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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


LOSS PER SHARE

Computation of loss per share
(in thousands, except per share data)

                                                       Six months ended June 30,
                                                         2003           2002
                                                       --------       --------
Net loss ............................................. $(18,195)      $(21,500)
                                                       ========       ========
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding ..   55,353         53,762
Weighted average shares of common stock held for
  former Women.com stockholders ......................      187            369
Weighted average shares of common stock held for
  former Promotions.com stockholders .................        2              4
                                                       --------        -------
Adjusted weighted average shares of common
  stock outstanding used in computing basic and
  diluted net loss per share .........................   55,542         54,135
                                                       ========        =======
Basic and diluted net loss per share ................. $  (0.33)       $ (0.40)
                                                       ========        =======
**Enhanced DETERMINE Questions Pathways for HDM Assessor**
**Page 1 DETERMINE Total**:Click or tap here to enter text.

**Additional Services/Resources/Referrals for all Tiers as appropriate:**

GWAAR Nutrition Team Revised 4-11-23

☐ Frozen/Weekend Meals

☐ Senior Dining Meals  

☐ Carry Out Meals

☐ Liquid Nutrition Supplements

☐ Nutrition Counseling/Dietitian Follow-Up

☐ Malnutrition Resource List

☐ Complete Enhanced DETERMINE Questions

☐ Transportation to ☐ Grocery ☐ Food Pantry 

                    ☐ Senior Dining Site ☐ Other

☐ Food Share Application Assistance

☐ Adaptive Equipment/Independent Living Center Referral

☐ Nutrition Education    ☐ NOURISH Steps Website 

☐ Nutrition/Socialization/Health & Wellness Resource List

☐ Commodity Food Box  ☐ Other Food Box Click or tap here to enter text. 

☐ Nutrition Class ( ☐Stepping Up Your Nutrition, ☐ Eat Better, Move More, Weigh Less)

☐ Caregiver Support ☐ Senior Farmers Market Vouchers  

☐ Other  type here
EXHIBIT 13.2




                       CERTIFICATION OF JOSE MANUEL SILVA
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



                                      -1-

<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 13.2




    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 Annual Report of Rochester Resources Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form 20-F for the year ending May 31, 2007, as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Jose Manuel Silva,
Chief Financial Officer 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:

(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 has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.



/s/ Jose Manuel Silva
-----------------------
Jose Manuel Silva,
Chief Financial Officer


                                      -2-
#### Central of Georgia Railway Company *v.*Hughes.

Submitted July 18, 1906.

Decided February 15, 1907.

Action for damages. Before Judge Felton. Houston superior court. January 27, 1906.

*Hall & Wimberly,*for plaintiff in error.

*Joseph U. Hall*and *Warren Roberts,*contra.

Beck, J.

1. It being a material matter of inquiry as to what was'the condition of the headlight of the locomotive of the defendant’s train at the time it was alleged to have struck and killed the plaintiff’s horse, to recover the value of which this suit was brought, evidence tending to show the condition of the light at a point four or five miles distant' from the place at which the animal was killed was not entirely irrelevant.

2. There being evidence to authorize the jury to find that the plaintiff’s horse was killed by the running of the defendant’s locomotive and train as alleged, it was not error for the court to charge the jury as follows: “If the defendant does show by the testimony in the ease that they have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, and, notwithstanding the exercise of that ordinary care and diligence — ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, they did not and could not have avoided the injury, then, although the plaintiff’s horse was killed by the company, the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover.”

3. This being a suit for the recovery of damages, and the evidence upon the question of the amount that the jury should find for the plaintiff, in the event their verdict was in his favor, not being such as to limit them absolutely to any 'one given sum, it was the duty of the court to charge the jury the law as to the measure of *damages;*and the failure to do so was error.

4. Except as above ruled, no reversible error is shown to have been committed in the trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
#### § 154.540 Discharge removal.

Each facility to which this part applies must have a means to safely remove discharged oil or hazardous material, within one hour of completion of the transfer, from the containment required by § 154.530 of this part without discharging the oil or hazardous material into the water.

[CGD 93-056, 61 FR 41460, Aug. 8, 1996]
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 236 

Supporting the goals and ideals of the National Anthem Project, which 

has worked to restore America’s voice by re-teaching Americans to sing 

the national anthem. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 14, 2007 

Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. CRAPO, 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. BYRD, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. 

SNOWE, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. LOTT, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, and 

Mr. AKAKA) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of the National Anthem 

Project, which has worked to restore America’s voice 

by re-teaching Americans to sing the national anthem. 

Whereas a Harris Interactive Survey discovered that of men 

and women 18 years of age and older, 61 percent of 

those surveyed did not know all the lyrics of the first 

stanza of the national anthem, and of those who answered the question affirmatively, 58 percent had received at least 5 years of music education while growing 

up; 

Whereas an ABC News poll revealed that more than 1 in 3 

Americans (38 percent) do not know that the official 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 236 IS 

name of the national anthem is ‘‘The Star-Spangled Banner’’, less than 35 percent of American teenagers can 

name Francis Scott Key as the author of the national anthem, and as few as 15 percent of American youth can 

sing the words to the anthem from memory; 

Whereas the national anthem, ‘‘The Star-Spangled Banner’’, 

holds a special place in the hearts and minds of the 

American people as a symbol of national unity, resolve, 

and willingness to sacrifice in order to preserve the Nation’s sacred heritage of freedom; 

Whereas the National Anthem Project has inspired the American people to have a greater appreciation of their patriotic musical heritage while learning American history; 

Whereas music educators are the among the leading caretakers of this important piece of our Nation’s heritage, 

in that many students learn the national anthem in 

music class; 

Whereas our Nation’s future is enhanced by the quality of 

the historic knowledge and awareness provided to children of all ages through learning about the national anthem, and that high-quality music education represents a 

worthy commitment to our children and our Nation’s future; and 

Whereas, the national anthem is the symbol of American 

ideals and freedom around the world: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of the Na3 tional Anthem Project; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 236 IS 

1 (2) commends the American citizens who have 

2 participated in this project; and 

3 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

4 to learn the national anthem, ‘‘The Star-Spangled 

5 Banner’’, and its proud history. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of First Ottawa Bancshares, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Joachim J. Brown, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Joachim J. Brown    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
|                    |
| Joachim J. Brown        |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| March 29, 2005          |

 

----
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 MotivNation Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jay
      Isco, Interim Chief Financial Officer 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 the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.









Dated:
      November 3, 2006     By:
      ________________________________________


Jay
      Isco, Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 2

.

AO 187 (Rev. 7/87) Exhibit and List 

United States District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA-MIAMI DIVISION

DELIO BATISITA,

CARLOS LOPEZ,

MARIANA LOPEZ,

and RAFAELA VALIENTE,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

AVANT ASSURANCE, INC., 

REINIER CORTES and 

ANDREA GONZALEZ QUINTERO,

Defendants.

 FINAL TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-22671-ALTONAGA

 PRESIDING JUDGE

HONORABLE 

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY 

FAIRLAW FIRM

Toussaint Cummings, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

135 San Lorenzo Ave

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY

CUETO LAW GROUP P.L.

Santiago Cueto Esq., 

Daniel Tropp, Esq. 

4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 

Suite 470 

Coral Gables, FL 33146 

 TRIAL DATE(S)

July 10-13, 2023

 COURT REPORTER COURTROOM DEPUTY

NO.

DATE

OFFERED MARKED OBJECTIONS ADMITTED Exhibit

Joint Exhibits

1 Photographs of Avant Documents (Plaintiffs Bates 000001-17)

2

Avant Assurance Independent Contractor (IC) Standards Guide 

(Plaintiffs 000018-23)

3 Mariana Lopez Resignation Letter (Plaintiffs 000024)

4

Emails (Plaintiffs 000025-34, 000042-68, 000129-138, DOC 

000010-15, Defendants Mariana and Carlos Lopez 00002)

5 Independent Contractor Non-Disclosure Agreement (000036)

6 Avant Client Consent Statement

7 Work Schedules Created by Alix Ledesma

8 Avant 2022 Compensation and Bonus Plans (Avant 000022-23)

9

Delio Batista State Licenses and Certifications (Plantiffs 000071-

78)

10 Delio Batista Text messages (000081-000112)

11 Plaintiff Carlos Lopez Text Messages (Bates 000113-000127).

12 Spreadsheet of Payments to Plaintiffs (provided by Defendants).

13

All Monthly Commission Statement Spreadsheets sent from 

Defendants to Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 117 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2023 Page 1 of 2 Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

.

14

All Monthly Commission Statement Emails sent from 

Defendants to Plaintiffs 

15 Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions

16

Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs First Request for 

Interrogatories 

17 Spreadsheets Prepared by Carlos Lopez

18 Documents Produced by Defendants (Bates1-16)

19 Plaintiffs’ Responses to Discovery

Respectfully Submitted on July 7, 2023.

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq. (174742)

brian@fairlawattorney.com

Toussaint Cummings (119877)

toussaint@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33156

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiffs

By: Daniel Tropp, Esq. 

Daniel E. Tropp, Esq. (948128)

CUETO LAW GROUP P.L.

4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd.,

Suite 470 Coral Gables, Florida 33146

Tel.: (305) 777-0377

Tel.: (direct line) (786) 306-1293 

dantroppesq@gmail.com

Counsel for Defendants

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 117 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2023 Page 2 of 2 Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.955 Buffalo Bayou. ( a ) The draw of the Houston Belt and Terminal railroad bridge, mile 1.2 at Houston, and all drawbridges downstream of it, shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice if given.
( b ) The draw of the Union Pacific Rail Road Bridge, mile 3.1, need not be opened to the passage of vessels.
[CGD-8-89-11, 55 FR 2066, Jan. 22, 1990, as amended by CGD08-98-066, 63 FR 55030, Oct. 14, 1998; USCG-2011-0100, 76 FR 16296, Mar. 23, 2011]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 27, 2018

No. 04-18-00317-CV

Teresa M. FAYETTE,

Appellant

v.

Luciano REYES and ABC Trucking,

Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CI04948

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On July 26, 2018, counsel for Appellant moved this court to substitute Mark Anthony 

Sanchez as counsel of record and grant a motion to withdraw by Augusto A. Guerra. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 6.5(d). Counsels’ motions are GRANTED. We respectfully remind Augusto A. Guerra 

that withdrawing counsel must comply with Rule 6.5(b). 

We DIRECT the clerk of this court to update this court’s records accordingly.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of July, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5397-5398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2117]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW50761]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
WYW50761, Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 
amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for 
reinstatement from W.A. Moncrief, Jr., Providence Minerals LLC, LaMar 
B. Roemer, Roemer Oil Company, John F. Sheridan, and Woods Research & 
Development for renewal of oil and gas lease WYW50761 for land in 
Converse County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was 
accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated 
under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. 
Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessees have agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $5 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year, and 16-2/3 percent, respectively. The lessees have 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessees 
have met all the requirements for reinstatement of the

[[Page 5398]]

lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing 
Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the BLM is proposing to reinstate 
lease WYW50761 effective July 1, 2010, under the original terms and 
conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates 
cited above. The BLM has not issued a valid lease to any other interest 
affecting the lands.

Julie L. Weaver,
Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 2011-2117 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6392

ROOSEVELT BROOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-04-283) Submitted: May 13, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Bryan Rigney, PROTOGYROU & RIGNEY, P.L.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Josephine Frances Whalen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Roosevelt Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brooks’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00067

- CV

In the Matter of B.S.P.

From the 289th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012JUV01933

The Honorable Carmen Kelsey, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial

court is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED October 29, 2014.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-20690

GERALD GILBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. Warden JAMES W. M O S S B ARGER; RODNEY E. DeWALT; MARY E. CARROLL, Grievance Investigator II, Defendants-Appellees

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CV-4048

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gerald Gilbert, T exas prisoner # 1 236206, moves for the appointment of counsel and f

o r leave to proce e d i n forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of t he motion for reconsider a t i o n t hat h e filed after the district court dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. By movi n g t o p r o ceed IFP, Gilbert challenges the district court’s certification t hat h i s appeal i s not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 14, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-20690 Document: 00512341102 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2013No. 12-20690

To procee d I F P , a litigant must be economically e ligible, and the appeal must be taken in good f aith. Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 ( 5th C ir. 1982). An appeal is taken in good faith if it raises l egal points t hat a re a rguable on the merits a nd thus n onfrivolous. Howard v. K i ng , 7 07 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Gilbert’s a ppeal from the denial o f his motion for reconsideration does not bring up his underlying judgment for r eview. See Bailey v. Cain , 6 09 F .3d 763, 767 (5th Cir. 2010). Because he has not shown that the d istrict court abused its discretion in d enying his motion for reconsideration, see id. , G i l b e r t has not established that he will raise a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Howard , 707 F

. 2d at 2 20. Accordingly, we deny his m otion to proceed IFP on appea l a n d d i smiss his appeal as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F .3d at 202 n.24; 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. The dismissal of Gilbert’s § 1983 action as frivolous and the dismissal of his appeal as f

rivolous count as t wo strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 1 03 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Gilbert is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes u nder § 1 9 1 5 ( g ) , he will not be allowed t o proceed IFP i n any civil action or appeal, f iled w hile he is incarcerated

or d e t a i n e d in any facility, unless he “ is under i m minent danger of serious physical injury.” See § 1915(g). Finall y , G i lb e r t h a s n o t s h o w n “ e x c e p t i o n a l c ircumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel. Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Texas , 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, w e de n y h i s m o t ion for the appointment of counsel. MOTIONS DENIED; AP PEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2 Case: 12-20690 Document: 00512341102 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2013
Confidential Material

Removed
Confidential Material

Removed
Confidential Material

Removed
Confidential Material

Removed