alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                           ABACUS DIRECT CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                    SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                              -------------------------
                                                                 1997           1996
                                                              -----------    ----------
<S>                                                           <C>            <C>
Net income..................................................  $ 3,376,779    $1,974,681
Average number of shares of common stock outstanding during
  the period................................................    9,578,628     9,061,349
Incremental shares from assumed exercise of stock options
  and grants (primary)......................................      664,849       461,568
                                                              -----------    ----------
                                                               10,243,477     9,522,917
Earnings per common share...................................  $      0.33    $     0.21
                                                              ===========    ==========
</TABLE>
Amendment dated August 9, 2009



  
 Exhibit 10.2

  

			
	 1618 Station Street
 Vancouver,
BC. Canada V6A 1B6
 Main: 604.221.7676 Fax: 604.221.2330
 www.angiotech.com
	 	





 August 9, 2009 
 Rex Medical, LP 
 1100 East Hector Street, Suite 245 

Conshohocken, PA 19428 
 Attention: Lindsay L.
Carter 
  

	Re:	Amendment No. 1 to License, Supply, Marketing and Distribution Agreement between Angiotech Pharmaceuticals (US), Inc. (“Angiotech”) and Rex Medical,
LP (“Rex Medical”), dated March 13, 2008 (the “Agreement”) 

 Dear Lindsay: 

This letter is to confirm our understanding concerning an amendment (“Amendment No.1”) to be made to the Agreement to specify that the First
Sale is deemed to be September 1, 2009 regardless of the date that Angiotech commences shipment or invoicing of Product. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning given to them in the Agreement. 

Angiotech and Rex Medical hereby agree that the definition of “First Sale” is amended in its entirety as of July 1, 2009 to read as
follows: 
  

	    	“First Sale” shall mean the later of (i) September 1, 2009, and (ii) the earlier of: (a) the date the first Product is shipped by
Angiotech to a customer (including end users, distributors, affiliates or related entities) that is not deemed a sample; or (b) the date the first Product is invoiced by Angiotech to a customer (including end users, distributors, affiliates or
related entities). 

 Angiotech and Rex Medical further agree that Angiotech will pay royalties on any Net Sales of Product made
prior to the date of First Sale as if such sales were made during the first Term Year and such Net Sales will be included in the Annual Net Sales for the first Term Year. 
 The remainder of the Agreement will continue in full force and effect, unchanged except as modified by this Amendment No.1. This Amendment No.1 may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed to be an original and shall constitute the same agreement. 
 If you agree with the foregoing, please sign the below indication
acknowledging and agreeing to the amendments set forth above, effective as of the date of your signature. 
 Sincerely, 

/s/ Jonathan Chen 
 Jonathan Chen 

President 
 Angiotech Pharmaceuticals (US), Inc.

 Acknowledged and agreed to by: 
 Rex Medical, LP 
  

			
	Signature: /s/ Lindsay L. Carter	  	Date: August 9, 2009
		
	Name: Lindsay L. Carter	  	Title: President
|USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS                                         |                                  | USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS |                                  | USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | --------------------------------
|                                                                         | USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS |                                  | USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
|                                                                         | USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
|Earth Surface Processes Terrain Modeling and Geographic Analysis Project
|Publications - USGS Data Series 130                                     

|Home
Projects
Publications
Links
Contact
|--------------------------------------------

|AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices                                                                                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
        URL: Enter Information
        Page Contact Information: Contact Peter G.Chirico
Page Last Modified:

---
§ 1003.301 Selection process. ( a ) *Threshold requirement.* An applicant that has an outstanding ICDBG obligation to HUD that is in arrears, or one that has not agreed to a repayment schedule, will be disqualified from the competition.
( b ) *Application rating.* NOFAs will define and establish weights for the selection criteria, will specify the maximum points available, and will describe how point awards will be made.
[66 FR 4581, Jan. 17, 2001; 66 FR 8176, Jan. 30, 2001]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 304 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 304

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the naval forces of 
  the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2005

 Mr. Crenshaw (for himself, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Stearns, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis 
of Virginia, Mr. Cantor, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mrs. Drake, Mr. 
 Mica, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Meek of Florida, and Mr. 
    Shaw) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to require the naval forces of 
  the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR 12 OPERATIONAL AIRCRAFT CARRIERS WITHIN 
              NAVAL FORCES OF THE NAVY.

    Section 5062 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
        (c) and (d), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
        subsection (b):
    ``(b) The naval combat forces of the Navy shall include not less 
than 12 operational aircraft carriers. For purposes of this subsection, 
an operational aircraft carrier includes an aircraft carrier that is 
temporarily unavailable for worldwide deployment due to routine or 
scheduled maintenance or repair.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
10.6

    


    Upstream
Worldwide, Inc.

    200
E. Broward Blvd.

    Suite
1200

    Ft.
Lauderdale, FL  33301

    


    September
30, 2010

    


    Mr. Doug
Feirstein

    Mr.
Daniel Brauser

    200 E.
Broward Boulevard

    Suite
1200

    Fort
Lauderdale, FL  33301

    


    Re:  Amendment of Employment
Agreements / Waiver of Back Compensation

    


    Dear Doug
and Dan:

    


    For $100
and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and the receipt of
which are hereby acknowledged, this Letter Agreement amends your written
Employment Agreements with Upstream Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”) effective
immediately.  Each of you shall remain an employee at-will (i.e., not
for a definite term or period of time) and relinquish any severance rights with
respect to a termination of your employment.   In addition, in
consideration of the Company agreeing to pay each of you an annual salary of
$150,000 per year, each of you waives any back compensation due to you as of the
date of this Letter Agreement under the Employment Agreements.

    


    If the
foregoing is acceptable to you, please execute a copy of this Letter Agreement
in the space provided below and return it to me.

    


    Sincerely,

    


    /s/
Michael Brachfeld

    Michael
Brachfeld, Chief Accounting Officer

    


    We hereby
agree to the foregoing.

    


    
      	
              /s/
      Doug Feirstein

            	
              /s/
      Daniel Brauser

            
	
              Doug
      Feirstein

            	
              Daniel
      Brauser
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ECOPY, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 08-04227 JSW

No. C 08-04942 JSW

ORDER ADOPTING

RECOMMENDATION OF

SPECIAL MASTER TO ADJUST

SCHEDULE

The Court has reviewed Special Master Meredith Martin Addy’s Recommendation to

adjust the schedule and adopts it in every respect. Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the

scheduling dates as set forth in the Recommendation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document 166 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 1
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE ESTATE OF JERRY A. AMARO III,

GERALDINE MONTOYA, and

STEPHANIE MONTOYA,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, RICHARD WORD,

EDWARD POULSON, R. HOLMGREN, S.

NOWAK, M. BATTLE, E. KARSSEBOOM,

C. BUNN, M. PATTERSON, individually

and in their capacities as members of the City

of Oakland Police Department, and DOES

1–100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01019 WHA

ORDER REGARDING 

UPCOMING TRIAL DATES

The Court is concerned about having counsel prepare for trial on April 19 (as well as the

pre-trial conference on April 5) when there is a good likelihood that the Ninth Circuit will grant

defendants’ pending petition for appeal. As such, the undersigned is willing to vacate the

upcoming pre-trial conference and trial date, subject to rescheduling if the Ninth Circuit denies

the petition for appeal. Counsel on both sides are asked to submit a statement on this proposal by

5 P.M. ON TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01019-WHA Document 104 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 1
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-1061

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Angela Cox, Judge.

Christopher Scott, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Daniel R. Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### § 266.640 Foreclosure and acquisition.

The HFA is not required to foreclose the insured mortgage. It may accept a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure.
#### Emanuel M. Rosenthal, appellee, v. Henry L. Newhouse, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,413.

Injunction against interference with possession of part of apartment, let on lease. Petition of complainant granted. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. George Fred Rush, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

Rehearing denied December 8, 1923.

Mergentheim, Altheimer & Mayer, for appellant; Morton A. Mergentheim, of counsel. D’Ancona & Pflaum, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §324. Assignment of entries

No assignment after March 28, 1908, of an entry made under sections 321 to 323, 325, and 327 to 329 of this title shall be allowed or recognized, except it be to an individual who is shown to be qualified to make entry under said sections of the land covered by the assigned entry, and such assignments may include all or part of an entry; but no assignment to or for the benefit of any corporation or association shall be authorized or recognized.

(Mar. 28, 1908, ch. 112, §2, 35 Stat. 52.)
#### Brown *v.*Johnson.

April 10, 1912.

Before Judge Martin. Dodge superior court. February 21, 1911.

TP. *L. & Warren Grice, Charles W. Griffin,*and *Herbert L. Grice,*for plaintiff in error. *Roberts & Smith*and *J. A. Neese,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

There being no complaint that any error of law was committed upon the trial, and the verdict not being without evidence to support it, the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices eoneu/K.*
#### In the Matter of the Appraisal of the Estate of Carrie Hoyt Green, Deceased, under the Acts in Relation to Taxable Transfers of Property.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation filed.
### §302. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787

Section, act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 245, §2, 42 Stat. 1445, related to additional entries, and lands in national forests.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787, provided that the repeal made by section 702 is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976, except such effective date to be on and after tenth anniversary of date of approval of this Act, Oct. 21, 1976, insofar as homestead laws apply to public lands in Alaska.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.
### §7384t. Medical benefits

#### (a) Medical benefits provided

The United States shall furnish, to an individual receiving medical benefits under this section for an illness, the services, appliances, and supplies prescribed or recommended by a qualified physician for that illness, which the President considers likely to cure, give relief, or reduce the degree or the period of that illness.

#### (b) Persons furnishing benefits

(1) These services, appliances, and supplies shall be furnished by or on the order of United States medical officers and hospitals, or, at the individual's option, by or on the order of physicians and hospitals designated or approved by the President.

(2) The individual may initially select a physician to provide medical services, appliances, and supplies under this section in accordance with such regulations and instructions as the President considers necessary.

#### (c) Transportation and expenses

The individual may be furnished necessary and reasonable transportation and expenses incident to the securing of such services, appliances, and supplies.

#### (d) Commencement of benefits

An individual receiving benefits under this section shall be furnished those benefits as of the date on which that individual submitted the claim for those benefits in accordance with this subchapter.

#### (e) Payment from compensation fund

The benefits provided under this section, when authorized or approved by the President, shall be paid from the compensation fund established under section 7384e of this title.

#### (f) Effective date

This section shall take effect on July 31, 2001, unless Congress otherwise provides in an Act enacted before that date.

(Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXVI, §3629], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–507.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald *1017Edwards, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 30, 1975, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, indictment dismissed, and case remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. By its verdict, the jury convicted defendant of robbery in the first degree pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 160.15 of the Penal Law and, at the same time, acquitted him of the lesser included offense of grand larceny in the third degree under subdivision 5 of section 155.30 of the Penal Law (see *People v Acevedo, 40*NY2d 701, 707). The acquittal of the lesser included offense of grand larceny, coupled with defendant’s conviction of the higher offense of robbery, renders the verdict repugnant and requires reversal and dismissal of the indictment *(People v Carbonnell,*40 NY2d 948; *People v Belvin,*47 AD2d 929). Latham, J. P., Damiani, Suozzi and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricky A. Moore, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 606]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered March 19, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law former § 265.03 [2]), defendant challenges the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution based on his failure to admit that he intended to use the weapon unlawfully against another person. Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea on that ground and thus failed to preserve his challenge for our review *(see People v Escalante,*16 AD3d 984, 984-985 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 788 [2005]). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). “ ‘[N]othing that defendant said or failed to say in [his] allocution negated any element of the offense to which [he] pleaded ... or otherwise called into question [his] admitted guilt or the voluntariness of his plea’ ” *(People v Clark,*26 AD3d 743, 744 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 754 [2006], quoting *People v Seeker, 4*NY3d 780, 781 [2005]). Defendant further contends that County Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into the basis for his complaints against defense counsel. Defendant did not request new counsel, but instead sought to withdraw his plea on the ground that defense counsel was ineffective and had coerced him into ac*1200cepting the plea. We conclude that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry before denying defendant’s request to withdraw the plea *(see People v Biller,*270 AD2d 883 [2000]; *see generally People v Tinsley,*35 NY2d 926, 927 [1974]; *People v Farley,*34 AD3d 1229 [2006]). Finally, the challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence is encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Centra, Lunn and Green, JJ.
- 1 - 

FISCHER & CO. V. CARTWRIGHT, No. C09-2316 EDL Stipulation to Continue CMC Date 

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 

LOIS A. LINDSTROM (Bar No. 111743) 

FATEH K. SAHOTA (Bar No. 240220) 

ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT. 

155 Grand Avenue, Ste. 1050 

Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: (510) 832-7770 

Fax: (510) 832-0102 

Attorneys for Plaintiff R.C. FISCHER & CO. and 

Third Party Defendant QUARK SPEED PARTNERS 

RONALD K. LOSCH (Bar No.: 98170) 

KEVIN J. WALLACE (Bar No.: 251826) 

Kaye, Rose & Partners, LLP 

425 California Street, Suite 2025 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 433-6555 

Facsimile: (415) 433-6577 

Email: rlosch@kayerose.com 

Attorneys for Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff 

Charles Cartwright 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

R.C. FISCHER & CO., 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CHARLES CARTWRIGHT, DOES 1-50, 

Inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________________ 

CHARLES CARTWRIGHT, 

 Defendant & Third Party 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

QUARK SPEED PARTNERS, 

 Third Party Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No: C09-2316 EDL

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CMC 

DATE FROM MARCH 2, 2010 TO 

MARCH 23, 2010. 

 

Case 3:09-cv-02316-EDL Document 33 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cv-02316-EDL Document32 Filed02/25/10 Page1 of 2
 - 2 - 

FISCHER & CO. V. CARTWRIGHT, No. C09-2316 EDL Stipulation to Continue CMC Date 

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 

 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, by 

their respective counsel, that the March 2, 2010 Case Management Conference be continued to 

March 23, 2010 at 10:00 A.M. 

Dated: February 25, 2010 

KAYE, ROSE & PARTNERS, LLP 

 

 /s/ Kevin Wallace 

 ________________________________ 

RONALD K. LOSCH 

KEVIN WALLACE 

Attorneys for Defendant/Third Party 

Plaintiff CHARLES CARTWRIGHT 

Dated: February 25, 2010 

ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT 

 /s/ Fateh K. Sahota 

________________________________ 

LOIS A. LINDSTROM 

FATEH K. SAHOTA 

Attorneys for Plaintiff R.C. FISCHER & 

Third Party Defendant QUARK SPEED 

PARTNERS 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________, 2010 _______________________________ 

 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case3:09-cv-02316-EDL Document32 Filed02/25/10 Page2 of 2

February 25

A joint case management conference statement shall be filed no

later than March 16, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-02316-EDL Document 33 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 2