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

MYLEX CORPORATION                                               EXHIBIT 11.1
EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE COMPUTATION
THREE and SIX MONTHS ENDED June 28, 1997 AND June 30, 1996

The basis for computing net income (loss)  per common share is described in Note
A to the financial statements, beginning on page 6 of the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 28, 1997 and June
30, 1996.

The computation of earnings (loss) per share is as follows:

                                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED
(in $000's except for per share data)

                                                       JUNE 28        JUNE 30
                                                        1997           1996
                                                      ---------       --------
NET EARNINGS (LOSS)                                    $(1,431)       $ 4,601
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON SHARES
  OUTSTANDING DURING THE PERIOD                         20,558         20,197
NUMBER OF COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENTS RESULTING
  FROM STOCK OPTIONS AND WARRANTS, COMPUTED
  USING THE TREASURY STOCK METHOD AND THE
  AVERAGE STOCK PRICE                                        -          1,528
                                                       --------       --------
NUMBER OF COMMON AND COMMON SHARES
  EQUIVALENTS USED IN COMPUTATION                       20,558         21,725
                                                       --------       --------
EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE                              $ (0.07)       $  0.21
                                                       --------       --------


                                                           SIX MONTHS ENDED
(in $000's except for per share data)
                                                       JUNE 28        JUNE 30
                                                        1997           1996
                                                      ---------       --------
NET EARNINGS (LOSS)                                    $(4,209)       $ 9,726
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON SHARES
  OUTSTANDING DURING THE PERIOD                         20,641         19,936
NUMBER OF COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENTS RESULTING
  FROM STOCK OPTIONS AND WARRANTS, COMPUTED
  USING THE TREASURY STOCK METHOD AND THE
  AVERAGE STOCK PRICE                                        -          1,704
                                                       --------       --------
NUMBER OF COMMON AND COMMON SHARES
  EQUIVALENTS USED IN COMPUTATION                       20,641         21,640
                                                       --------       --------
EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE                              $ (0.20)        $ 0.45
                                                       --------       --------


                                          22
D:\netsite-docs\lps19310\coping.shtm.pdf
§ 21.7200 State approving agencies. State approving agencies have the same general responsibilities for approving courses for training under 38 U.S.C. chapter 30 as they do for approving courses for training under 38 U.S.C. chapter 34. Accordingly, in administering 38 U.S.C. chapter 30, VA will apply the provisions of the following sections in the same manner, as they are applied for the administration of 38 U.S.C. chapters 34 and 36. ( a ) Section 21.4150 (except paragraph (e))—Designation,
( b ) Section 21.4151—Cooperation,
( c ) Section 21.4152—Control by agencies of the United States,
( d ) Section 21.4153—Reimbursement of expenses;
( e ) Section 21.4154—Report of activities; and
( f ) Section 21.4155—Evaluation of State approving agency performance.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3034, 3670, 3671, 3672, 3673, 3674, 3674A; Pub. L. 98-525, Pub. L. 100-323)
[53 FR 1757, Jan. 22, 1988, as amended at 54 FR 49760, Dec. 1, 1989]
#### THE UNITED STATES v. SUPPLEE-BIDDLE HARDWARE COMPANY

[58 C. Cls. 343; 265 U. S. 189]

Judgment was rendered against the United States in the Court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:

The “Revenue Act of 1918” (passed February 24, 1919), in the income tax provisions' applicable to corporations, adopts the definition of gross income applicable to individuals (sec. 213), which excludes “ the proceeds of life insurance policies paid upon the death of the insured to individual beneficiaries or *961to the estate of tlie insured.” *Held,*that there was no purpose, in the exemption, to distinguish between individual beneficiaries and corporate beneficiaries, and that the proceeds of insurance taken by a corporation on the life of an important official, to secure its financial position and indemnify itself against loss of earning power in case of his death, were not taxable as income under the act.

Assuming that Congress could tax proceeds of such indemnity life insurance as income, its purpose to do so should be express, in view of the popular conception of life insurance as resulting in a single addition to the resources of the beneficiary and not in a periodical return.

A construction of a war taxing act as imposing both an income and an estate tax on the proceeds of life insurance should be avoided unless required in express terms.

Mr. Chief Justice Taft

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 26, 1924.
#### § 17.62 Definitions.

For the purpose of §§ 17.61 through 17.72:

*Activities of daily living* means basic daily tasks an individual performs as part of self-care which may be used as a measurement of the functional status of a person including: walking; bathing, shaving, brushing teeth, combing hair; dressing; eating; getting in or getting out of bed; and toileting.

*Approving official* means the Director or, if designated by the Director, the Associate Director or Chief of Staff of a Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center or Outpatient Clinic which has jurisdiction to approve a community residential care facility.

*Community residential care* means the monitoring, supervision, and assistance, in accordance with a statement of needed care, of the activities of daily living activities and instrumental activities of daily living, of referred veterans in an approved home in the community by the facility's provider.

*Hearing official* means the Director or, if designated by the Director, the Associate Director or Chief of Staff of a Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center or Outpatient Clinic which has jurisdiction to approve a community residential care facility.

*Instrumental activities of daily living* are tasks that are not necessary for fundamental functioning, but allow an individual to live independently in a community. Instrumental activities of daily living include: housekeeping and cleaning room; meal preparation; taking medications; laundry; assistance with transportation; shopping—for groceries, clothing or other items; ability to use the telephone; ability to manage finances; writing letters; and obtaining appointments.

*Oral hearing* means the in person testimony of representatives of a community residential care facility and of VA before the hearing official and the review of the written evidence of record by that official.

*Paper hearing* means a review of the written evidence of record by the hearing official.

[84 FR 33697, July 15, 2019]
# Official Journal C 167I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 167I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6315 May 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 167I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6315 May 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2020/C 167 I/01 | Table of amendments referred to in Council Decision (EU) 2020/649 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2020/C 167 I/01

Table of amendments referred to in Council Decision (EU) 2020/649

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
§ 21.4008 Prevention of overpayments. ( a ) *Prevention of overpayments to veterans and eligible persons enrolled in educational institutions.* When approval of a course may be withdrawn, and overpayments may exist or may be created, VA may suspend further payments to veterans and eligible persons enrolled in the educational institution offering the course until the question of withdrawing approval is resolved. See § 21.4210. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b); 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3241, 3323(a), 3690(b))
( b ) *Prevention of overpayments to veterans and eligible persons taking licensing and certification tests.* When approval of a licensing or certification test may be withdrawn, and overpayments may exist or may be created, VA may suspend payments to veterans and eligible persons taking that test until the question of withdrawing approval is resolved. See § 21.4210.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b); 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3241, 3323(a), 3690(b))
[72 FR 16968, Apr. 5, 2007, as amended at 74 FR 14666, Mar. 31, 2009]
#### § 18.409 Administrative requirements for certain recipients.

The Secretary may require any recipient with fewer than fifteen employees, or any class of such recipients, to comply with §§ 18.407 and 18.408 in whole or in part, when the Secretary finds a violation of this part or finds that such compliance will not significantly impair the ability of the recipient or class of recipients to provide benefits or services.
# ^3-15 ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA# 02-13-00552-CR OFFENSE: 49.04 

### STYLE: Lisa D. Wallv. The State of Texas COUNTY: Denton COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: County Criminal Court No. 4 DATE: 05/07/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: CR-2012-01008-D



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS STYLE: Lisa D. Wall v. The State ofTexas Petition 

# CCA#: fQ *3 "*/ft APPELLAkl-r*^ CCA Disposition: FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: 

# R^/^^D JUDGE: 

# DATE: OlLUfalS JUDGE: KdA UaAu^- SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: ELECTRONIC RECORD
41601.

#### LANIER, Administrator, et al. v. FULLER, Administrator, et al.

Argued November 4, 1965

Decided February 18, 1966

Rehearing denied March 3, 1966.

*J. Sidney Lanier,*for appellants.

*Boland Neeson,*for appellees.

Per Curiam.

Appellant filed notice of appeal on August 18, 1965, appealing from judgments of the trial court entered on December 2, 1964, and January 5, 1965. The notice of appeal having been filed more than seven months after final judgment rendered, the appeal must be dismissed. *Code Ann.*§§ 6-803, 6-804 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 21).

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Bell, P. J., Frankum and Hall, JJ., concur.*
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 3.24 Requirements for documents and cover sheets relating to patents and patent applications.

(a) *For electronic submissions:* Either a copy of the original document or an extract of the original document may be submitted for recording. All documents must be submitted as digitized images in Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) or another form as prescribed by the Director. When printed to a paper size of either 21.6 by 27.9 cm (81⁄2 by 11 inches) or 21.0 by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4), the document must be legible and a 2.5 cm (one-inch) margin must be present on all sides.

(b) *For paper or facsimile submissions:* Either a copy of the original document or an extract of the original document must be submitted for recording. Only one side of each page may be used. The paper size must be either 21.6 by 27.9 cm (81⁄2 by 11 inches) or 21.0 by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4), and in either case, a 2.5 cm (one-inch) margin must be present on all sides. For paper submissions, the paper used should be flexible, strong white, non-shiny, and durable. The Office will not return recorded documents, so original documents must not be submitted for recording.

[69 FR 29879, May 26, 2004]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
##### 



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 Sentex Sensing Technology, Inc.,
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, William R. Sprow, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U. S. C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act 2002, that: 1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.
 /s/ William R. Sprow  
 13
#### § 11.75 Certificates.

Adjusted service certificates are dated as of the 1st day of the month in which the applications were filed, but no certificates are dated prior to January 1, 1925. Loans on the security of such certificates may be made at any time after the date of the certificate. The fact that a certificate is stamped or marked “duplicate” does not destroy its value as security for a loan.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.144 Reconsideration of decision on *ex parte* appeal.

Any request for rehearing or reconsideration, or modification of the decision, must be filed within one month from the date of the decision. Such time may be extended by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upon a showing of sufficient cause.

[54 FR 29554, July 13, 1989]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
PUBLIC LAW 107–79—DEC. 7, 2001 115 STAT. 809

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 76:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):

Dec. 5, considered and passed House and Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–79

107th Congress

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law

107–44 is further amended by striking the date specified in section

107(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘December 15, 2001’’.

Approved December 7, 2001.

Ante, p. 596.

Dec. 7, 2001

[H.J. Res. 76]
#### D. J. KILLOREN and Patricia Spalding, as Co-Executors of the Estate of E. A. Killoren, Deceased, Appellants, v. SEABOARD MARITIME CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 19790.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 19, 1963.

Urban P. Van Susteren, Appleton, Wis., for appellant.

Leo L. Foster, Tallahassee, Fla., Hans A. Nathan, Trammell, Rand & Nathan, Washington, D. C., of counsel, for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and JONES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this case federal jurisdiction depends on diversity of citizenship of the parties. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants here, are the executors of the estate of E. A. Killoren. It was the claim of the appellants that Killoren was an endorser and guarantor of a promissory note of the appellee, defendant below, Seaboard Maritime Corporation, given to and discounted by the Appleton State Bank of Appleton, Wisconsin, and, after the default of Seaboard, the appellant executors were required to pay the note and are entitled to recover from the maker, Seaboard, as the party primarily liable. Seaboard, for its defense, asserted that the Bank declined to lend to it and did not, in fact do so, and that the loan made by the Bank was to Killoren who turned over the funds to Seaboard without any promise by it or expectation by him of repayment. On an affidavit, admissions, records and interrogatories, the appellee moved for a summary judgment. These were considered by the district court along with an affidavit submitted on behalf of the appellants. The district court found there was no genuine issue of a material fact and granted Seaboard’s motion for summary.judgment. Leave to amend was denied. We find no error in the judgment of the district court. Its judgment is

Affirmed.
§ 17.155 Minimum standards of safety and quality for automotive adaptive equipment. ( a ) The Under Secretary for Health or designee is authorized to develop and establish minimum standards of safety and quality for adaptive equipment provided under 38 U.S.C. chapter 39.
( b ) In the performance of this function, the following considerations will apply: ( 1 ) Minimum standards of safety and quality will be developed and promulgated for basic adaptive equipment specifically designed to facilitate operation and use of standard passenger motor vehicles by persons who have specified types of disablement and for the installation of such equipment.
( 2 ) In those instances where custombuilt adaptive equipment is designed and installed to meet the peculiar needs of uniquely disabled persons and where the incidence of probable usage is not such as to justify development of formal standards, such equipment will be inspected and, if in order, approved for use by a qualified designee of the Under Secretary for Health.
( 3 ) Adaptive equipment, available to the general public, which is manufactured under standards of safety imposed by a Federal agency having authority to establish the same, shall be deemed to meet required standards for use as adaptive equipment. These include such items as automatic transmissions, power brakes, power steering and other automotive options.
( c ) For those items where specific Department of Veterans Affairs standards of safety and quality have not as yet been developed, or where such standards are otherwise provided as with custom-designed or factory option items, authorization of suitable adaptive equipment will not be delayed. Approval of such adaptive equipment, however, shall be subject to the judgment of designated certifying officials that it meets implicit standards of safety and quality adopted by the industry or as later developed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
[40 FR 8819, Mar. 3, 1975. Redesignated at 61 FR 21966, May 13, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 17072, Apr. 9, 1997]
116 STAT. 126 PUBLIC LAW 107–163—APR. 18, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2577:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

Feb. 12, considered and passed House.

Mar. 22, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–163

107th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 310 South

State Street in St. Ignace, Michigan, as the ‘‘Bob Davis Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

310 South State Street in St. Ignace, Michigan, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Bob Davis Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Bob Davis

Post Office Building’’.

Approved April 18, 2002.

Apr. 18, 2002

[H.R. 2577]
#### § 11.85 Condition requisite for redemption.

In order to be eligible for redemption by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the note and certificate must be accompanied by an affidavit of a duly authorized officer (the capacity in which the officer serves must be shown) of the lending bank showing that the said bank has not charged or collected, or attempted to charge or collect, directly or indirectly, any fee or other compensation in respect of the loan, or any other loan made by the bank under the provisions of section 502 of the World War Adjusted Compensation Act, except the rate of interest specified in the section of the Act cited; that the person who obtained the loan is known to the lending bank to be the person named in the Adjusted Service Certificate; and that notice required by § 11.77 was promptly given. In case the note was sold or discounted by the lending bank, there should be incorporated in the affidavit a statement that the veteran was notified promptly of the transfer by mail to his last known address. In case the note was resold or rediscounted by any other bank, affidavit shall be made by a duly authorized officer of such bank that proper notice of such resale or rediscount was promptly mailed to the veteran at his last known address. The proper execution of the appropriate affidavit on Form 6615 or 6615a will be considered as a compliance with the requirements of this section. A single affidavit setting forth the full particulars may be accepted to cover any number of veterans' notes submitted for redemption at one time. The affidavit must be executed before a judge of the United States court, a United States commissioner, a United States district attorney, a United States marshal, a collector of internal revenue, a collector of customs, a United States postmaster, a clerk of court of record under the seal of the court, an executive officer of an incorporated bank or trust company, under his official designation and the seal of the bank or trust company, or a notary public under his seal, or a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, under his official seal.