alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.0

                              GA FINANCIAL, INC.
                      STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF
                    EARNINGS PER SHARE FOR THE YEARS ENDED
                          December 31, 1998 AND 1997
               (Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   For the Calendar Year
                                                        ------------------------------------------
                                                               1998                     1997
                                                        ----------------        ------------------
Basic:                                               
<S>                                                       <C>                     <C>
   Net income..........................................       $    8,242                $    8,317
   Net income applicable to common stock...............            8,242                     8,317
                                                              ----------                ----------
   Average common shares...............................        6,516,237                 7,021,900
       outstanding - basic
   Basic earnings per share............................       $     1.26                $     1.18
                                                              ----------                ----------

Diluted:
   Net income..........................................       $    8,242                $    8,317
                                                              ----------                ----------
   Average common shares outstanding - basic...........        6,516,237                 7,021,900
   Effect of dilutive securities:
       Shares issuable upon exercise of outstanding              
          stock options and stock awards...............          180,661                   196,188
   Average common shares outstanding - diluted.........        6,696,898                 7,218,088
                                                              ----------                ----------
Diluted earnings per share.............................       $     1.23                $     1.15
                                                              ==========                ==========
</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 20

- 1266

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Cody Michael Lassen, also known as Cody Michael Lassen, III

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________

Submitted: December 14, 2020 Filed: March 29, 2021

[Unpublishe d]

____________ Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Cody Michael Lassen appeals his sentence after plead ing guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. T he district court 1 found that he was a caree r offender and adopted the presentence investigation report which recommended a

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.- 2

- total offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of VI, resulting in a Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months. Lassen’s status as a career offender made no impact because his criminal history carried 22 points on its own. The district

court imposed a bottom

- of

- the

- Guidelines sentence of 262 months in prison. Lassen appeals

, arguing that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court improperly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and should have granted his request to vary downward

.

We review the reasonableness of a district court’s sentence for an abuse of
discretion , considering the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Gall , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We are allowed, but not required, to presume a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable. United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Gall , 552 U.S. at 51); see also United States v. Nelson , 982 F.3d 1141, 1146 (8th Cir. 2020).

W e conclude that the district court did not overlook a relevant sentencing
factor in § 3553(a) or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the sentencing
factors. See United States v. Boyd , 956 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2020). The district court thoroughly reviewed Lassen’s extensive juvenile and adult criminal history. It
considered th at Lassen distribut ed methamphetamine while on parole, just a few weeks after getting out of prison

. The district court also discussed mitigating factors
like Lassen’s young age when he began using drugs and his mental health history. Weighing the factors differently than Lassen w anted and denying his request to vary downward from the Guidelines range “does not mean [the district court] abused its
discretion.” United States v. Harrell , 982 F.3d 1137, 1141 (8th Cir. 2020).

We find that the di strict court’ s within

- Guidelines sentence was reasonable

. The sentence is affirmed

.

______________________________
#### Adolph Lazure, appellant, v. Maverick Loan & Trust Company, appellee.

Filed November 13, 1912.

No. 16,794.

Taxation: Redemption Prom Sale. Before bringing an action to redeem from tax sale and treasurer’s deed, all taxes subsequent to tbe sale, due and payable, must be paid. If subsequent taxes *472have been paid by the purchaser at tax sale, the amount so paid, with interest, should be included in the decree allowing the redemption. The landowner is not required to reimburse the purchaser at tax sale before bringing his action to redeem.

Appeal from the district court for Box Butte county: William H. Wbstovek, Judge.

*Reversed with directions.*

*John Lothrop*and *B. F. Gilman,*for appellant.

*G. Patterson, contra.*

Sedgwick, J.

The defendant claims an interest in the land in question by virtue of an administrative sale for the taxes assessed thereon in the year 1904 and a treasurer’s deed, pursuant thereto. The plaintiff brought this action to redeem the land from the taxes, claiming that the treasurer’s deed was void: The trial court found for the defendant, and the plaintiff lias appealed.

It is conceded that the tax deed was void for several reasons, and it is contended by the defendant that he has paid all the subsequent taxes upon the land, and that the plaintiff cannot maintain this action to redeem without first reimbursing him for the taxes so paid. This does not constitute a defense to the action. ' Section 11111, Ann. St. 1911, provides that the owner of land sold for taxes may redeem by paying the amount of taxes for which the land was sold, Avith interest, “together with all other taxes subsequently paid.” The taxes, according to the admissions of the parties upon the record, have all been paid, and to require the plaintiff to reimburse the defendant for subsequent taxes paid would, in the language of the supreme court of Iowa, “not be a payment of the taxes. It Avould be a reimbursement for taxes previously paid.” *Taylor v. Ormsby Bros.,*66 Ia. 109. Our statute requiring the payment of taxes before bringing an action to redeem was borrowed from Iowa. The construction that court put upon it is a reasonable one, and we are content to follow it.

*473, Tbe judgment of tbe. district court is reversed and tbe cause remanded, with directions to allow tbe plaintiff to redeem as herein indicated.

Reversed.
II

Calendar No. 573

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4577

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AUGUST 12 (legislative day, AUGUST 11), 1994

Reported by Mr. BAUCUS, without amendment

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 242 East Main Street in Bowling Green,

Kentucky, as the ‘‘William H. Natcher Federal Building

and United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building and United States courthouse

5 located at 242 East Main Street in Bowling Green, Ken6 tucky, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘William H.

7 Natcher Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.
2

HR 4577 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

4 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec5 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘William

6 H. Natcher Federal Building and United States Court7 house’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 27, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 573

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4577

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United

States Courthouse’’.liam H. Natcher Federal Building and UnitedStreet in Bowling Green, Kentucky, as the ‘‘WilStates courthouse located at 242 East Main

AUGUST 12 (legislative day, AUGUST 11), 1994

Reported without amendment
No. 11-9583.

#### Grover *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 64.709 Informational tariffs. ( a ) Informational tariffs filed pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 226(h)(1)(A) shall contain specific rates expressed in dollars and cents for each interstate operator service of the carrier and shall also contain applicable per call aggregator surcharges or other per-call fees, if any, collected from consumers by, or on behalf of, the carrier.
( b ) Per call fees, if any, billed on behalf of aggregators or others, shall be specified in informational tariffs in dollars and cents.
( c ) In order to remove all doubt as to their proper application, all informational tariffs must contain clear and explicit explanatory statements regarding the rates, *i.e.,* the tariffed price per unit of service, and the regulations governing the offering of service in that tariff.
( d ) Informational tariffs shall be accompanied by a cover letter, addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, explaining the purpose of the filing. ( 1 ) The original of the cover letter shall be submitted to the Secretary without attachments, along with FCC Form 159, and the appropriate fee to the address set forth in § 1.1105 of this chapter.
( 2 ) Carriers should file informational tariffs and associated documents, such as cover letters and attachments, electronically in accordance with §§ 61.13 and 61.14 of this chapter.
( e ) Any changes to the tariff shall be submitted under a new cover letter with a complete copy of the tariff, including changes. ( 1 ) Changes to a tariff shall be explained in the cover letter but need not be symbolized on the tariff pages.
( 2 ) Revised tariffs shall be filled pursuant to the procedures specified in this section.
[63 FR 11617, Mar. 10, 1998; 63 FR 15316, Mar. 31, 1998, as amended at 67 FR 2820, Jan. 22, 2002; 73 FR 9031, Feb. 19, 2008; 76 FR 43217, July 20, 2011]
Auburn District Court

No. 81-057

#### The State of New Hampshre *& a.*v. John Hunt and James E. Thompson

January 20, 1982

*Gregory H. Smith,*attorney general *(Brian T. Tucker,*attorney, on the brief), by brief for the State.

*Bernard J. Robertson,*of Exeter, by brief for the defendants.

Per curiam.

The defendants, who were convicted of assault and criminal trespass, appeal to this court, claiming that it was error for the Trial Court *(Patryn,*S.J.) not to allow them to interrogate one Stephen Mills as a defense witness. We uphold the trial court.

The defendants were tried for assaulting John and Virginia Mills and for criminal trespass. At the close of the State’s case, the defense called the victims’ son, Stephen Mills, to the stand. When asked by the court how Stephen Mills’ testimony would be relevant to the cases on trial, defense counsel stated that this witness assaulted his clients, and this was a defense to the charges of assault on John and Virginia Mills. When counsel for the State objected, defense counsel then stated that the evidence would show that Stephen Mills assaulted Thompson with an oar by breaking it over his head “causing 21 stitches” and also broke the jaw of Fred Hunt, John’s brother. The trial court sustained the objection.

The defendants have failed, at trial and on appeal, to offer any explanation how such an assault by Stephen Mills would constitute a defense to the charges that the defendants assaulted the alleged victims. The defendants were not charged with assaulting Stephen *60Mills; an assault by him would, in itself, be no defense to the crimes with which the defendants were charged.

 The New Hampshire Constitution, pt. 1, art. 15, and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States do not, as the defendants claim, give them an absolute right to introduce testimony which is not relevant to the issues being tried. *See State v. Taylor,*118 N.H. 859, 861, 395 A.2d 1239, 1240 (1978); *United States v. Barker,*553 F.2d 1013, 1020 (6th Cir. 1977); *cf. Washington v. Texas,*388 U.S. 14, 23 (1967) (constitutional violation when the defendant was not permitted to call witness whose testimony would have been relevant and material to the defense). After reviewing the record in this case, we hold that, in the absence of any offer of proof that the testimony of Stephen Mills would be relevant to any theory of defense, it was not reversible error to exclude it.

*Exceptions overruled; affirmed.*
#### § 73.782 Retention of logs.

Logs of international broadcast stations shall be retained by the licensee or permittee for a period of two years: *Provided, however,* That logs involving communications incident to a disaster or which include communications incident to or involved in an investigation by the Commission and concerning which the licensee or permittee has been notified, shall be retained by the licensee or permittee until he is specifically authorized in writing by the Commission to destroy them: *Provided, further,* That logs incident to or involved in any claim or complaint of which the licensee or permittee has notice shall be retained by the licensee or permittee until such claim or complaint has been fully satisfied or until the same has been barred by statute limiting the time for the filing of suits upon such claims.

[28 FR 13696, Dec. 14, 1963]
Exhibit 10.40  February 8, 2008  Mr. Carl
Pelzel  Dear
Carl:  I
refer you to the employment offer letter between you and Depomed, Inc.
dated as of August 24, 2007 (the Offer Letter).  This
letter is to confirm our agreement that: 
(a) the option to purchase 62,500 shares required to be issued to
you under the Offer Letter not later than March 31, 2008 at an exercise
price equal to $1.98 was granted to you on January 25, 2008, with an
exercise price equal to $3.60 per share; and (b) to compensate you for the
incremental increase in the exercise price of that stock option, the Company
will issue you a 30,000 share fully vested stock award under the Companys 2004
Equity Incentive Plan (the 2004 Plan) on the earlier to occur of (i) January 9,
2009; and (ii) immediately prior to the occurrence of an event of Change in Control, as so determined by
the Companys Board of Directors pursuant to Section 10.4 of the Companys
2004 Equity Incentive Plan.  Except
as modified by this letter, all other provisions of the Offer Letter remain in
effect.  Please
countersign where indicated below to indicate that the foregoing correctly sets
forth our agreement  On
behalf of the Board
of Directors,  /s/
  Craig R. Smith, M.D.Craig
  R. Smith, M.D.Chairman
  of the Board of Directors  Acknowledged
  and Agreed:/s/
  Carl A. PelzelCarl
  A. PelzelDate:
  February 19, 2008
Exhibit 10.21


 





AMENDMENT NO. 1


to


IHS RESELLER AGREEMENT


 


 


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 ("Amendment")
to the Reseller Agreement dated as of July 2, 2014 ("Agreement") by and between IHS GLOBAL INC. ("IHS"), a
Delaware corporation, having its principal place of business at 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, Colorado 80112 and Brown Technical
Media Corporation ("Reseller"), having its principal place of business at 1517 San Jacinto, Houston, TX 77002 is entered
into by and between IHS and Reseller as of March 1, 2015 ("Effective Date").


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement;


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the
foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	Exhibit D FEES to the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached Exhibit D FEES.
	 	 	 



		2.	Except as otherwise explicitly provided herein, all other terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered
will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed counterpart
of a signature page to this Amendment by facsimile transmission will be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart
of this Amendment.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized officers and effective as of March 1, 2015.


 


	Brown Technical Media Corp.	IHS GLOBAL INC.
	 	 
	By: /s/ Noah Davis	By:
	Printed Name: Noah Davis	Printed Name:
	Title: President	Title:
	D te: 4/17/15	Date:
	 	 


 


 


 


 






    	 	1	 



     


    

 





		1.	Payment of Fees:

$US



 


Reseller will pay Fees based on upon the following
Fee Schedule. Fees will be paid Net 30 days of Invoice Date.


 


		2.	Payment of Fees currency: 

$US



 


		3.	FEE Schedule



 


		·	Flat 15% discount for all items purchased, with the exceptions and exemptions noted below..



 


		·	Discount Exceptions:






 


	o		The following SDOs receive a 22% discount:



	 n		ASME BPVC
	 	 	 



	o		The following SDOs receive a 20% discount:



	 n		ASHRAE



	 n		ASME (Excluding BPVC)



	 n		IEEE



	 n		NACE



	 n		NETA
	 	 	 



	 o		The following SDOs receive a 25% discount:



	 n		AIA/NAS



	 n		API



	 n		ASTM



	 n		IMO



	 n		Mil Specs/US Government Specs



	 n		MSS



	 n		NEMA



	 n		TIA
	 	 	 



	o		The following SDOs receive a 17% discount:



	n		AWS
	 	 	 



	·		Exemptions
	 	 	 



	o		The following content is excluded from this agreement



	n		ASME Boiler & Pressure
Vessel Code (BPVC)



	 n		NFPA



	 n		CFR



	 n		ICC
	 	 	 








	·		Handling Fee



	o		$0.00








 






    	 	2
J. 

to the master and the parenting coordinator. Because the November order 

did not affect the rights of the parties growing out of the prior orders 

establishing custody, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

 J. 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon Lisa M. Brown, District Judge 

Julie Hammer 

Black & LoBello 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
CHICAQ O OFFIC E Z O KORT H WACKC R DRIV E CHiCAao
. iLLiNoi a aoao * Oia ) ssca^o s ^A x(3iz > 33a-eaa 7 NE W JERSE Y OFFIC E I l O SUMMI T AVENU E HONTVALE
. NE W JERSE Y OTa^ a (lOI ) «7«'a4O 0 TA X (eo n BT3-as7 H
RICHAR D A"
. AUERBAC H UEONAR D D
. KIRSC H ROBER T S
. MDRAN
. JR
. NORMA N N
. 8LUT H MAROARE T SIUQLIAN O KENNET H A
. RCYNOLD S RESIDEN T PARTNER S I N NE W YOR K MCBREE N 

### & KoPK o ATTORNEY S A T LA W B O O NORT H BROADWAY , SUIT E 18 9 JERICHO , NE W YOR KII7S 3

(SIS ) 3«<i.l09 B FA X (SIS ) ae^-oei a ganaralOmklawnyc.co m

October 30,201 0 NE W YOR KCIT Y OFFIC E 4 « « BEVENT H AVENU E 17T H FLOO R N E W YORK . HE W YOR K lOOI S <ai> ) saa-aaa o CALIFORNI A OFFIC E aaO l IRVIH E CENTE R DRIV E

SUIT E lo o IRVINE
. CALIFORNI A aCai S IS4» ) «B3-a»O 0 FA X (•.4a > Hsa-saa a PHILADELPHI A OFFIC E lao o MARKE T STREE T SUIT E laO B PHILADELPHIA
. PENNSYLVANI A I • I 0 3

<zis ) aa«-aao o FA X (eiB i sa<»-zei o 

# /(c-ZD-dS ^

Offic e o f Chie f Counse l Attention : FA A Part

1 6 Airpor

t Proceeding s Docket , AGC-61 0 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenu e S W Washingto n D.C
. 2059 1 Attention : Beth Newman Re^Part 1 6 Mercuxy Ai r

Center-Corpu s Christi , inc. , d^/ aAtlanti c Aviatio n v / Cit y o f Corpu s Gentlemen : Enclose di s th e Certificatio n o f Servic e i n th e abov e reference dmatter . Ver y trul y yours , LeonardKirsc h

### UNITED STATE S O FAMERIC A

DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N I n r e th e Complaint

o f MERCURY AI RCENTER-CORPU S CHRISTI , INC. , d^/ aATLANTI C AVIATIO N 35 5 Pinso n Drive , Corpu s Christi , T X 7840 6 COMPLAINANT , -against

CIT Y O FCORPU S CHRIST I

RESPONDENT
. Pijrsuant t o Part 1 6 o f th e Federal Aviatio n Regulation s I hereb y certif

y tha t o n October

15,2010, 1 serve dth e foregoin g Par t 1 6 Complaint

o n th e followin g perso n a

t th e followin g addresse s b y bringin g th e Complaint t o Federal Express , overnight service
. Elizabet h Hundley , Esq . City o f Corpu s Christi 120 1 LeopardSt
. Corpu s Christi , TX 78401 , Corpu s Christi International Airpor t 100 0 International Driv e Corpu s Christi , T

X 78406
. Dated : Jericho , Ne w Yor

k October 15,201 0 

# "X^^ ^



# 0 ^ ic^>
. 

# ^ LeonardD . Kirsch , Esq . McBree n & Kopko Attorney s fo

r COMPLAINANT Mercur y Ai r Center-Corpu s Christi , Inc. , D/B/ A Atlanti c Aviatio n 50 0 North Broadwa

y Jericho , Ne w York

1175 3 (516)364-109 5 (516 ) 364-061 2
# 2023 Cyber Beacon Conference

/ Published Sept. 6, 2023
October 19-20, 2023, 
The 10th annual Cyber Beacon is the flagship conference of the College of Information and Cyberspace (CIC) at National Defense University (NDU). The conference will be held on October 19 & 20, 2023, as an in-person and virtual event. All students are invited to attend. 

This conference brings together leaders and experts from across public and private sectors to discuss today’s most pressing national security challenges related to the cyberspace domain. The quickly evolving technology in the digital age is having a major impact on modern warfare. Cyberattacks are becoming increasingly common and sophisticated, and they can have a devastating impact on critical infrastructure and military operations.

Here are some of the ways that quickly evolving technology is impacting modern warfare:
      - Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and National Security
      - The use of big data
      - Artificial Intelligence
      - Critical Infrastructure Protection
      - The Future of the Digital Workforce
      - Wargaming

The in-person event will be held at Marshall Hall, Room 155. The virtual link will be sent the day prior to those that register for virtual attendance. Stay tuned for speakers and agenda!

All registration requests will be reviewed prior to acceptance.

We encourage Non-DoD/non-federally affiliated attendees to apply in advance for a visitor's pass for ease of access onto Fort Lesley J. McNair, National Defense University Day of the event.

CYBER BEACON 2023 INFO & AGENDA →
#### § 24.130 [Reserved]