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

         EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE 

                                                  QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                      1997           1996
                                                  ------------   ------------
PRIMARY LOSS PER COMMON SHARE:

Net income (loss) applicable to common 
 shareholders                                     $    815,000   $ (1,134,000)
                                                  ------------   ------------
                                                  ------------   ------------

Weighted average number of shares outstanding 
     Common stock                                    9,791,000      8,919,000
     5% convertible preferred stock                     24,000          --
     5% Series C convertible preferred stock           805,000          --
     Common stock purchase options and warrants      2,734,000          --
     Convertible Notes                                  64,000          --
     Assumed repurchase of common stock               (901,000)         --
                                                  ------------   ------------
Weighted average number of shares outstanding       12,517,000      8,919,000
                                                  ------------   ------------
                                                  ------------   ------------

Primary income (loss) per common share            $       0.07   $       0.13
                                                  ------------   ------------
                                                  ------------   ------------


                                       11
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-14322

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cr-00223-HES-MCR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRIAN DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(May 19, 2020)

Before WILSON, LUCK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal 

waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. As the record reflects, Davis 

knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. During the plea 

Case: 19-14322 Date Filed: 05/19/2020 Page: 1 of 2
2

colloquy, the magistrate judge specifically questioned Davis about the sentence 

appeal waiver, summarizing the language of the waiver and explaining its terms. 

Further, the magistrate judge asked Davis whether he had voluntarily agreed to the 

waiver and had any questions about the plea agreement, in addition to confirming 

with Davis that he understood the terms of the agreement and had read and 

discussed them with his counsel. Thus, the record establishes that Davis 

knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the sentence appeal waiver. See United States 

v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that a sentence 

appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily).

In addition, none of the exceptions to Davis’s appeal waiver apply. First, the 

72-month total sentence the district court imposed did not exceed the statutory 

maximum term of imprisonment or the guideline range and Davis does not claim 

that the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Indeed, a within-guideline 

sentence does not generally violate the Eighth Amendment and the district court 

imposed a sentence below the guideline range. United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 

1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the government has not appealed his 

sentence, so Davis was not released from the appeal waiver. Thus, none of the 

exceptions to Davis’s appeal waiver apply, and we grant the government’s motion 

to dismiss Davis’s appeal pursuant to the sentence appeal waiver.

DISMISSED.

Case: 19-14322 Date Filed: 05/19/2020 Page: 2 of 2
§ 597.510 Concluding activities with the Palestinian Authority. ( a ) Effective April 12, 2006, all transactions and activities with the Palestinian Authority otherwise prohibited under this part are authorized through May 12, 2006, provided that they are necessary to conclude ongoing contracts or programs with the Palestinian Authority, and further provided that no payment pursuant to this license may involve a debit to an account of the Palestinian Authority on the books of a U.S. financial institution or to any account blocked pursuant to this part.
( b ) The retention and reporting provisions of § 597.201 shall not apply with respect to transactions authorized by paragraph (a) of this section.
[71 FR 27202, May 10, 2006]
No. 99-8610.

#### Thompkins *v.*Hicks, Warden.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Eugene WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 81-28.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Feb. 18, 1981.

Eugene Wilson, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The order denying appellant’s motion under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850 is affirmed without prejudice to the filing of another motion by appellant which conforms with the requirements of that Rule.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
§ 570.515 Funds of the General National Maritime Transport Company unblocked. ( a ) As of November 18, 2011, all funds, including cash, securities, bank accounts, and investment accounts, and precious metals of the General National Maritime Transport Company blocked pursuant to § 570.201(a)(1) or (3) are unblocked.
( b ) Within 10 business days of the release of any blocked funds or precious metals pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, a report must be filed with the Compliance Division of the Office of Foreign Assets Control via email to *OFACreport@treasury.gov .* For each amount released, the report must include a copy of the related initial blocking report and indicate the date that the funds were released and the amount released.
[87 FR 59678, Oct. 3, 2022, as amended at 89 FR 15742, Mar. 5, 2024]
HomeNigeria

# Nigeria

203 items

        -    Media Note  		The Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations Announces Design-Build Award for the U.S. Consulate General in Lagos	  October 5, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Nigeria National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenOctober 1, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		On the Death of ISIS-GS Leader Adnan Abu Walid Al-Sahrawi	  Ned PriceSeptember 17, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Investment Climate Statements: Nigeria	  July 21, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: Nigeria	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 10, 2021	  Ned PriceJune 10, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Nigeria’s Twitter Suspension	  Ned PriceJune 10, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Nigeria	  May 12, 2021 
        -    Interview  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken Virtual Roundtable with Kenyan and Nigerian Journalists	  April 27, 2021Via ZoomHarry S Truman Building, Washington, D.C. 
        -    Video Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Virtual Town Hall with U.S. Mission Nigeria and U.S. Embassy Nairobi Employees and Family Members	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 27, 2021Recorded on April 9, 2021Washington, D.C. 

previous page1…1314151617…21next page

Back to Top
#### Richard H. LOWENBURG v. LABOR POOL OF AMERICA, INC., et al.

No. 55138.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 24, 1974.

In re: Labor Pool of New Orleans, Inc. and The Home Indemnity Company, applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 296 So.2d 846.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we cannot say the result is incorrect.

DIXON and MARCUS, JJ., are of the opinion the writ should be granted.
Document

Exhibit 4.1

Description of the Registrant’s Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company of NY (“BHNY” or “our”) has one outstanding class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended: our common stock, par value $10.00 per share (“common stock”). We are a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, which holds all shares of our common stock.
Description of Common Stock
    The following description of our common stock is a summary and does not purport to be complete. It is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by reference to, our Charter, as amended (“Charter”), our Amended and Restated By-laws (“By-laws”) and the relevant provisions New York law, which define the rights of our sole stockholder. You should read our Charter and By-laws and the relevant provisions of New York law for a full description of the terms of our common stock. Our Charter and By-Laws are filed as exhibits to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of which this exhibit forms a part and incorporated by reference herein.
General
    BHNY is a New York domiciled stock life insurance company. BHNY’s authorized capital stock consists of 200,000 shares of common stock, par value $10.00 per share, of which 200,000 shares were outstanding at March 5, 2020. All of such issued and outstanding shares were fully paid and non-assessable.
    All of our issued and outstanding common stock is owned by Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. There is no authorized preferred stock.
Dividends
    The holders of our common stock are entitled to receive dividends as and when declared by our board of directors. Dividends may be paid in cash, property, or bonds or shares of our common stock, except as limited by applicable law. There is no requirement or assurance that BHNY will declare and pay any dividends.
Voting Rights    
    The holders of our common stock are entitled to one vote per share on all matters on which the holders of common stock are entitled to vote, including the election of directors, and there are no cumulative voting rights.
Liquidation and Dissolution
    In the event of BHNY’s liquidation, dissolution or winding-up, the holders of common stock are entitled to share equally and ratably in BHNY’s assets, if any, remaining after the payment of all of BHNY’s liabilities.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





<PAGE>


                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  on Form  10-Q of  Cytogen
Corporation  (the  "Company")  for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  Michael D. Becker,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  and Thu Dang, Vice  President,  Finance,  of the Company,  each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Cytogen Corporation and will be retained by Cytogen Corporation
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.


                                       /s/ Michael D. Becker
                                       -----------------------------------------
Dated:   May 14, 2003                  Michael D. Becker
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       /s/ Thu Dang
                                       -----------------------------------------
Dated:    May 14, 2003                 Thu Dang
                                       Vice President, Finance
#### § 8.39 Fees.

No attorney, certified public accountant, or enrolled practitioner may charge an unconscionable fee for representing a client in any matter before the Bureau.
HomeMorocco

# Morocco

161 items

        -    Remarks  		Statement to the Press Following Under Secretary Jenkins’s Meeting with Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita	  Bonnie Denise JenkinsJanuary 30, 2024Rabat, Morocco 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Jenkins Travels to Rabat and Marrakech	  January 26, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Global Partnerships at State Open the Newest Coalition for Climate Entrepreneurship Hub in Morocco	  December 13, 2023 
        -    DipNote: Countering Terrorism  		Progress in Repatriations: How Foreign Assistance Is Addressing the Humanitarian and Security Crises in Northeast Syria: Part 2 of 2	  December 6, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		The United States Joins Multinational Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050 to Support Global Climate and Energy Security Goals	  December 2, 2023 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2022: Morocco	  November 29, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the Global Coalition to Defeat Daesh/ISIS Africa Focus Group Meeting	  November 15, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Robinson’s Travel to Morocco and Algeria	  November 13, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Casablanca, Morocco: Casablanca American School: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  November 13, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Tangier, Morocco: The American School of Tangier: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  November 1, 2023 

previous page1234…17next page

Back to Top
§ 597.703 Response to prepenalty notice. ( a ) *Time within which to respond.* The respondent shall have 30 days from the date of mailing of the prepenalty notice to respond in writing to the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
( b ) *Form and contents of written response.* The written response need not be in any particular form, but shall contain information sufficient to indicate that it is in response to the prepenalty notice. It should respond to the allegations in the prepenalty notice and set forth the reasons why the respondent believes the penalty should not be imposed or, if imposed, why it should be in a lesser amount than proposed.
( c ) *Informal settlement.* In addition or as an alternative to a written response to a prepenalty notice pursuant to this section, the respondent or respondent's representative may contact the Office of Foreign Assets Control as advised in the prepenalty notice to propose the settlement of allegations contained in the prepenalty notice and related matters. In the event of settlement at the prepenalty stage, the prepenalty notice will be withdrawn, the respondent is not required to take a written position on allegations contained in the prepenalty notice, and the Office of Foreign Assets Control will make no final determination as to whether a violation occurred. The amount accepted in settlement of allegations in a prepenalty notice may vary from the civil penalty that might finally be imposed in the event of a formal determination of violation. In the event no settlement is reached, the 30-day period specified in paragraph (a) of this section for written response to the prepenalty notice remains in effect unless additional time is granted by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Debra Bryant HEIL, Appellee.

No. 75-634.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 10, 1975.

*11David H. Bludworth, State’s Atty., and Gerald A. McGill, Asst. State’s Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Joseph K. Still, Jr., Law Offices of Michael T. Mallon, West Palm Beach, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.

MAGER, J., dissents, with opinion.

MAGER, Judge

(dissenting):

In my opinion the trial court’s order granting defendant a new trial was in direct conflict with Rule 3.600, F.R.Cr.P., and hence was erroneous.

The order granting new trial set forth as the only basis therefor “that the Defendant was inadequately represented by Counsel because he (counsel) suffered from laryngitis at the time of trial.” Although the record of the testimony of the hearing on the motion for new trial reflects that the defense counsel was suffering from laryngitis there was no evidence in the record to reflect that the jury was unable to hear defense counsel or that the defendant did not otherwise receive a fair and impartial trial. Cf. *Potts v. State,*Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 729. At the very least the state should have been afforded the opportunity to a full cross-examination and rebuttal testimony on the issue of whether the jury was unable to hear defense counsel’s presentation.

Accordingly, I would reverse the order granting new trial and remand the cause back to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2019

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Shellie Lee Langmade, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 13, 2000

Filed: December 29, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Shellie Lee Langmade pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture

methamphetamine. The presentence report (PSR) assigned Langmade three criminal

history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 resulting in a criminal history category of II, but

the district court departed downward under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 to a criminal history

category of I, finding category II overstated the seriousness of Langmade's past

criminal conduct. Although Langmade's sentencing range was then 70-87 months, the

amount of drugs involved triggered a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of ten

years imprisonment. At sentencing, Langmade argued she was eligible for relief under
-2-

the "safety valve," U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, which requires a district court to sentence a

defendant within the applicable guidelines range regardless of any statutory minimum

sentence if, among other things, the defendant does not have more than one criminal

history point "as determined under the sentencing guidelines." U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(1).

The district court decided that given its downward departure to criminal history

category I under § 4A.1.3, it could apply the safety valve in § 5C1.2. Although we had

held otherwise in United States v. Moog, 94 F.3d 649 (8th Cir. 1996), the district court

declined to follow our unpublished opinion. The Government appeals. Our

unpublished decisions are binding precedent that district courts in this circuit must

follow. See Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898, 899 (8th Cir. 2000). Even

according to our more recent published case law, the district court's reduction of

Langmade's criminal history category under § 4A1.3 does not delete criminal history

points for the purposes of the safety valve. See United States v. Webb, 218 F.3d 877,

881 (8th Cir. 2000). Because Langmade was properly charged with three criminal

history points under § 4A.1.1, she does not qualify for the safety valve reduction under

§ 5C1.2. See id. at 882. We thus reverse and remand for resentencing consistent with

this opinion.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10.225

VALENS U.S. SPV I, LLC

c/o Valens Capital Management, LLC

335 Madison Avenue

New York, New
York 10017

December 10, 2007

Biovest International, Inc.

377 Plantation Street Worcester, MA 01605

Attention: Chief Financial Officer

Gentlemen:

Reference is made to the Royalty Agreement dated as of December 10, 2007 (the Royalty
Agreement), by and between Biovest International, Inc. (the Company) and Valens U.S. SPV I, LLC (Valens US). Capitalized terms used herein that are not defined shall have the meaning given to them in
the Royalty Agreement.

Valens US and the Company desire to amend the royalty percentage set forth in the Royalty Agreement
on the terms and conditions set forth below.

In consideration of Valens US agreement to continue to provide
financial accommodations to the Company and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree that: Section 4.1 of the Royalty Agreement is hereby amended by
replacing the phrase two and eighty-eight one hundredths (2.88%) percent with the phrase four and four one-hundredths percent (4.04%) in the first sentence thereof.

Except as specifically amended herein, the Royalty Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and is hereby ratified and confirmed.
The execution, delivery and effectiveness of this letter agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any right, power or remedy of Valens US, nor constitute a waiver of any provision of the Royalty Agreement.

This letter agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns
and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.



[Remainder of the page intentionally blank.]



---

This letter agreement may be executed by the parties hereto in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Any signature delivered by a party by facsimile or electronic transmission shall be deemed to be an original signature
hereto.



VALENS U.S. SPV I, LLCBy:

Valens Capital Management, LLC, its investment managerBy:

/s/ Patrick ReganName: Patrick Regan Title: Authorized Signatory




|                            |  |                                                 
|--------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|CONSENTED AND AGREED TO:   
|                           
|BIOVEST INTERNATIONAL, INC.
|                            | 
|By:                         |  | /s/Steven Arikian                               
|                            |  | Name: Steven Arikian, M.D. Title: Chairman & CEO
#### § 137.170 When does the 365 day period commence?

For the purpose of determining the 365 day period, an audit report is deemed received on the date of actual receipt by the Secretary, at the address specified in § 137.172, if, within 60 days after receiving the audit report, the Secretary does not give notice of a determination by the Secretary to reject the single-agency audit report as insufficient due to non-compliance with chapter 75 of title 31, United States Code or noncompliance with any other applicable law.