alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-24-
EXHIBIT (11)

<TABLE>

STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
TRINOVA CORPORATION
(In thousands, except per share data)

<CAPTION>
                                                 Year Ended December 31       
                                          --------------------------------------
                                            1996           1995           1994
                                          --------       --------       --------
<S>                                      <C>            <C>            <C>
Average shares outstanding                   28,384         28,867         28,719   

Assumed conversion of the 6 percent 
 convertible debentures                       1,905          1,905          1,905

Net effect of dilutive stock options based
 upon treasury stock method using average
 market price                                    74             92            191
                                          ---------      ---------      ---------
Average shares of common stock and
 common stock equivalents outstanding        30,363         30,864         30,815
                                          =========      =========      =========

Net income                                $ 102,721      $  94,896      $  65,855

After-tax equivalent of interest
 expense on the 6 percent convertible
 debentures                                   3,720          3,720          3,720

                                          ---------      ---------      ---------
Net income for purposes of
 computing net income per share           $ 106,441      $  98,616      $  69,575
                                          =========      =========      =========


NET INCOME PER SHARE                      $    3.51      $    3.20      $    2.26
                                          =========      =========      =========


<FN>

Note - Net income per share is computed using the average number of common
shares outstanding, including common stock equivalents.  The assumed
conversion of the Company's 6 percent convertible debentures was included in
average shares outstanding, increasing the average number of shares
outstanding by 1,904,762 shares.  For purposes of computing net income per
share, net income was increased for the after-tax equivalent of interest
expense on the debentures. 

</FN>
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David B. Swank certify that:

      1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on  Form  10-QSB  of  Diomed
Holdings, Inc.;

      2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  report  does  not  contain  any  untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

      3. Based on my knowledge,  the financial  statements,  and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying  officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

            a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to
ensure that  material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including  its
consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

            b)  Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  registrant's  disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our  conclusions  about the
effectiveness  of the  disclosure  controls and  procedures as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

            c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's  internal
control over financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual  report)  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

      5. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s) and I have  disclosed,
based on our most recent  evaluation  of the  internal  control  over  financial
reporting,  to  the  registrant's  auditors  and  the  audit  committee  of  the
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

            a) All  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the
design or operation of internal  controls  over  financial  reporting  which are
reasonably  likely to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

            b) Any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting. c)

Date:  May 13, 2004                        /s/ DAVID B. SWANK
                                           ------------------
#### § 530.407 Procedures for initiating and undertaking review.

Any party desiring review of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge may petition the Administrative Review Board to review the decision. To be effective, such petition must be received by the Secretary within 30 days of the date of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. Copies of the petition shall be served on all parties and on the Chief Administrative Law Judge. If the Administrative Review Board does not issue a notice accepting a petition for review within 30 days after receipt of a timely filing of the petition, or within 30 days of the date of the decision if no petition has been received, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge shall be deemed the final agency action.

[24 FR 729, Feb. 3, 1959, as amended at 86 FR 1787, Jan. 11, 2021]
#### Robert Dean PLATTS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 21477.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

May 23, 1967.

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1967.

*397R Lewis Brown, Jr., Butte, Mont., for appellant.

Moody Brickett, U. S. Atty., Robert O’Leary, Asst. U. S. Atty., Butte, Mont., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, MERRILL and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant thumbed an automobile ride to St. Maries, Idaho. On arrival there, the driver befriended appellant and loaned him his Cadillac car so that appellant could seek work at a local employment office and mill. Appellant went neither place, but turned up two days later in Fargo, North Dakota, where he appeared at the police station and confessed that he had stolen a car. In the meantime, the Cadillac was found abandoned along the side of the road in Montana with an empty fuel tank.

The evidence without the confession, although circumstantial, is clearly adequate to support the conviction of appellant for violating the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312. Mathematically it was possible that someone else drove the car to and left it in Montana, but we would think the chance was about one in a million that such a thing happened. For the same reason, there is nothing to appellant’s claim that the government failed to prove the corpus delicti, before his confession was put in.

While bringing this appeal had about the same hope of success as running a three-legged filly in the Kentucky Derby, we commend appellant’s attorney for doing his best with what he had. See Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (May 8, 1967).
§ 4043.68 Insolvency or similar settlement. ( a ) *Reportable event.* Advance notice is required for an insolvency or similar settlement, as described in § 4043.35.
( b ) *Extension.* For a case or proceeding under § 4043.35(a)(1) or (2) that is not commenced by a member of the plan's controlled group, the notice date is extended to 10 days after the commencement of the case or proceeding.
#### § 4042.1 Purpose and scope.

This part sets forth rules and procedures relating to single-employer plan terminations initiated by PBGC under section 4042 of ERISA.
§ 301.5 Form of submission. ( a ) *Parties.* All parties to the dispute must be stated in each submission.
( b ) *Statement of claim.* Under the caption “statement of claims” the petitioner or petitioners must clearly state the particular question upon which an award is desired.
( c ) *Statement of facts.* In a “joint statement of facts,” if possible, briefly, but fully set forth the controlling facts involved. In the event of inability to agree upon a “joint statement of facts,” then each party shall show separately the facts as they respectively believe them to be.
( d ) *Position of employees.* Under the caption “position of employees” the employees must clearly and briefly set forth all relevant, argumentative facts, including all documentary evidence submitted in exhibit form, quoting the agreement or rules involved, if any; and all data submitted in support of employees' position must affirmatively show the same to have been presented to the carrier and made a part of the particular question in dispute.
( e ) *Position of carrier.* Under the caption “position of carrier” the carrier must clearly and briefly set forth all relevant, argumentative facts, including all documentary evidence submitted in exhibit form, quoting the agreement or rules involved, if any; and all data submitted in support of carrier's position must affirmatively show the same to have been presented to the employees or duly authorized representative thereof and made a part of the particular question in dispute.
( f ) *Signatures.* All submissions must be signed by the parties submitting the same.
( g ) *Ex parte submission.* In event of an ex parte submission the same general form of submission is required. The petitioner will serve written notice upon the appropriate Division of the Adjustment Board of intention to file an ex parte submission on a certain date (30 days hence), and at the same time provide the other party with copy of such notice. For the purpose of identification such notice will state the question involved and give a brief description of the dispute. The Secretary of the appropriate Division of the Adjustment Board will immediately thereupon advise the other party of the receipt of such notice and request that the submission of such other party be filed with such Division within the same period of time.
J

- S29001

- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. MICHAEL SERRANO Appellant No. 982 WDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 3 , 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 07

- CR

- 0000099

- 2011

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.  JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED JUNE 04, 2015 A previous panel of this Court remanded this case for re

- sentencing. See Commonwealth v. Serrano , 61 A.3d 279 (Pa. Super. 2013). On remand, the sentencing court imposed sentence on counts two through four and ran the sentences consecutively. Count two is Serrano’s conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (heroin), 35 P.S.
780

- 113(a)(30), and the trial court imposed a term of imprisonment of fifteen to thirty years. The sentence for count two imposed a mandatory minimum, as the sentencing court notes in its sentencing order. See Order, 5/3/13, at 6, ¶10.

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S29001

- 15

- 2

-

There is a problem with this sentence. It is illegal. This Court has held that section 7508 i s facially invalid pursuant to Alleyne v. United
States , ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013)

. See Commonwealth v. Fennell , 105 A.3d 13 (Pa. Super. 2014). Simply put, “a mandatory minimum sentence imposed under this statute is illegal.” Commonwealth v. Vargas , 108 A.3d 858, 876 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (citing Fennell ). We have little doubt that our decision upsets the sentencing scheme. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for re

sentencing. See , e.g. , Commo nwealth v. Phillips , 946 A.2d 103, 115 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“If a correction by this Court may upset the sentencing scheme envisioned by the trial court, the better practice is to remand.”). 1 Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for re

- sentenci ng. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/4/2015

____________________________________________ 1 Our disposition makes the first issue raised on appeal moot.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 January 5, 2017

a1212

Order 

Clerk

January 5, 2017

154091

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154091

COA: 333117

Kent CC: 13-007669-FH

LEE ARTRIA BARNES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 24, 2016 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
[No. 49631-0-I.

Division One.

October 21, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Lawrence Robert Hill, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-05321-0, Helen Halpert, J., entered November 7, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 420-009, Alaska]

                    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for the Ketchikan Lakes Hydroelectric Project, and has prepared a Final Environmental                           ( print page 33537)                        Assessment (FEA). The project is located on Ketchikan Creek and Granite Basin Creek, near the City of Ketchikan, in Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska. The project uses lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service in the Tongass National Forest. The Forest Service is a cooperating agency on this environmental assessment. The FEA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.                

Copies of the FEA are available for review in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20426. This FEA may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (please call (202) 208-2222 for assistance). For further information, contact Charles Hall at (202) 219-2853.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-13010 Filed 5-23-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNumerical methods in Markov chain modelingSeveral methods for computing stationary probability distributions of Markov chains are described and compared. The main linear algebra problem consists of computing an eigenvector of a sparse, usually nonsymmetric, matrix associated with a known eigenvalue. It can also be cast as a problem of solving a homogeneous singular linear system. Several methods based on combinations of Krylov subspace techniques are presented. The performance of these methods on some realistic problems are compared.Document ID19920002526Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsPhilippe, Bernard*(Research Inst. for Advanced Computer Science Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Saad, Youcef*(Research Inst. for Advanced Computer Science Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Stewart, William J.*(North Carolina State Univ. Raleigh., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1989Subject CategoryStatistics And ProbabilityReport/Patent NumberRIACS-TR-89-39NASA-CR-188908NAS 1.26:188908Accession Number92N11744Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC2-387CONTRACT_GRANT: NSF INT-86-13332Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920002526.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 25 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 25

 Providing for the appointment of John W. McCarter as a citizen regent 
        of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2007

   Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Dodd) introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
                 Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for the appointment of John W. McCarter as a citizen regent 
        of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the 
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other 
than Members of Congress, occurring because of the expiration of the 
term of Walter E. Massey of Georgia, is filled by the appointment of 
John W. McCarter of Illinois, for a term of 6 years, effective on the 
date of the enactment of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
(75 South. 1005)

#### GEO. W. PHALIN CO. et al. v. THOMPSON.

(6 Div. 197.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 1917.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court; H. B. Foster, Judge.

Ol W. Taylor, of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### § 471.20 What authority under this part or Executive Order 13496 may the Secretary delegate, and under what circumstances?

Section 11 of the Executive Order grants the Secretary the right to delegate any functions or duties under the Order to any officer in the Department of Labor or to any other officer in the executive branch of the Government, with the consent of the head of the department or agency in which that officer serves.
Exhibit 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the Post- Effective  Amendment
No. 3 to  Registration  Statement  (No.  33- 16238) on Form S-8 relating to Long
Island Lighting Company's Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Post-Effective Amendment
No. 1 to  Registration  Statement  (No.  2-87427)  on Form S-3  relating to Long
Island  Lighting  Company's  Automatic  Dividend  Reinvestment  Plan  and in the
related  Prospectus  and  Registration  Statement  (No.  33-  52963) on Form S-3
relating to the issuance of General and Refunding Bonds,  Debentures,  Preferred
Stock or Common Stock and in the related Prospectus, of our report dated January
31, 1997,  with respect to the financial  statements and schedule of Long Island
Lighting  Company included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1996.


                                                 /s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Melville, New York
January 31, 1997
§ 4041.50 Closeout of plan. If a plan administrator receives a distribution notice from the PBGC pursuant to § 4041.47 and neither the plan administrator nor the PBGC makes the finding described in § 4041.49(b) or (d), the plan administrator must distribute plan assets in accordance with § 4041.28 and file a post-distribution certification in accordance with § 4041.29, except that— ( a ) The term “plan benefits” is replaced with “title IV benefits”;
( b ) For purposes of applying the distribution deadline in § 4041.28(a)(1)(i), the phrase “after the expiration of the PBGC's 60-day (or extended) review period under § 4041.26(a)” is replaced with “the day on which the plan administrator completes the issuance of the notices of benefit distribution pursuant to § 4041.48(a)”; and
( c ) For purposes of applying the distribution deadline in § 4041.28(a)(1)(ii), the phrase “the requirements of § 4041.25(c)” is replaced with “the requirements of § 4041.48(d)”.