alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                          STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF
                               PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      B. Years Ended December 31,
                                            -------------------------------------------- 
                                                1998            1997            1996
                                            -------------------------------------------- 
<S>                                         <C>             <C>             <C>          
Average shares outstanding                    46,736,000      42,181,000      40,879,000
Average common and common equivalent
   shares outstanding                         46,736,000      42,181,000      40,879,000
Net loss                                    $   (955,000)   $ (2,294,000)   $ (2,506,000)
Preferred stock dividend                    $   (647,000)   $ (1,551,000)   $ (1,725,000)
Computation of Earnings Per Share = Net
   Income (Loss/Average common equivalent
   shares                                   $  4,906,000    $ (3,845,000)   $ (4,231,000)
                                              46,736,000      42,181,000      40,879,000
Earnings (Loss)  Per Share                  $       0.11    $      (0.09)   $      (0.10)
</TABLE>




<PAGE>
#### William E. HAFNER v. UNITED STATES of America. Nick PIZZUTI v. UNITED STATES of America.

Nos. 4666, 4667.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 9, 1953.

S. Philip Cabibi, Pueblo, Colo., for appellants.

Charles Vigil, U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and BRATTON and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM,

Judgments reversed and remanded on authority of United States of America v. Five Gambling Devices, etc., D.C., 119 F.Supp 641; United States of America v. Roscoe Denmark, D.C. 119 F.Supp 647, and United States of America v. Milton H. Braun, D,C., 119 F Supp. 646, on December 9, 1953, without written opinion.
#### § 174.15 Indemnification under Section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993.

Section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Pub. L. 102-484, as amended, provides for indemnification of transferees of closing Department of Defense properties under circumstances specified in that statute. The authority to implement this provision of law has been delegated by the Secretary of Defense to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense; therefore, this provision of law shall only be referred to or recited in any deed, sales agreement, bill of sale, lease, license, easement, right-of-way, or transfer document for real or personal property after obtaining the written concurrence of the Deputy General Counsel (Environment and Installations), Office of the General Counsel, Department of Defense.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James W. Bracke, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Company.

By /s/ JAMES W. BRACKE
   ---------------------------------------
James W. Bracke, Ph.D.
President, Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer), Secretary and Director
November 10, 2003
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Better health for our children: a national strategy : the report of the Select Panel for the Promotion ofChild Health to the United States Congress and the Secretary of Health andHuman Services.**
 
Volumes: One | Two | Three | Four
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.2: H 34/15/V.1-4
Item Number:0485 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001053469
 
April 18, 2018
§ 1697.9 Refunds. ( a ) The Selective Service System will refund promptly any amounts deducted to satisfy debts owed to the Selective Service System when the debt is waived, found not owed to the Selective Service System, or when directed by an administrative or judicial order.
( b ) The creditor agency will promptly return any amounts deducted by the Selective Service System to satisfy debts owed to the creditor agency when the debt is waived, found not owed, or when directed by an administrative or judicial order.
( c ) Unless required by law, refunds under this subsection shall not bear interest.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40038 Conference Calendar

RAY WARMSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TIM WEST, In his Official, Personal & Individual Capacity; PAUL GOMEZ, In his Official, Personal & Individual Capacity; JOSEPH BRADY, In his Official, Personal & Individual Capacity; WAYLON KELLY, In his Official, Personal & Individual Capacity; TANYA HANLY, In her Official, Personal & Individual Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:98-CV-1907

-------------------- August 24, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Landon Ray Warmsley, Texas prisoner #440277, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights action for failure to prosecute. Warmsley moves for reimbursement of the costs of his appeal and an award of attorney fees. Warmsley’s motion is
DENIED. Warmsley’s action was dismissed because he failed to acceptNo. 99-40038 -2- the magistrate judge’s order assessing filing fees pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Warmsley argues that prison mailroom personnel are in violation of Guajardo v. Estelle , 580 F.2d 748 (5th Cir. 1978), because the envelope containing the magistrate judge’s Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) assessment order was opened; that mailroom personnel are largely responsible for the dismissal of his action; that the dismissal of his action manifested the district court’s prejudice against him; and that the dismissal of his action violated his right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The dismissal of Warmsley’s complaint without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. Larson v. Scott , 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). Warmsley’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Warmsley that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; WARNING ISSUED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOSE VALDEZ-MARTINEZ,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00193-CR

Appeal from the

171st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20160D03097)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until August 18, 2018. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Veronica Teresa Lerma, the Appellant’s attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before August 18, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13

th day of July, 2018.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Exhibit 32.01


                            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 of Sbarro, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended  January 1, 2006 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Peter  Beaudrault,
Principal  Executive  Officer  of  the  Company,  certify,  to  the  best  of my
knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

         (1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  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:  April 3, 2006

/s/  Peter Beaudrault
---------------------
Peter Beaudrault
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


NOTE: A signed original of this  certification  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.
#### GERMAN BANK v. RUNG FURNITURE CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 24, 1903.)

Action by the German Bank against the Rung Furniture Company.

No opinion. Motion to vacate order of dismissal of appeal and to restore cause to calendar granted, upon payment to the respondent of $10 costs, and cause placed at the foot of the calendar of the present term.
#### Jacqueline S. Dake, Respondent, v. Arthur Brasky, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. (Appeal from order of Cattaraugus Children’s Court adjudging defendant to be the father of the child and directing defendant to pay for the child’s support.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and McClusky, JJ.
### §5381. Definitions

For the purpose of this subchapter, "agency", "Senior Executive Service position", "career appointee", and "senior executive" have the meanings set forth in section 3132(a) of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title IV, §407(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1171; amended Pub. L. 101–136, title VI, §625(b), Nov. 3, 1989, 103 Stat. 823.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1989—Pub. L. 101–136 inserted " 'career appointee'," before "and".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 9 months after Oct. 13, 1978, and congressional review of provisions of sections 401 through 412 of Pub. L. 95–454, see section 415(a)(1), (b) of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 3131 of this title.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 17, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30096 Summary Calendar
MOUSTAPHA SACKO, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(2:05-CV-264)

_________________________________________________________________ Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Moustapha Sacko, an immigration detainee, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged his pre-removal detention by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He now appeals the district court’s holding he failed to demonstrate there was no reasonable likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future. According to Sacko, his continued detention beyond six months violates the rule from Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).-2-

It appears the district court did not err in concluding Sacko hampered the Government’s efforts to remove him. We need not reach that issue, however. Instead, we note the district court ordered the Government to obtain travel documents from Burundi within six months. That period has now passed, rendering moot any dispute
over the rationale for the district court’s order of continued detention. Therefore, we vacate and remand to the district court to determine whether, given the current status of the case, “there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future”. Id. at 701; see also Gul v. Rozos, 163 F. App’x 317 (5th Cir. 2006). VACATED AND REMANDED
Order entered September 23, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 00978 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00979 - CR ROY CURTIS STUART JR , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dalla s County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 13 - 52718 - Y , F13 - 52719 - Y



### O RDER Appellant’s September 19, 2014 motion for extension of time and for leave to file appellant’s amended brief is GRANTED . Appellant’s amended brief received by the Clerk of the Court o n September 18, 2014 is DEEMED timely filed on the date of this order. /s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### § 1800.4 Suggestions and complaints.

NACIC welcomes suggestions or complaints with regard to its administration of the Freedom of Information Act. Letters of suggestion or complaint should identify the specific purpose and the issues for consideration. NACIC will respond to all substantive communications and take such actions as determined feasible and appropriate.
/rPARTMENTOF 

• ANS^'ORWtON 

•' •jrCPERATiONS 

SERVED JANUARY 31, 2011 i '^.N ii! P 2^ 38 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FLIGHTSTAR AIRCRAFT SERVICES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP10GL0013 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1077 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On October 26, 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to 

as "Complainant") filed a Complaint. On October 6, 2010, Flightstar Aircraft Services, 

Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") filed its Answer. On January 26, 2011, 

Respondent withdrew its request for a hearing, citing settlement. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of its Request for Hearing be and is hereby 

granted; and 
T^^fflfWlffii^^ 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed wittpj^uf a 

SO ORDERED. 

^ACQ^C 

Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attacliment - Service List 

Ik. 
FAA Docket Nos. CP1OGLOO11, 

CP10GL0012, CPl OGLOO 13 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WI000' 

ONE COPY 

Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

TEL: 301-294-8550 

FAX: 301-294-2525 

Glenn L. Brown, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

DesPlaines,IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7063 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building, Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WI0O0, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-29951 21-SEP-2012 02:18 PM

SCWC-29951 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I JASON KELLY ANDREWS, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 29951; S.P.P. NO. 08-1-004K; CR. NO.03-1-279K) ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and McKenna, JJ., with Acoba and Pollack, JJ., concurring in the result) Upon consideration of Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Jason Kelly Andrews’s motion for reconsideration of order dismissing application for writ of certiorari, filed on September 11, 2012, and the records and files herein, our rules do not allow for reconsideration of the acceptance or rejection of an application for certiorari. Hawai ' i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40.1(h). Therefore,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration of order dismissing application for writ of certiorari is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, September 21, 2012. Jason K. Andrews, petitioner, pro se Lisa M. Itomura, Diane K. Taira Deputy Attorneys General and Jason R. Kwiat Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for respondent /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack
### **CHAPTER 77—APPEALS**

Sec.
7701.
Appellate procedures.
7702.
Actions involving discrimination.
7703.
Judicial review of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1978**—Pub. L. 95–454, title II, §205, Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1138, substituted "Appellate procedures" for "Appeals of preference eligibles" in item 7701, and added items 7702 and 7703.
#### STAFFORD, Respondent, v. STAFFORD, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 6, 1903.)

Action by Delia W. Stafford against Jenny K. Stafford.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

DAVY, J., not voting.
#### § 1908.41 Right of further appeal.

A right of further appeal may be available to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel established pursuant to section 5.3 of the Order. Action by that Panel will be the subject of rules to be promulgated by the Information Security Oversight Office.

[76 FR 59034, Sept. 23, 2011]
§ 819.19 Auger mining: Backfilling and grading. ( a ) *General.* Auger mining shall be conducted in accordance with the backfilling and grading requirements of §§ 816.102 and 816.104 through 816.106 of this chapter.
( b ) *Remining.* Where auger mining operations affect previously mined areas that were not reclaimed to the standards of this chapter and the volume of all reasonably available spoil is demonstrated in writing to the regulatory authority to be insufficient to completely backfill the highwall, the highwall shall be eliminated to the maximum extent technically practical in accordance with the following criteria: ( 1 ) The person who conducts the auger mining operation shall demonstrate to the regulatory authority that the backfill, designed by a qualified registered professional engineer, has a minimum static safety factor for the stability of the backfill of at least 1.3.
( 2 ) All spoil generated by the auger mining operation and any associated surface coal mining and reclamation operation, and any other reasonably available spoil shall be used to backfill the area. Reasonably available spoil shall include spoil generated by the mining operation and other spoil located in the permit area that is accessible and available for use and that when rehandled will not cause a hazard to the public safety or significant damage to the environment. For this purpose, the permit area shall include spoil in the immediate vicinity of the auger mining operation.
( 3 ) The coal seam mined shall be covered with a minimum of 4 feet of nonacid-, nontoxic-forming material and the backfill graded to a slope which is compatible with the approved postmining land use and which provides adequate drainage and long-term stability.
( 4 ) Any remnant of the highwall shall be stable and not pose a hazard to the public health and safety or to the environment.
( 5 ) Spoil placed on the outslope during previous mining operations shall not be disturbed if such disturbances will cause instability of the remaining spoil or otherwise increase the hazard to the public health and safety or to the environment.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3



                                 WONDER CHINA INVESTMENTS LIMITED
                                 C/O 16/F, FAR EAST CONSORTIUM LTD
                                 121 DES VOUEX ROAD, CENTRAL
                                 HONG KONG
                                 TEL: 852-28500600 FAX: 852-28150412



Date: 2nd October 2002

New China Homes Ltd
2255 Glades Road
Suite 112E, Boca Radon, F133431
Tel: 561-983-9910
Fax: 561-989-8544

Attention: Mr. Trevor Bedford

Dear sirs,

SALES AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED 30TH MARCH 2001 FOR THE ENTIRE ISSUED & PAID
US SHARE CAPITAL AND DEBTS IN TOP TREND DEVELOPMENT LTD BY AND BETWEEN NEW CHINA
HOMES LIMITED AND WONDER CHINA INVESTMENTS LIMITED.

We refer to the abovesaid agreement and your letter dated 30th September 2002 on
the proposed cancellation of the same.

We hereby confirm and agree to cancel the subject agreement under the following
terms and conditions:

     1.   The deposit of HK$1,280,000 paid to your company upon signing of the
          sales and purchase agreement must be refunded within 30 days from the
          date of your acceptance of this cancellation. Failing which, we
          reserve the right to charge interest at the prevailing market rate
          from due date;

     2.   the Promissory Note, which has lapsed will become null and void; and

     3.   both parties should have no further claims against each other, other
          than the cost and expenses incurred relating to the abovesaid
          cancellation as a result of the breach of warranties which shall be
          borne by New China Homes Ltd.



Yours faithfully,                           Agreed by:





/s/ Steven Kwan                             /s/ Trevor Bedford
------------------------------------        ------------------------------------
Director                                    Director
For and behalf of                           For and behalf of
Wonder China Investments Ltd                New China Homes Limited