alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11.1
                                                               ------------

                    SLADE'S FERRY BANCORP. AND SUBSIDIARY
                      COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                 (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                         Nine Months Ended          Three Months Ended
                                                           September 30,               September 30,
(Dollars in thousands, except for per share data)       2005          2004          2005          2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                  <c>           <c>           <c>           <c>
Net income                                           $    2,848    $    2,287    $      900    $    1,076
                                                     ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Average shares outstanding                            4,104,304     4,038,499     4,112,631     4,058,086
                                                     ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Basic earnings per share                             $     0.69    $     0.57    $     0.22    $     0.27
                                                     ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Average shares outstanding                            4,104,304     4,038,499     4,122,631     4,058,086
                                                     ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Net effect dilutive stock options                        27,824        47,196        22,935        43,137
                                                     ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Adjusted shares outstanding                           4,132,128     4,085,695     4,145,566     4,101,223
                                                     ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Diluted earnings per share                           $     0.69    $     0.56    $     0.22    $     0.26
                                                     ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 192 Agreed to House (ATH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 192

              Providing for an adjournment of both Houses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 27, 1996

 Mr. Diaz-Balart submitted the following concurrent resolution; which 
                      was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
              Providing for an adjournment of both Houses.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative days of Thursday, June 
27, 1996, or Friday, June 28, 1996, pursuant to a motion made by the 
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until noon on 
Monday, July 8, 1996, or until noon on the second day after Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses 
or adjourns at the close of business on Thursday, June 27, 1996, 
Friday, June 28, 1996, Saturday, June 29, 1996, or Sunday, June 30, 
1996, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or his designee 
in accordance with this resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned 
until noon on Monday, July 8, 1996, or until such time on that day as 
may be specified by the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion 
to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 212.11 Compliance and record retention. ( a ) *Enforcement.* Federal banking agencies will enforce compliance with this part.
( b ) *Record retention.* A financial institution shall maintain records of account activity and actions taken in response to a garnishment order, sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this part, for a period of not less than two years from the date on which the financial institution receives the garnishment order.
#### § 48.4218-3 Events subsequent to taxable use of article.

Liability for tax incurred on the use of an article is not extinguished or reduced because of any subsequent sale or lease of the article even if such sale or lease would have been exempt if the article had been so sold or leased prior to use. If a manufacturer, producer, or importer of an article incurs liability for tax on his use thereof, and thereafter sells or leases the article in a transaction which otherwise would be subject to tax, liability for tax is not incurred on such sale or lease.

[T.D. 6687, 28 FR 11781, Nov. 5, 1963]
#### Grahamer v. Fadden

*Edivard M. Murphy,*for plaintiff.

*Irving L. Epstein,*for defendant.

November 13, 1953.

Hoban, P. J.,

George Grahamer, of Scranton, sued Barbara Madden, of Scranton, on a cause of action evidently trespass vi et armis. For reasons which do not appear plaintiff brought his action before William C. Rippon, justice of the peace in Jermyn, this county. Defendant was duly served by a constable operating from the bailiwick of Justice Rippon. Defendant appeared, a hearing was held, and judgment given for plaintiff. No certiorari was asked nor appeal filed. Thereupon plaintiff paid the costs and filed a transcript of Justice Rippon’s judgment in the office of the prothonotary as a lien. In the transcript appears a charge by the constable for 75 cents for serving the summons and for $2.50 mileage as part of his cost for such service.

We have on previous occasions held such service void as an attempt to impose extortionate service costs in violation of the Act of April 27, 1911, P. L. 86, 42 PS §421. See Bell v. Blum Brothers, 36 Lack. Jur. 112; Whinney v. Hamilton, 27 D. *&*C. 516. If the service is void, a judgment founded on it is void. If the judgment is void, it is a nullity, and if it appears in our court and the transcript shows on. its face that it is void, it will be stricken off on motion. See McKinney v. Brown, *592130 Pa. 365; Pecuch v. Dougherty, 60 D. & C. 663. Neither Lacock v. White, 19 Pa. 495, nor Littster v. Littster, 151 Pa. 474, are authorities to the contrary, for in those cases the applications were to courts of common pleas to open judgments of justices transferred by transcript, a power which the courts of common pleas do not have.

Plaintiff makes the point that the appearance of defendant at the hearing cures any defect or irregularity in the service. True, it may make that complete which was incomplete, but it cannot make that exist which had no existence, nor turn void into voidable. The Act of 1911, supra, was deliberately designed to afford a remedy against extortionate practices in small claims procedure. We do not propose to deny that relief to victimized laymen who, while they are presumed to know the law, are not presumed to know the technicalities of procedural regulations.

Now, November 13,1953, the rule to show cause why the judgment entered to the above number and term should not be stricken from the record is made absolute.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00884-CV

Kenneth Mark DORROUGH,

Appellant

v.

John Murray FAIRCLOTH and Helen Bowen,

Appellees

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-11-320

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is REVERSED, 

the temporary injunction is VACATED, and Appellees’ suit is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

Costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellees John Murray Faircloth and Helen Bowen. 

SIGNED July 30, 2014.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
#### Joanne Giovanelli et al., Appellants, v Eduardo Rivera, Respondent.

[804 NYS2d 817]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated January 4, 2005, which, inter alia, denied their motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant upon his default in appearing or answering and to set the matter down for an inquest on the issue of damages.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an inquest on the issue of damages.

The defendant failed to submit sufficient evidence to support his allegation that the plaintiffs agreed to extend his time to answer *(see Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*15 AD3d 353, 355 [2005]). Thus, the defendant was in default in appearing or answering the complaint. In order to avoid the entry of a default judgment upon his failure to appear or answer, the defendant was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co.,*67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; *Mjahdi v Maguire,*21 AD3d 1067 [2005]; *Thompson v Steuben Realty Corp.,*18 AD3d 864 [2005]; *Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., supra*at 355-356). The defendant failed to do either. Accordingly, his default should not have been excused and the Supreme Court should not have extended his time to serve an answer in the absence of a cross motion for such relief *(see*CPLR 2215; *Zino v Joab Taxi, Inc.,*20 AD3d 521 [2005]; *Pampalone v Giant Bldg. Maintenance, Inc.,*17 AD3d 556 [2005]; *Blam v Netcher,*17 AD3d 495 [2005]).

*617The plaintiffs submitted proof of service of the summons and the complaint, a factually-detailed verified complaint, and an affidavit from their attorney regarding the defendant’s default in appearing and answering *(see*CPLR 3215 [f]). Therefore, the plaintiffs should have been granted leave to enter judgment against the defendant on the issue of liability *(see Landaverde v*Wroth, 260 AD2d 448 [1999]). Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.
---

Consent of Independent Auditors

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 1 of
Form 40-F of HEXO Corp. for the years ended July 31, 2019 and 2018 of our report
dated October 28, 2019 relating to the consolidated financial statements of HEXO
Corp. for the years ended July 31, 2019 and 2018 listed in the accompanying
index. We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Companys
registration statement on Form F-10 (File No. 333-228924) of our report dated
October 28, 2019 referred to above.



Ottawa, Canada
October 31, 2019



---
#### In the Matter of the Assignment of Joseph Cromien to James M. Liddy (Joseph F. Becker substituted as Assignee) for the Benefit of Creditors.

[Special Term.]

(Decided December 22d, 1879.)

Where proceedings have been taken in the Supreme Court to compel an assignee for the benefit of creditors to execute his trust and distribute the funds in his hands, this court will make no order for that purpose.

Application by an assignee under a general assignment for the benefit of creditors for the settlement of his account and the discharge of himself and the sureties on his bond.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Van Hoesen, J.

The order applied for is denied.

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction no less than the Common Pleas. Where it assumes the control of the assignee and exercises its unquestioned power to compel him to execute his trust, and distribute the funds in his hands, the Court of Common Pleas will make no further order in the matter. All the relief to which any part)', trustee or *cestui que trust*is entitled, the Supreme Court is competent to grant.

The rule is that the court which first takes jurisdiction of the settlement and -winding up of the assigned estate, retains exclusive control to the end, and where an accounting is begun in the Supreme Court, the Common Pleas will, as I have said, leave to that court the settlement of the estate and the discharge of the assignee and his sureties. •

In one case where an application was made to Justice Davis for the appointment of a referee to take and state the accounts of the assignee, in an action brought in the Supreme Court, that learned justice said that he would appoint no referee until an application had been made to the Common Pleas for the appointment of a referee under the Assignment Act, and that he would then appoint the referee named by the *42Common Pleas, so that the accounting in the Supreme Court suit and the accounting under the Assignment Act might go on simultaneously before the same referee. This virtually ended the Supreme Court suit.

Application denied.
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Quarterly Report of Birch Branch, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy Brasel,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director 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, to the best of my
knowledge,:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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:           May
7, 2010





/s/Timothy
Brasel.


Timothy
Brasel


President,
Chief Executive Officer,


Chief
Financial Officer and Director
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Daryl Barnes and Demeatrice Goff v. National Housing Development Corporation, Colony LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00060

- CV

Trial court case number: 2012

- 34954

Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s Emergency Motion Requesting Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief

is DISMISSED AS MOOT . The record in this case is not complete, therefore appellant’s brief is not yet due.

Appellant was sent a notification on March 3, 2015, that a deadline of April 2, 2015 is in place to either make arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record or establish indigence by that date, or the Court may require you to file a brief and we may decide your cas e on issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c).

We note that appellant attempted to file an affidavit of indigence on February 8, 2015, however that document is dated June 7, 2012, and is theref ore not timely in accordance with

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(c) (stating that the prior filing of an affidavit of indigence in the trial court pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 does not meet the requirements of this rule). Any affidavit of indigence must be current under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(c).

We further note that the deadline has passed for paying the $195.00 appellate filing fee. If the fee is not paid on or before April 2, 2015, or appellant has not established indigence by th at date, this appeal may be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

X A cting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 19, 2015
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors, PNCFinancial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance withRegulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division of PNCBank, National Association (“Midland” or the “Company”) complied with theservicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission's Regulation AB for all transactions serviced on the *Enterprise!*Loan Management System (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2016 and for theyear then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B),1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii),1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are notapplicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to thePlatform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with theservicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management'sassertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backedtransactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether theCompany processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed bythe Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that Midland complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteriaas of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairlystated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 17, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106*

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816)218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*

* *
§ 19.760 How long may my suspension last? ( a ) If legal or debarment proceedings are initiated at the time of, or during your suspension, the suspension may continue until the conclusion of those proceedings. However, if proceedings are not initiated, a suspension may not exceed 12 months.
( b ) The suspending official may extend the 12 month limit under paragraph (a) of this section for an additional 6 months if an office of a U.S. Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or other responsible prosecuting official requests an extension in writing. In no event may a suspension exceed 18 months without initiating proceedings under paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) The suspending official must notify the appropriate officials under paragraph (b) of this section of an impending termination of a suspension at least 30 days before the 12 month period expires to allow the officials an opportunity to request an extension.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Oligosaccharides Autimicrobial and Prebiotic—RFA.                    

*Date:*                         February 26, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Peter Zelazowski, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rm. 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-7510, 301-435-6902,                         *peter.zelazowski@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 23, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-1967 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
40087.

#### MATHIS v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al.

Decided May 10, 1963.

Bell, Judge.

The evidence was sufficient to authorize the finding by the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation that the claimant was not the legal widow of the deceased employee. The board did not err in denying compensation to the claimant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*

*758*George L. Wheeler, Jr., William M. Redman, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Smith, Field, Ringel, Martin ■& Carr, Richard D. Carr, Willis-ton C. White, H. A. Stephens, Jr.,*contra.