alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      Exhibit 11

                        STATEMENT RE: EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                       1996        1995         1994
                                                                      ------      ------      -------
<S>                                                                   <C>         <C>         <C>    
Average common shares outstanding ..............................       4,605       4,837        4,779
Net effect of incentive and non-qualified stock options based on
   the treasury stock method using the average market price ....         203         158          122
                                                                      ------      ------      -------

   Average commons shares and equivalents outstanding ..........       4,808       4,995        4,901
                                                                      ======      ======      =======


Income from continuing operations ..............................      $5,772      $4,734      $ 3,667
Loss on discontinued operations ................................        --          --         (1,286)
                                                                      ------      ------      -------

   Net income ..................................................      $5,772      $4,734      $ 2,381
                                                                      ======      ======      =======



Earnings (loss) per share:

   Income from continuing operations ...........................      $ 1.20      $  .95      $   .75
   Loss on discontinued operations .............................        --          --           (.26)
                                                                      ------      ------      -------

     Net income ................................................      $ 1.20      $  .95      $   .49
                                                                      ======      ======      =======
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**





Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
      to


Section 906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) of ATS Corporation (the “Registrant”), as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Edward
      H. Bersoff, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby
      certify that:





(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.





Date:
                November 7, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Edward H. Bersoff**Edward
                H. Bersoff****Chairman
                and Chief Executive Officer****(Principal
                Executive Officer)**
I S '-\ -,- ub 

19 Apr 201 1 

From :MNG Airline s Inc . Istanbu l TUBKEY 

To : To whom i t may b e concerne d 

Ref :Renewa l of Certificat e of Airworthiness 

We kindly inform you tha t MNG Airline s has renewed 

Certificat e of Air worthiness for TC-MCF which B737-400 as 

attached. 

Please update your/our records accordingly, 

Attachments: 

1-Renewed CoA for TC-MCF 

Best Regards, 

Atill a ARIKAN 

Manager Scheduling and Planning 

MNG Airline s 

[ Q ^ 

Atalurit Havalimam, B Kapisi, Teknik Hangar Yarn, 3^149 Yesilkoy - Istanbul / Turkey 

Phone; +90 212 465 44 13 Fa>.: +90 212 465 44 96 - e-mail: scheduiinp(aimnQairllnes.com Website: 

httpi/A-rtwv.ftnqairlines.cam 

MNG Airlines is a wholly owned subsidiary of MNG Holding 
ft.- . II *5 c n 9 > 

m 

i 

4 l l 

H I 

III. Eg "' ^ 

lii ^ -s is 

-=2 £b 

"s^ 

^^3 

F^ J - . ^ = "^—r—1—r 

> ^ 3E D ^ = •? ^ k s j 

\ 1 T ^r / ' 

. 

1 

1 

' 

vJ 

o 

- 3 ' 

O c - ^~ J r 

1 

O 

*ii=> 

V 

' 

1 

1 

1 

' 

L — j 

1 

, 1 

1 

i 

i 

i 

1 

i 

] 

1 

! ' 

F — 

] 

1 

1 

1 

1 

[ 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

O (0 si 

s t 5 o 

•fi t 

a 

Si 

I 

n 

5 E ^ 

Ui 

uj; 

3 .- ^ ; 

4 - z 

o 

o 

< 

o 

s DC 

It C > 

Cir 

o 

-<• 5 S 6 S ^ 

III I l| — t Qi Oc 

s 

= u S O
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 1 6 , 2018 

# Order

Clerk Febr uary 1 6 , 2018

15 717 9 ( 72 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 157179

v COA: 333343

Wayne CC: 15

- 007718

- FC

TIFFANIE MONIQUE EDWARDS

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice

, the motion of defendant

- appellant for permission to

exceed the page restriction for the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The

application submitted on February 8 , 2018, is accepted for filing.
#### § 3550.8 Exception authority.

An RHS official may request, and the Administrator or designee may make, an exception to any requirement or provision of this part or address any omission of this part that is consistent with the applicable statute if the Administrator determines that application of the requirement or provision, or failure to take action in the case of an omission, would adversely affect the Government's interest.
**"The People's Department"A Poster About USDA**
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30102 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MILTON AMOS BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. CR-94-224-I-5

- - - - - - - - - - (October 18, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brown argues that the district court should have dismissed the indictment charging him with felony escape in light of his defense to the escape charge. Brown moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis that he had completed his sentence when he resorted to self-help to end his confinement. The validity of the conviction or sentence under which an escapee is confined is not an element of the offense of felonyNo. 95-30102 -2- escape. See United States v. Smith , 534 F.2d 74, 75 (5th Cir. 1976) (rejecting challenge that conviction for escape was invalid because original sentence was illegal), cert. denied , 429 U.S. 1100 (1977); see also United States v. Cluck , 542 F.2d 728, 732 (8th Cir.) (an individual in federal custody cannot test the underlying propriety of his confinement by escaping from it), cert. denied , 429 U.S. 986 (1976). Brown's contention that the indictment should be dismissed because his confinement was unlawful is without merit. Brown also argues that the district court erred in adding three criminal history points for a previous 1983 conviction because the actual sentence served for that conviction was less than one year and one month and was later amended to reflect that fact. However, Brown's sentence of imprisonment for the firearms offense was 15 months of imprisonment, regardless of the actual time served. The district court did not err in adding three criminal history points for this offense. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a) and comment. n.1. Brown asserts that the district court incorrectly gave him an additional criminal history point for the instant offense as having been committed less than two years after release from imprisonment on a sentence. However, even if the district court did err in imposing this additional point, any error would be harmless because Brown would have still been in the same criminal history category. See Williams v. United States , 503 U.S. 193, 202-03 (1992). AFFIRMED.
#### § 400.204 Notification of deviation from standards.

A Contractor shall advise the Corporation immediately if the Contractor deviates from the requirements of these standards. The Corporation may require the Contractor to show compliance with these standards during the contract year if the Corporation determines that such submission is necessary. If the Corporation determines that the deviation is temporary, the Corporation may grant a temporary waiver pending compliance within a specified period of time. A waiver of any provision of these standards will not be granted to an applicant for a contract.
§ 3550.102 Grant and loan purposes. ( a ) *Grant funds.* Grant funds may be used only to pay costs for repairs and improvements that will remove identified health and safety hazards or to repair or remodel dwellings to make them accessible and useable for household members with disabilities. Unused grant funds must be returned to the Rural Housing Service (RHS).
( b ) *Loan funds.* Loan funds may be used to make general repairs and improvements to properties or to remove health and safety hazards, as long as the dwelling remains modest in size and design.
( c ) *Eligibility of mobile and manufactured homes.* Repairs necessary to remove health and safety hazards may be made to mobile or manufactured homes provided: ( 1 ) The applicant owns the home and site and has occupied the home prior to filing an application with RHS; and
( 2 ) The mobile or manufactured home is on a permanent foundation or will be put on a permanent foundation with section 504 funds.
( d ) *Eligible costs.* In addition to construction costs to make necessary repairs and improvements, loan and grant funds may be used for: ( 1 ) Reasonable expenses related to obtaining the loan or grant, including legal, architectural and engineering, title clearance, and loan closing fees; and appraisal, surveying, environmental, tax monitoring, and other technical services.
( 2 ) The cost of providing special design features or equipment when necessary because of a physical disability of the applicant or a member of the household.
( 3 ) Reasonable connection fees, assessments, or the pro rata installation costs for utilities such as water, sewer, electricity, and gas for which the borrower is liable and which are not paid from other funds.
( 4 ) Real estate taxes that are due and payable on the property at the time of closing and for the establishment of escrow accounts for real estate taxes, hazard and flood insurance premiums, and related costs.
( 5 ) Fees to public and private nonprofit organizations that are tax exempt under the Internal Revenue Code for the development and packaging of applications.
( e ) *Restrictions on uses of loan or grant funds.* Section 504 funds may not be used to: ( 1 ) Assist in the construction of a new dwelling.
( 2 ) Make repairs to a dwelling in such poor condition that when the repairs are completed, the dwelling will continue to have major hazards.
( 3 ) Move a mobile home or manufactured home from one site to another.
( 4 ) Pay for off-site improvements except for the necessary installation and assessment costs for utilities.
( 5 ) Refinance any debt or obligation of the applicant incurred before the date of application except for the installation and assessment costs of utilities; or subject to the availability of funds and program priorities as determined by RHS, refinance of an existing RHS loan in accordance with § 3550.201 as a special servicing option, including but not limited to refinancing at the end of a moratorium.
( 6 ) Pay fees, commission, or charges to for-profit entities related to loan packaging or referral of prospective applicants to RHS.
[61 FR 59779, Nov. 22, 1996, as amended at 87 FR 6772, Feb. 7, 2022]
§ 3570.93 Regional Commission grants. ( a ) Grants are sometimes made by Federal Regional Commissions (designated under Title V of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965) for projects eligible for RHS assistance. RHS has agreed to administer such funds in a manner similar to administering RHS assistance.
( b ) The transfer of funds from a Federal Regional Commission to RHS will be based on specific applications determined to be eligible for an authorized purpose in accordance with the requirements of RHS and the Federal Regional Commission.
( c ) The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is authorized under the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 to serve the Appalachian region. ARC grants are handled in accordance with the ARC Agreement which applies to all ARC grants administered by Rural Development. Therefore, a separate Project Management Agreement between RHS and ARC is not needed for each ARC grant.
( d ) Grants by other Federal Regional Commissions are handled in accordance with a separate Project Management Agreement between the respective Federal Regional Commission and RHS for each Commission grant or class of grants administered by RHS.
( e ) When the Agency has funds in the project, no charge will be made for administering Federal Regional Commission grant funds.
( f ) When RHS has no loan or grant funds in the project, an administrative charge will be made pursuant to the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535).
(May 8, 1969)

#### Siemens & Halske GmbH., Appellant, v. Jacqueline M. Gres, Respondent.

Judgment entered February 14, 1969, dismissing the proceeding, vacated on the law and motion to dismiss proceeding denied, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant. Petitioner brought a special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225 (subd. [b]) to recover the amount .of a judgment previously obtained by petitioner against International Visitors Center, Inc. Special Term dismissed the proceeding upon the ground that the statute does not authorize a proceeding under the facts alleged. The petition alleges that defendant was president and a director of the judgment debtor, and that while the corporation was indebted to plaintiff, defendant without consideration transferred to herself funds of the corporation in excess of the amount of the judgment, thereby rendering the corporation insolvent. CPLR 5225 (subd. [b]) authorizes a special proceeding against a person who is *&•*transferee of money from the debtor either where the debtor is entitled to the money or where the judgment creditor’s rights are superior to those of the transferee. This obviates the necessity for a plenary action (N. Y. Legis. Doc., 1962, No. 8, p. 486; see *Matter of Sumitomo Shoji, New York*v. *Chemical Bank N. Y. Trust Co.,*47 Misc 2d 741, 745). We see no distinction, as regards the necessity for a plenary trial, between the situation where the claim of the judgment creditor’s superior right arises from a violation of the Debtor and Creditor Law and where it may be based upon some other form of transfer (cf. *Matter of First Small Business Inv. Corp.*v. *Zaretsky,*46 Misc 2d 328). Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., MeGivern, Nunez, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
3.1003 Requirements.

(a) Contractor requirements.

(1) Although the policy at 3.1002 applies as guidance to all Government contractors, the contractual

requirements set forth in the clauses at 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct,

and 52.203-14, Display of Hotline Poster(s), are mandatory if the contracts meet the conditions

specified in the clause prescriptions at 3.1004.

(2) Whether or not the clause at 52.203-13 is applicable, a contractor may be suspended and/or

debarred for knowing failure by a principal to timely disclose to the Government, in connection with

the award, performance, or closeout of a Government contract performed by the contractor or a

subcontract awarded thereunder, credible evidence of a violation of Federal criminal law involving

fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity violations found in Title 18 of the United States Code

or a violation of the civil False Claims Act. Knowing failure to timely disclose credible evidence of

any of the above violations remains a cause for suspension and/or debarment until 3 years after final

payment on a contract (see 9.406-2(b)(1)(vi) and 9.407-2(a)(8)).

(3) The Payment clauses at FAR 52.212-4(i)(5), 52.232-25(d), 52.232-26(c), and 52.232-27(l) require

that, if the contractor becomes aware that the Government has overpaid on a contract financing or

invoice payment, the contractor shall remit the overpayment amount to the Government. A

contractor may be suspended and/or debarred for knowing failure by a principal to timely disclose

credible evidence of a significant overpayment, other than overpayments resulting from contract

financing payments as defined in 32.001 (see 9.406-2(b)(1)(vi) and 9.407-2(a)(8)).

(b) Notification of possible contractor violation. If the contracting officer is notified of possible

contractor violation of Federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity

violations found in Title 18 U.S.C.; or a violation of the civil False Claims Act, the contracting officer

shall-

(1) Coordinate the matter with the agency Office of the Inspector General; or

(2) Take action in accordance with agency procedures.

(c) Fraud Hotline Poster.

(1) Agency OIGs are responsible for determining the need for, and content of, their respective

agency OIG fraud hotline poster(s).

(2) When requested by the Department of Homeland Security, agencies shall ensure that contracts

funded with disaster assistance funds require display of any fraud hotline poster applicable to the

specific contract. As established by the agency OIG, such posters may be displayed in lieu of, or in

addition to, the agency’s standard poster.

Parent topic: Subpart 3.10 - Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct
United States District Court

Criminal Minutes – INITIAL APPEARANCE/ARRAIGNMENT

U.S.A. v DEFENDANT LISTED BELOW ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

(1) TONY STREETER (1) THOMAS KEITH, AFPD

✓ Present ✓ Custody O/R ✓ Present ✓ Appointed Retained

DOCKET ENTRY: Initial Appearance and Arraignment. Defense Counsel to provide copy of 

Indictment to Defendant. Defendant waived Formal Reading of Indictment. Government moves for 

detention. Defendant requests Detention Hearing which is scheduled for June 1, 2020 at 11:00 

a.m. before U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOPE T. CANNON. Jury Trial is scheduled for August 3, 

2020 with Attorney Conference to begin at 8:00 a.m. and jury selection to follow before U.S. 

DISTRICT JUDGE M. CASEY RODGERS.

PROCEEDINGS – Initial Appearance/Arraignment:

12:10 p.m. Court in Session

Defendant advised he is before a United States Magistrate Judge.

Defendant advised of charges against him, penalties and fines.

Defendant advised not to make any statement before consulting an attorney.

Defendant advised of his right to hire counsel or have counsel appointed.

Defendant executed CJA Form 23 (Financial Affidavit) and sworn to its accuracy.

Defendant appointed the services of the Federal Public Defender. (see separate order)

Government moves for detention.

Defendant requests Detention Hearing. Hearing scheduled for: June 1, 2020 @ 11:00 

a.m. before U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOPE T. CANNON 

Defendant arraigned for trial.

Defendant waives formal reading of the Indictment.

Defendant entered plea of NOT GUILTY on Counts 1through 4.

Jury Trial scheduled for August 3, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. before U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

CASEY M. RODGERS

12:18 p.m. Court is adjourned.

Filed May 28, 2020 Deputy Clerk: K.L. Igney in attendance via EPS Barix pursuant to 4:95-mc-40111, Doc. No. 355

Time Commenced 12:10 p.m. Case No. 3:20-cr-33-01

Time Concluded 12:18 p.m. Date May 28, 2020

PRESENT: HONORABLE MICHAEL J. FRANK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DAVID GOLDBERG

 

 PNS DIGITAL Keri Igney

Asst U. S. Attorney Probation Officer Court Reporter Deputy Clerk

Case 3:20-cr-00033-MCR Document 11 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23 (b)

KPMG LLP

      99 High Street          Telephone 617 988 1000   Telefax 617 988 0800
      Boston, MA 02110-2371




                       Consent of Independent Auditors
                       -------------------------------


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
 of Westerbeke Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(File No. 33-24435 and 333-25687) on Form S-8 of Westerbeke Corporation of
our report dated December 7, 2001 relating to the consolidated statements
of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash
flows of Westerbeke Corporation and subsidiary for the year ended October
27, 2001, and related schedule, which report appears in the October 25,
2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Westerbeke Corporation.



                                       By /s/ KPMG LLP
                                       ---------------

Boston, Massachusetts
January 22, 2004


<PAGE>
Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. “Hogan Lovells” is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP, with offices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Brussels Caracas Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Washington DC Associated offices: Budapest Jakarta Jeddah Riyadh Zagreb. For more information see www.hoganlovells.com \\DC - 039578/000001 - 3399659 v1 Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 +1.202.637.5600 Tel +1.202.637.5910 Fax Robert E. Cohn Partner +1.202.637.4999 Direct Line robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com April 27, 2012

Ms. Catherine O'Toole Air Carrier Fitness Division Office of Aviation Analysis U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590
Re: Application of People Express Airlines, Inc. for a Certificate - Response to DOT Information Request of April 19, 2012 (Docket DOT-OST-2012-0042) Dear Ms. O'Toole: People Express Airlines, Inc. (“People Express”) hereby submits responses to the Department’s Information Request dated April 19, 2012. People Express’s response includes confidential exhibits, which are being submitted under seal. Consequently, this response is accompanied by a Motion for Confidential Treatment. Please contact me if the Department requires additional information to advance the processing of People Express’s application. Respectfully submitted,

Robert E. Cohn Counsel for People Express Airlines, Inc. Enclosures cc: Michael Morisi, President, People Express Nicholas Scarpinato, Jr., Manager, Washington FSDO, FAA