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-22937-UU Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/12/2020 Page 1 of 1
§ 59.2 Description of program. ( a ) The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 was enacted by title XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-448, August 1, 1968) to provide previously unavailable flood insurance protection to property owners in flood-prone areas. Mudslide (as defined in § 59.1) protection was added to the Program by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-152, December 24, 1969). Flood-related erosion (as defined in § 59.1) protection was added to the Program by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-234, December 31, 1973). The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires the purchase of flood insurance on and after March 2, 1974, as a condition of receiving any form of Federal or federally-related financial assistance for acquisition or construction purposes with respect to insurable buildings and mobile homes within an identified special flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow), or flood-related erosion hazard area that is located within any community participating in the Program. The Act also requires that on and after July 1, 1975, or one year after a community has been formally notified by the Federal Insurance Administrator. of its identification as community containing one or more special flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow), or flood-related erosion hazard areas, no such Federal financial assistance, shall be provided within such an area unless the community in which the area is located is then participating in the Program, subject to certain exceptions. See FIA published Guidelines at § 59.4(c).
( b ) To qualify for the sale of federally-subsidized flood insurance a community must adopt and submit to the Federal Insurance Administrator as part of its application, flood plain management regulations, satisfying at a minimum the criteria set forth at part 60 of this subchapter, designed to reduce or avoid future flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow) or flood-related erosion damages. These regulations must include effective enforcement provisions.
( c ) Minimum requirements for adequate flood plain management regulations are set forth in § 60.3 for flood-prone areas, in § 60.4 for mudslide (i.e., mudflow) areas and in § 60.5 for flood-related erosion areas. Those applicable requirements and standards are based on the amount of technical information available to the community.
[41 FR 46968, Oct. 26, 1976, as amended at 43 FR 7140, Feb. 17, 1978. Redesignated at 44 FR 31177, May 31, 1979, and amended at 48 FR 44552, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984]
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Ronald B. VIAL.

Crim. No. 67-48.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

April 2, 1968.

Philip Wilens, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington D. C., Paul F. Markham, U. S. Atty., Albert F. Cullen, Asst. U. S. Atty., for plaintiff.

Joseph S. Oteri, Harvey A. Silverglate, Cambridge, Mass., for defendant.

OPINION

WYZANSKI, Chief Judge.

The indictment charges Vial as a principal with having imported into the United States marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 176a. Government counsel specified orally that the Government’s proof would show that the marijuana was produced abroad and was transported into the United States unlawfully by Vial as principal.

Defendant has moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that in order to have complied with the requirements of § 176a he would have been forced to incriminate himself, contrary to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Indubitably, 21 U.S.C. § 176a does not have on its face any requirement of self-incrimination. Read literally, therefore, the statute does not conflict with the United States Constitution.

However, it is asserted that at least the implications of Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 88 S.Ct. 697, 19 L.Ed.2d 889; Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62, 88 S.Ct. 709, 19 L.Ed.2d 902, and Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923, three decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 29, 1968, suggest that 21 U.S.C. § 176a as here sought to be applied would violate the Fifth Amendment. The argument has a certain plausibility, particularly because of the construction placed upon the majority opinions in the three cases just cited by Chief Justice Warren dissenting from the judgments in those cases.

However, it behooves a United States District Judge to remember that he is only one man and that there is a *473strong presumption of constitutionality of acts of Congress which, after all, have always commanded a majority in each House of Congress and frequently, as here, the approval of the President of the United States. Of course, a United States District Judge, like every other public officer, has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. But that oath may reasonably be interpreted as including a modest awareness of one’s own limited competence.

Motion to dismiss the indictment denied.
EXHIBIT 31(iv)





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Peter K. Poli, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial
Officer, of Track Group, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that:





1.
 I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Track Group,
Inc.; and





2.
 Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report.








Date: January 29, 2018
/s/ Peter K.
Poli
Peter K. Poli
Chief Financial & Principal Accounting Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7393

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES THOMAS HANCOCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00206-CCE-2)

Submitted: February 24, 2022 Decided: March 1, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Thomas Hancock, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Thomas Hancock appeals the district court’s order denying his renewed 

motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by 

the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Upon 

review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hancock’s 

motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-30 (4th Cir.) (providing standard), 

cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS96267 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
§ 206.38 Presidential determination. ( a ) The Governor's request for a major disaster declaration may result in either a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or an emergency, or denial of the Governor's request.
( b ) The Governor's request for an emergency declaration may result only in a Presidential declaration of an emergency, or denial of the Governor's request.
[55 FR 2292, Jan. 23, 1990; 55 FR 5458, Feb. 15, 1990]