alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                         EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATION

                      (In thousands except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         For the Year Ended

                                                              December 31, 1998            December 31, 1997
                                                       ---------------------------    --------------------------
<S>                                                    <C>                            <C>
Total Shares for Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share                        24,611                      22,542
Effect of Dilutive Stock Options                       $                   820         $                 0
                                                       ---------------------------    --------------------------

Total Shares for Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share                      25,431                      22,542
Net income (loss)                                                       10,544                      (4,083)
                                                       ---------------------------    --------------------------

Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share                                          $0.43                      ($0.18)
                                                       ===========================    ==========================
Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share                                        $0.41                      ($0.18)
                                                       ===========================    ==========================

</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

529 

CA 13-01301 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

LAURA LANKENAU, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

PATRICK K. BOLES, M & S LEASING CO., LLC, 

DEENA LANKENAU AND DOUGLAS LANKENAU, 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

SMITH, SOVIK, KENDRICK & SUGNET, P.C., SYRACUSE (EDWARD J. SMITH, III,

OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF, CUNNINGHAM & COPPOLA LLC, BUFFALO (MELISSA L.

VINCTON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS PATRICK K. BOLES AND 

M & S LEASING CO., LLC. 

BURKE, SCOLAMIERO, MORTATI & HURD, LLP, ALBANY (MARK G. MITCHELL OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS DEENA LANKENAU AND DOUGLAS

LANKENAU. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County

(Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered June 25, 2013. The order denied

the motion of plaintiff for leave to reargue her motion to dismiss

certain affirmative defenses of defendants. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Empire Ins. Co. v Food City, 167 AD2d 983, 984). 

Entered: July 11, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
###### Editorial Note on Part 153

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 153.555 Special requirements for inorganic acids.

When Table 1 refers to this section, a tankship's shell plating must not be a part of the cargo tank.

[CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21210, May 17, 1982]
**Exhibit 23**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(File No.’s 333-120984, 333-89347, 333-85219, 333-85061, 333-42532, 333-72282, 333-90628,333-102645, 333-105444, 333-109293, 333-74223 and 333-01223) and Form S-8 (File No.’s 333-45253,333-64525, 333-46589, 333-52799, 333-72425, 333-79007, 333-52805, 333-56133, 333-08775, 333-37041,333-33943, 333-18975, 333-18977, 333-08783, 333-81751, 333-87685, 333-88201, 333-87151, 333-84981,333-80267, 333-08789, 333-08793, 333-08801, 333-23043, 333-42475, 333-31400, 333-31738, 333-40992,333-43184, 333-64188, 333-109947, 333-116620 and 333-116792) of Lucent Technologies Inc. of ourreport dated December 14, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareowners,which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
§ 113.43-5 Power supply. Each steering failure alarm system must be supplied by a circuit that: ( a ) Is independent of other steering gear system and steering alarm circuits;
( b ) Is fed from the final emergency power source through the emergency distribution panel in the wheelhouse, if installed; and
( c ) Has no overcurrent protection except short-circuit protection by an instantaneous fuse or circuit breaker rated or set at 400 to 500 percent of: ( 1 ) The current-carrying capacity of the smallest alarm system interconnecting conductors; or
( 2 ) The normal load of the system.
|EXHIBIT 32.1
|------------



|CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Belcrest Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|(a) | the Quarterly Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                            
|   



|Date: November 9, 2006
|----------------------



| | /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.
Thomas E. Faust Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.546 Excess flow valve: Closing flow. ( a ) The rated closing flow of vapor or liquid cargo for an excess flow valve must be specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG).
( b ) An excess flow valve allowed under § 154.532(b) must close automatically at the rated closing flow.
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2053 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 525 

Magoffin Avenue in El Paso, Texas, as the ‘‘Albert 

Armendariz, Sr., United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2053 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse located at 525 

3 Magoffin Avenue in El Paso, Texas, shall be known and 

4 designated as the ‘‘Albert Armendariz, Sr., United States 

5 Courthouse’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

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

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘Albert Armendariz, Sr., United 

11 States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2053 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located 

Courthouse’’. the ‘‘Albert Armendariz, Sr., United States at 525 Magoffin Avenue in El Paso, Texas, as
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.706 Cargo boil-off as fuel: Fuel lines. ( a ) Gas fuel lines must not pass through accommodation, service, or control spaces. Each gas fuel line passing through other spaces must have a master gas fuel valve and meet one of the following: ( 1 ) The fuel line must be a double-walled piping system with the annular space containing an inert gas at a pressure greater than the fuel pressure. Visual and audible alarms must be installed at the machinery control station to indicate loss of inert gas pressure.
( 2 ) The fuel line must be installed in a mechanically exhaust-ventilated pipe or duct, having a rate of air change of at least 30 changes per hour. The pressure in the space between the inner pipe and outer pipe or duct must be maintained at less than atmospheric pressure. Continuous gas detection must be installed to detect leaks in the ventilated space. The ventilation system must meet § 154.1205.
( b ) Each double wall pipe or vent duct must terminate in the ventilation hood or casing under § 154.707(a). Continuous gas detection must be installed to indicate leaks in the hood or casing.
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 148.450 Cargoes subject to liquefaction. ( a ) This section applies only to cargoes identified in Table 148.10 of this part with a reference to this section and cargoes identified in the IMSBC Code (incorporated by reference, see § 148.8) as cargoes that may liquefy.
( b ) This section does not apply to— ( 1 ) Shipments by unmanned barge; or
( 2 ) Cargoes of coal that have an average particle size of 10mm (.394 in.) or greater.
( c ) Definitions as used in this section— ( 1 ) *Cargo subject to liquefaction* means a material that is subject to moisture migration and subsequent liquefaction if shipped with moisture content in excess of the transportable moisture limit.
( 2 ) *Moisture migration* is the movement of moisture by settling and consolidation of a material, which may result in the development of a flow state in the material.
( 3 ) Transportable moisture limit or TML of a cargo that may liquefy is the maximum moisture content that is considered safe for carriage on vessels.
( d ) Except on a vessel that is specially constructed or specially fitted for the purpose of carrying such cargoes (see also section 7 of the IMSBC Code, incorporated by reference, see § 148.8), a cargo subject to liquefaction may not be transported by vessel if its moisture content exceeds its TML.
( e ) The shipper of a cargo subject to liquefaction must give the master the material's moisture content and TML.
( f ) The master of a vessel shipping a cargo subject to liquefaction must ensure that— ( 1 ) A cargo containing a liquid is not stowed in the same cargo space with a cargo subject to liquefaction; and
( 2 ) Precautions are taken to prevent the entry of liquids into a cargo space containing a cargo subject to liquefaction.
( g ) The moisture content and TML of a material may be determined by the tests described in Appendix 2, Section 1, of the IMSBC Code (incorporated by reference, see § 148.8).
# C_2012025EN.01003201.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/32

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder) (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle e.G. v Landrat of the Landkreis Oder-Spree

(Case C-545/11)

(2012/C 25/58)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt (Oder)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle e.G.

Defendant: Landrat of the Landkreis Oder-Spree

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 (1) establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers to be regarded as valid to the extent that for the years 2009 to 2012 it provides for a reduction in direct payments in excess of 5 %? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 (1) establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers to be regarded as valid to the extent that for the years 2009 to 2012 it provides for a reduction in direct payments in excess of 5 %?

| 2. | Is Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers to be regarded as valid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers to be regarded as valid?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16.

---
----

| Dated      as of February 23, 2010            |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                          |   |   |
|                                          |   |   |
| /s/  Joseph L.      Sullivan        |   |   |
| Joseph      L. Sullivan                       |   |   |
|                                          |   |   |
| /s/  Patrick J.      Goodman        |   |   |
| Patrick      J. Goodman                       |   |   |
|                                          |   |   |
| /s/ Eulogio Wilfredo G.    Sarmago            |   |   |
| Eulogio      Wilfredo G. Sarmago              |   |   |
|                                          |   |   |
| /s/  Trinity S.    Gatuz            |   |   |
| Trinity      S. Gatuz                         |   |   |
|                                          |   |   |
| /s/  Ma. Winnie R.      Lardizabal  |   |   |
| Ma.      Winnie R. Lardizabal                 |   |   |
|                                          |   |   |
| /s/  Suzy Lyn A.      Bayona-Salova |   |   |
| Suzy      Lyn A. Bayona-Salova                |   |   |
|                                          |   |   |
| /s/  P. Eric    Connor              |   |   |
| P.      Eric Connor                           |   |   |
|                                          |   |   |
|                                          |   |   |
|                                          |   |   |
|                                          |   |   |
|                                          |   |   |

----
#### Orrin R. Brooks, *Respondent, v.*Francis G. Boswell, *Appellant*.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Smith, P. J., taking no part in the decision.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130607 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130607 

 COA: 266993 

Allegan CC: 05-014116-FH 

LYNN W. ERDMAN,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0619 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

June 26, 2006 

Clerk
**C H**  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 3 - 0226 IN THE MATTER OF: J.R. , A Youth Under the Age of Eighteen. **GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including Septe mber 26 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court August 24 2023

08/24/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0226
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.5

Executive Cash Incentive Plan
Isabella Bank Corporation and each of its subsidiaries, which include Isabella Bank, adopts this incentive plan, to be called the Isabella Bank Corporation Executive Cash Incentive Plan. The primary purpose of the plan, which provides Executives with incentive to achieve corporate objectives, is to promote the growth and profitability of the bank by attracting and retaining Executives of outstanding competence.
General Eligibility Requirements:
		
	•
	The plan is based on the calendar year.


		
	•
	Eligible Executives include the Isabella Bank Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer; the Isabella Bank President; and, the Isabella Bank Chief Financial Officer.


		
	•
	Executives hired during the plan year prior to October 1st will be eligible to participate. In order to receive an award, a Participant must be employed on December 31st of the plan year.  Participants that retire during the plan year are eligible for an award.


		
	•
	No award will be granted under this plan to a Participant who has been terminated for misconduct.


		
	•
	To receive an award, a Participant must receive a rating of “effective” or higher on their individual plan year performance evaluation.


		
	•
	The award is calculated using salary earned by the Participant during the plan year.  Other incentives, bonuses, commissions, or payments made to the Participant will be excluded from the award calculation.


Isabella Bank Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer Plan Details
The cash award potential is 30% of salary earned.
		
	•
	90% of the 30% award potential is based on the corporate performance objectives established by the Board of Directors.


		
	•
	10% of the 30% award potential is based on completion of individual performance goals established by the Board of Directors.


Bank President Plan Details
The cash award potential is 25% of salary earned.
		
	•
	90% of the 25% award potential is based on the corporate performance objectives established by the Board of Directors.


		
	•
	10% of the 25% award potential is based on completion of individual performance goals established by a Participant’s supervisor or the Board of Directors.













Chief Financial Officer Plan Details
The cash award potential is 20% of salary earned.
		
	•
	80% of the 20% award potential is based on the corporate performance objectives established by the Board of Directors.


		
	•
	20% of the 20% award potential is based on completion of individual performance goals established by a Participant’s supervisor or the Board of Directors.




Plan goals/rules are established annually and subject to change at the discretion of the Board of Directors.


The Company, acting through its authorized officer, has adopted this Plan effective as of January 1, 2020.
	
				
	By:
	 
	/s/ David J. Maness
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	Name:
	 
	David J. Maness
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	Title:
	 
	Chairman, Isabella Bank Corporation Board of Directors
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	Date:
	 
	June 24, 2020
Exhibit 12.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Douglas J. Rowe, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Birch Mountain Resources Ltd.

2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order 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 annual report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statement, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer 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 the annual 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 period covered by this 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of 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 function);

a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control 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.

Date:  March 24, 2006

Douglas J. Rowe

Douglas J. Rowe,

President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT**

**REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report dated March 3, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Gensym Corporation for the years endedDecember 31, 2005 and 2004 included in this Form 10-K into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-8 File Nos. 333-63008, 333-38488, 333-38464, 333-53455, 333-29707, 333-03863, 333-03861, 333-03857, 333-03855,333-110809, 333-127476, 333-127475. 

 

/s/    VITALE, CATURANO & COMPANY, LTD 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 22, 2006
#### DAVID CHAMPION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATED TRANSPORT.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided June 12, 1929.

Before Justices Pabkeb, Black and Bodine.

Eor the appellant, *Henry H. Fryling.*

Eor the respondent, *Samuel S. Stern.*

Pee Cukiam.

This is a companion case to No. 405. The trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for $200. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in No. 405 of the present term.