alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-31109

 

ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BAYOU CONCESSION SALVAGE, INC, ET AL

Defendants,

JOSE ANTONIO MORALES, SR, Individually and 

as administrator of the Estate of 

Antonio Morales Jr; CARMEN MORALES; 

EMILIA MORENO RAMIREZ, Individually 

and as next friend of Antonio Morales, III, a minor

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana 

(95-CV-3401)

 

August 8, 1997

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The

judgment below did not dispose of all the parties, and there is no

Rule 54(b) certificate. Appeal DISMISSED. 
2
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11





                 NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


                 Statement re computation of per share earnings

                 Statement of Computation of Earnings per Share




                                                        For the Year
                                                      Ended December 31
                                            ------------------------------------
                                               2001          2000         1999
                                            ---------      --------     --------



Net Earnings                                 $ 10,362      $  7,889     $ 12,685
                                             ========      ========     ========


Average common shares
     outstanding                               15,005        15,005       15,005
                                             ========      ========     ========


Basic and diluted earnings
     per share                               $    .69      $    .53     $    .85
                                             ========      ========     ========
#### GRAY v. UNITED STATES.

No. 11781.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 17, 1954.

Decided April 1, 1954.

Mr. DeLong Harris, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Curtis P. Mitchell and William Beasley Harris, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Samuel J. L’Hommedieu, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Lewis A. Carroll, Asst. Ü. S. Atty., *651Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Mr. William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., at time record was filed, entered an appearance for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN, and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We find no prejudicial error in appellant’s conviction and sentence for violations of the lottery laws.

Affirmed.
§ 192.3 Definitions. *Agent.* Real estate agency, manager, landlord, or owner of a housing facility doing business with DoD personnel or a housing referral service (HRS).
*Area outside the United States.* Foreign countries where DoD personnel reside.
*Commander.* The military or civilian head of any installation, organization, or agency of the Department of Defense who is assigned responsibility for the off-base housing program.
*Commuting area.* That area which is within a 1 hour commute by a privately-owned vehicle during rush hour and no farther than 30 miles from the installation, or within other limits to satisfy mission requirements.
*Complainant.* A member of the Armed Forces (or authorized dependent designated by the member) or a civilian employee of the Department of Defense (or authorized dependent designated by the civilian employee) who submits a complaint of discrimination under this part.
*Discrimination.* An act, policy, or procedure that arbitrarily denies equal treatment in housing because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or familial status to an individual or group of individuals.
*DoD personnel.* ( 1 ) Members of the Armed Forces (and their dependents) authorized to live off-base.
( 2 ) DoD civilian employees (and their dependents) who are transferred from one place of residence to another because of job requirements or recruited for job opportunities away from their current place of residence in the United States, and all DoD U.S. citizen appropriated fund and nonappropriated fund civilian employees and their dependents outside the United States.
*Familial Status.* One or more individuals (who have not attained the age of 18 years) being domiciled with a parent or another person having legal custody of such an individual or individuals; or the designee of such parent or other person having such custody, with the written permission of such parent or other person.
*Listed facility.* A suitable housing facility (not on restrictive sanction) listed with the HRS as available for occupancy by DoD personnel.
*Minorities.* All persons classified as black (not of Hispanic origin), Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, or American Indian or Alaskan native.
*Relief for the complainant.* Action taken by a commander for the benefit of a complainant.
*Restrictive sanctions.* Actions taken by a commander to prevent military personnel from moving to, or entering into a rental, lease, or purchase arrangement with, a housing facility, when its agent has been found to have discriminated against DoD personnel. Restrictive sanctions are effective against the agent and the facility.
*Survey.* The procedure by which the HRS identifies housing resources to ascertain the availability of housing facilities for occupancy by DoD personnel.
*Verifiers.* Volunteers used by the commander during the course of a housing discrimination investigation to determine if, in fact, housing discrimination is being practiced by an agent, as alleged. Verifiers are not required to be prospective tenants.
### §3503. Transfer of functions

(a) When a function is transferred from one agency to another, each competing employee in the function shall be transferred to the receiving agency for employment in a position for which he is qualified before the receiving agency may make an appointment from another source to that position.

(b) When one agency is replaced by another, each competing employee in the agency to be replaced shall be transferred to the replacing agency for employment in a position for which he is qualified before the replacing agency may make an appointment from another source to that position.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 429; Pub. L. 95–454, title III, §307(f), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1149; Pub. L. 96–54, §2(a)(18), Aug. 14, 1979, 93 Stat. 382.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 861(a) (3d proviso). | June 27, 1944, ch. 287, §12 (3d proviso), 58 Stat. 390. |

Statutes at Large

In subsection (a), the words "a function" are substituted for "any or all of the functions". The word "receiving" is substituted for "replacing" in the phrase "receiving agency" to avoid confusion with subsection (b).

In subsections (a) and (b), the word "first" in the phrase "shall first be transferred" is omitted as redundant in view of the subsequent limitation imposed by the words following "before". The words "make an appointment from another source to that position" are substituted for "appoint additional employees from any other source for such position".

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1979—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 96–54 substituted "competing employee" for "preference eligible employed".

1978—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 95–454 which directed the substitution of "competing employee" for "preference eligible employee" was impossible to execute literally because the text contained reference to "preference eligible employed". See 1979 Amendment note above.

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

#### Effective Date of 1979 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–54 effective July 12, 1979, see section 2(b) of Pub. L. 96–54, set out as a note under section 305 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of CFO 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 Quarterly Report of DRS Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Schneider, Chief Financial Officer of DRS Technologies, Inc., certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



August 8, 2008

/s/RICHARD A. SCHNEIDERRichard A. Schneider Chief Financial Officer


A
SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND WILL BE
RETAINED BY DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

---



QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Curtis Hardin, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered December 1, 1948, after a jury trial, convicting him of first degree robbery, first degree burglary, first degree grand larceny, and two counts of second degree assault, and sentencing him: (a) to serve consecutive terms of 15 to 30 years on the robbery count and 71⁄2 to 15 years on the burglary count; and (b) to serve a term of 5 to 10 years on the grand larceny count and 21⁄2 to 5 years on the two assault counts, the latter two terms to run concurrently with the term on the robbery count. Judgment modified on the facts by providing that the term of imprisonment on the burglary count shall run concurrently with the term of imprisonment on the robbery count. As so modified, judgment affirmed. In our opinion, under all the circumstances, the requirement that defendant shall serve consecutively the terms imposed on these two latter counts, rendered the sentence excessive. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                    1,442
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            11,389
<ALLOWANCES>                                690
<INVENTORY>                              16,901
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         30,566
<PP&E>                                   16,351
<DEPRECIATION>                           10,576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           41,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    22,724
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                  2,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                               16,463
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             41,532
<SALES>                                  17,915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         17,915
<CGS>                                    14,403
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            14,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          3,134
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              93 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          93 
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                 93 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.02 
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.02   
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1803.12 Requirements as to form.

The request shall identify the document(s) or material(s) with sufficient specificity (e.g., National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Document Accession Number or other applicable, unique document identifying number) to enable NACIC to locate it with reasonable effort. Broad or topical requests for records on a particular subject may not be accepted under this provision. A request for documents contained in the various Presidential libraries shall be effected through the staff of such institutions who shall forward the document(s) in question for NACIC review. The requester shall also provide sufficient personal identifying information when required by NACIC to satisfy requirements of this part.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas Gallo, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Kings County, rendered December 16, 1957 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and of kidnapping, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. On May 30, 1957 defendant admitted one of the holdups to the police detective; defendant also told the detective where the gun used in the holdups was hidden, and it was found in that place. On the following day, May 31, 1957, defendant was arraigned. On June 10, 1957 he told the detective where the holdup car was left, and it was found in the place specified. At the trial defendant testified; he denied participation in both of the holdups; denied advising the police on May 30, 1957 about the gun; and denied that he gave the police any information on June 10, 1957. Defendant now contends that the postarraignment statement of June 10, 1957 in the absence of counsel requires reversal *(People*v. *Meyer,*11 N Y 2d 162). In the *796
      *Meyer*ease there was objection to the admission of the statement. In the present case there was not. In our opinion, the evidence establishing defendant’s guilt was so overwhelming that the failure to object precludes reversal (cf. *People*v. *Friola,*11 N Y 2d 157). We have examined the other points raised by defendant, but find no merit in any of them. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 1653.1 Who may appeal to the President. ( a ) The Director of Selective Service may appeal to the President from any non-unanimous determination of a district appeal board when he deems it necessary to assure the fair and equitable administration of the Selective Service Law: *Provided,* That, no such appeal will be taken after the expiration of the appeal period prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) When a registrant has been classified by a district appeal board and one or more members of the board dissented from that classification, he may within 15 days after a notice thereof has been mailed, appeal to the President and may request a personal appearance before the National Selective Service Appeal Board.
(May 27, 1963)

#### Robert T. Carbone, Respondent, v. Anthony L. Horstman et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 8, 1963 after a pretrial conference, which granted a preference in trial. Order reversed, without costs; preference vacated; and action restored to its regular position on the calendar. The record fails to show an adequate basis for the granting of a preference *(Engongoro*v. *Bi Palma,*17 A D 2d 985). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 99-2**

 

**Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 ofChapter 63**

**of Title 18 of the United States Code**

 

I, Michael Smith, the chief financial officer of CobraElectronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cobra Electronics Corporation for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cobra Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries. 

 

/s/ Michael Smith

Michael Smith 

May 15, 2003 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cobra Electronics Corporation and will be retained by Cobra Electronics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
Exhibit 32.2



Section 1350 Certification of the

Chief Financial Officer



I, Michael Smith, the chief financial officer of Cobra Electronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cobra Electronics Corporation for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the Form 10-Q)
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 the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Cobra Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries.



/s/ Michael SmithMichael Smith May 13, 2005
Attachment A
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.1712-8 Application for waiver of location requirements for underground sanitary facilities. Applications for waivers of the location requirements of § 75.1712-6 shall be filed with the Coal Mine Safety District Manager and shall contain the following information: ( a ) The name and address of the mine operator;
( b ) The name and location of the mine;
( c ) The thickness of the coal seam in each working place in the mine for which a waiver is requested; and
( d ) Other physical restrictions in the mine (for example, poor roof conditions, excessive water, timbering, etc.).
If a sanitary toilet cannot be installed within 500 feet of a working place because of physical conditions other than the thickness of the coal seam, the operator shall also include a short statement specifying areas in the mine which could be considered possible alternative sites for installation of such facilities.
EXHIBIT 3.1.1


I, EDWARD J. FREEL, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF "THE UNITED STATES BASKETBALL LEAGUE,
INC.", FILED IN THIS OFFICE ON THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984, AT 9
O'CLOCK A.M.















                                            /S/ Edward J. Freel
                                           Edward J. Freel, Secretary of State


<PAGE>


                                                                 8402480151
                                 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                            OF
                               CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                 (Pursuant to Section 242)

THE UNITED STATES BASKETBALL LEAGUE, INC., a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

                  DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST: That the written consent of the necessary number of shares required by
statute of the stockholders of THE UNITED STATES BASKETBALL LEAGUE, INC. was
given ir accordance with Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of Delaware
setting forth an amendment to the Certificate of incorporation of said
corporation. The Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation is as follows:
Article FOURTH of the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation is hereby
amended to read as follows:

"FOURTH: the total number of shares which the corporation is authorized to issue
is Fifteen Million (15,000,000) shares of voting Common Stock, each of which
shall have a par value of $.00l.

SECOND: Prompt notice of the taking of the corporate action amending the
Certificate of Incorporation in the manner set forth above is being given to all
stockholders who had not consented in writing, as provided by Section 228 of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

THIRD: The 400 outstanding shares of Common Stock were split on a
ten-thousand-for-one basis, so that, after the ten thousand-for-one split and
the change of par value from $.0l to $.001 per share, the corporation has issued
and outstanding 4,000,000 shares of Common Stock, $.001 par value per share.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by
Daniel T. Meisenheimer III, its President, and attested by Richard
C..Meisenheimer, its Secretary, this 24th day of August, 1984.

                                   THE UNITED STATES BASKETBALL LEAGUE, INC.

                                   By:    /s/ Daniel T. Meisenheimer III, Pres.
                                          Daniel T. Meisenheimer III, President
ATTEST:
    /S/ Richard C. Meisenheimer, Sec.
Richard C. Meisenheimer, Secretary
Stock Option Agreement Amendment



 







EXHIBIT 10.17.1




Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc.



153 East 53rd Street, 49th Floor

New York, New York 10022




March 20, 2006




Mr. Mark D. Klein

3 Olmstead Road

Scarsdale, New York 10583




     Re:     Stock Option Agreement



Gentlemen:




     Reference is made to that certain Stock Option Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of March
4, 2005, between Mark D. Klein and Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. Section 1 is hereby
deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



          “1. Subject to the terms hereof, the Option may be exercised on or prior to March 4, 2015
(after which date the Option will, to the extent not previously exercised, expire). The Option
shall vest and become exercisable as to 500,000 of the Shares on and after the date hereof and as
to 1,125,000 of the Shares on and after each of March 4, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, provided you
are then employed by the Company and/or one of its present or future subsidiaries or affiliates
(for purposes of this Agreement, any other entity controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with, the Company); provided, however, that in the event that your employment is terminated
by reason of your death or Disability, by the Company without Cause or by you for Good Reason
(collectively, “Vesting Events”), all unvested Options that would have vested had you remained
employed for the remainder of the then current Employment Period shall vest earlier and become
immediately exercisable.”



Except as indicated above, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	LADENBURG THALMANN FINANCIAL

SERVICES INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Salvatore Giardina
 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



Acknowledged and agreed this

20th day of March, 2006




/s/ Mark D. Klein          

Mark D. Klein