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

COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                                                     YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31,
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                1997          1996        1995
                                             ---------     ---------    --------
Primary:

Average shares outstanding                     8,430          8,202       8,284

Net effect of dilutive stock
 options - based on the
 treasury stock method using
 average market price                             75            160         ---
                                              ------        -------      ------

Total                                         $8,505         $8,362      $8,284
                                              ======        =======      ======

Net income (loss) from operations              2,858         (5,910)       (218)

   Less: Preferred stock dividends
    dividends                                    260            ---         ---

   Discount attributable to beneficial
   Conversion privilege of preferred stock     1,268            ---         ---
                                              ------        -------      ------
Net income (loss) applicable to
  common stock                                $1,332        $(5,910)     $ (218)
                                              ======        =======      ======

Income (loss) per common share                $ 0.16        $ (0.71)     $(0.03)
                                              ------        -------      ------
Fully Diluted:

Average shares outstanding                     8,430          8,202       8,284

Net effect of dilutive stock
  options-based on the
  treasury stock method using
  the year-end market price,
  if higher than the average
  market price                                    82            164         ---

Total                                          8,512          8,366       8,284
                                              ======        =======      ======

Net income (loss) from operations             $2,858        $(5,910)     $ (218)

   Less: Preferred stock dividends               260            ---         ---

   Discount attributable to beneficial
   Conversion privilege of
   preferred stock                             1,266            ---         ---
                                              ------        -------      ------

Net income (loss) applicable to
  common stock                                $1,332        $(5,910)     $(218)
                                              ======        =======      ======

Income (loss) per common share                $ 0.16        $ (0.71)     $(0.03)
                                              ======        =======      ======

                                      F-37
,-

,

. . OFFICE OF THE AYTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Hoonorabla

3. C, Creer State Eilghray

Zngirreer Texas i?.l&way

Dsjmrtme.nt :ru.9tin,

Tex3s

Dear 3ir:

*hers&n yea atat national brid 35Xas, as a j bs ds built a;t~Iaredo, from the **UnSted** States IiuhwayCepartmkltruoas, 0. You i-a~uest

an opiacon 3htion tptwt

first be
s te@&xturs bafora the ertaksthla projetit.

ode Lb a narlgablestreatn( 13rownsrille BridgeComfy va. Gateway Bridgs % ) and, or course, it dues not 'lie. of the 3tst.e

OS Texas. Pefore'a
eross sit&h

a waterway,ths cogsent of e obtains&,and the plans thereiormat epgroved by the Chief,Ol l&ngineere 8nd by the Sccretafg~cf WAS. 30 Stat. 1151, 33 If.6. C. 4. sea 401; r S-4 Stat. 64, 83 U. 3. C. A. aecs. 491 et 5eQ. 3ee Internzltionsl flridge Company vs. Biew York, 2% CT.S. 123, ,05 L. H. 176, holding that the provielanaof these statutesa~gly to in&wrutfonel brid&es. See also Eagle -3ssr and 2. t;l.

Brld~e Co&&pp vs. &lores-Coahufls 3ridge Coquq (Clv.A?P.), 279 &"‘$.; :g3,,writ reicuaed, end 'Bro~tnsvll:e

and ~%txnoroa Yuiaiaipai

3ridga Cbia~any

05. Gateway DriCge Coqmny, supa.The Texas Lagistititre has vested glenar3 ?o*er and authority in tha Texas Ei&way Ee~rtnent to ilesisate, controland aintain State hi&ways. Articles 3673, et.aeq.,
v..jb. cr 3,; BObbllla

vs. Lbeato2e Ccuslty, 114 Texas 343, 208 3. ‘8.913; HmthtaJavs. S~l6tarp ( Corn. App. ) 12 ti.

x &ad., 150. As usad in the 8tatutay authorization ths.tana %i&aways* inoludes *bridgeam. Artl0l.G a074-i%,

v. A. c. A.; A.rnnsas Co;mSy vs. fkdman, 1C8 Ter. 216. Yurther, the &@ieidwe ha& authorizedthe A&$muy DeijartmmIt **t0 hIpl?OvQ**  the Zitato

hi&ma3 s3stela

~5th Federal aid.. HrtLolas 66746, W?M-1, 6674s.v. ii. C. J.

Ws am infamed that the Laredo bri?lae approachfork
a **beginning** and Cerzaiual Blnt for State dasignatedhighways 81 and.33. Conaeqaently,**in vfew**  **of the**  broad **authority given**  the **State iilgiway**  **Degartsmnt by**  **t&e Le&gislatu.?ze**  **over tke**  Construction**and zaaint4nanee**  OS **deeigmtrd Stats**  hi@- ways it is our opinicrn that sSeeiai stete legislation authorisifn~

the IZighway

Department to cooperatewith tie lktderal

Govwnm#t and the Republ$c of 2esxico' Xntha aonstruot%omof:

sn internationalbridiJe at Lam&o 1s urraaoesa~y.

WI have a&aladl .yon that the consentof Con5es5 mast be obtained and the plms must be submittedfor approval to the Chief of ~glneera and the Seoretfiry~~f 'csr.We also edviue 300~

that the aoezsentof the X4xl4an governaan% must be **obtained** heTore the projeat amy be begun4 The steps neoeatmry to seewe that coaeent and the tear aad ePCeet of any treaty grovisioaaozk the **subjfmt ere,**  **ct conrse,**  **gd.ltIoal ~ue~tion~~**  whio,b ~3% be **answered** on13 **by the**  **State Dagartm4nt.**  **titer congress**  **has 3u+%orhsd**  **cb0 l3trlleture**  **ana** t%a plans ba?e been approrsd, **by the**  **Chief of**  **%glneers and**  **the** saw&iiry or.Nir, inquirp shouldbe .*ade 02 the' 3tete .Departjant

as tc.ahethergr not the (Pnsentof the ~exioan cbssrareatbee been obtalneL

, yours very truly,
#### § 134.120 Inspection for certification.

Liftboat jacking systems, liftboat legs, liftboat leg pads, and arrangements for supply of water to fire mains, as well as the items listed by § 126.430 of this subchapter, will normally be inspected during an inspection for certification and periodic inspection to determine whether the liftboat is in satisfactory condition and fit for the service intended.

[CGD 82-004 and CGD 86-074, 62 FR 49352, Sept. 19, 1997, as amended by USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6507, Feb. 9, 2000]
New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Bureau.

#### JOSEPH WOS, PETITIONER, v. NEW JERSEY WORSTED SPINNING COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

*656For the petitioner, *Samuel F. Slaff.*

Eor the respondent, *Richard W. Balcer.*

•¡< *1» *]' '!> >i*

On behalf of the petitioner, Miss Eva Wos, Mr. Peter Wos, Mr. John Wos and Mr. Edward Asowy were called to testify, as well as Doctors Washington and Drews. At the end of the petitioner’s case the attorney for the respondent moved that the case be dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner had failed to sustain the burden of proving that he suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, which was responsible for his present condition of paralysis.

After thoroughly going over the testimony in this case I find that the petitioner may have suffered an injury by accident arising out of and imthe course of his employment with the respondent on August 18th, 1937, when he cut his finger of his right hand. I do not find, however, that there is any evidence that he sustained a fall at that time or suffered any other injury other than the trivial injury to the finger for which he was treated at the plant first-aid room.. I further find that the doctors called by the petitioner stated that any cause, even turning over in bed, might be responsible for bringing on a paralytic condition if the man’s underlying condition was right for it. Neither of the doctors called by the petitioner stated that in their opinion the accident would aggravate the petitioner’s condition so as to cause paralysis or even that it was probable, but merely stated that such an accident as alleged might have caused the paralytic condition. Dr. Drew stated that in his opinion if a man suffered an injury of the finger sufficient to bring on the paralysis, it would do so at once and that a man could not work for twenty-four hours thereafter as the petitioner admitted he did in this case. Dr. Washington stated that he did not think that the injury to the finger alleged to have happened on August 18th caused the man’s paralytic condition, although it might possibly have' done so, but he did think that if a man did receive a fall the following day, that could well *657aggravate a latent condition so as to bring on the paralytic condition.

After carefully analyzing all the testimony in this case, T find that the petitioner has failed to show that he sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment which brought about the paralytic condition .for which he is seeking compensation, as he has at best only proved a mere possibility.

Accordingly, I hereby order that the case be dismissed, without costs to either party.

Habby J. Gíoas, *Deputy Commissioner.*
#### § 385.6 Exclusions.

Excluded from this part are requirements pertaining to procurement contracts subject to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 and the Federal and MarAd procurement regulations, interagency agreements, memorandums of understanding and programs or projects which directly disseminate technical information, or provide consultation, technical service, information, and data counseling to recipients without the use of an assistance instrument. Also excluded is the sale, lease, license, or other authorization to use Federal property, when such use is not incidental to the purpose of stimulation or support.
#### § 173.070 Specific applicability.

Each oceanographic vessel, inspected under Subchapter U of this chapter, except a barge that is less than 300 gross tons, must comply with this subpart.
§ 310.62 Allowances and expenses; required deposit. ( a ) *Items furnished.* Each midshipman shall receive: Free tuition, quarters and subsistence; limited medical and dental care; and certain travel expenses, in accordance with chapter 5, part A, of the Joint Travel Regulations For Members Of Uniform Services, Vol. 1 (U.S. Department of Defense publication, Serial No. 0516-LP-255-0265), while traveling under official Academy orders.
( b ) *Required Deposit.* Prior to admission to the Academy, each midshipman shall make a specified deposit, as established by Academy regulations, to help defray the cost of items and services generally of a personal nature which are not provided by the Academy. Additional deposits, as prescribed in Academy regulations, are required to be made in subsequent years. Failure to make any required deposit will result in denial of admission, suspension or disenrollment.
§ 183.390 Shore power. A vessel with an electrical system operating at more than 50 volts, which is provided with a means to connect to shore power, must meet the following: ( a ) A shore power connection box or receptacle must be permanently installed at a convenient location;
( b ) A cable connecting the shore power connection box or receptacle to the switchboard or main distribution panel must be permanently installed;
( c ) A circuit breaker must be provided at the switchboard or main distribution panel for the shore power connection; and
( d ) The circuit breaker, required by paragraph (c) of this section, must be interlocked with the vessel's power sources so that shore power and the vessel's power sources may not be operated simultaneously.
§ 169.234 Integral fuel oil tank examinations. ( a ) Each fuel oil tank with at least one side integral to the vessel's hull and located within the hull (“integral fuel oil tank”) is subject to inspection as provided in this section. The owner or operator of the vessel shall have the tanks cleaned out and gas freed as necessary to permit internal examination of the tank or tanks designated by the marine inspector. The owner or operator shall arrange for an examination of the fuel tanks of each vessel during an internal structural examination at intervals not to exceed five years.
( b ) Integral non-double-bottom fuel oil tanks need not be cleaned out and internally examined if the marine inspector is able to determine by external examination that the general condition of the tanks is satisfactory.
( c ) Double-bottom fuel oil tanks on vessels less than 10 years of age need not be cleaned out and internally examined if the marine inspector is able to determine by external examination that the general condition of the tanks is satisfactory.
( d ) All double-bottom fuel oil tanks on vessels 10 years of age or older but less than 15 years of age need not be cleaned out and internally examined if the marine inspector is able to determine by internal examination of at least one forward double-bottom fuel oil tank, and by external examination of all other double-bottom fuel oil tanks on the vessel, that the general condition of the tanks is satisfactory.
( e ) All double-bottom fuel oil tanks on vessels 15 years of age or older need not be cleaned out and internally examined if the marine inspector is able to determine by internal examination of at least one forward, one amidships, and one aft double-bottom fuel oil tank, and by external examination of all other double-bottom fuel oil tanks on the vessel, that the general condition of the tanks is satisfactory.
[CGD 84-024, 52 FR 39656, Oct. 23, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 32232, Aug. 24, 1988]
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 ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas H. Aasen, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
of the period covered by the Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.



|                       |  |                                           
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: November 5, 2008 |  | /s/ THOMAS H. AASEN                       
|                       |  | Thomas H. Aasen                           
|                       |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### § 177.420 Vessels complying with SOLAS structural fire protection requirements.

Vessels meeting the structural fire protection requirements of SOLAS, Chapter II-2, Regulations 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11 (incorporated by reference, see § 175.600 of this chapter) may be considered equivalent to the provisions of this subpart.

[USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48299, July 22, 2016]
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.

§ 153.908 Cargo viscosity and melting point information; measuring cargo temperature during discharge: Categories A, B, and C. ( a ) The person in charge of the ship may not accept a shipment of a Category A, B, or C NLS cargo having a reference to this paragraph in the “Special Requirements” column of Table 1 unless the person has, from the cargo's manufacturer or the person listed as the shipper on the bill of lading, a written statement of the following: ( 1 ) For Category A or B NLS, the cargo's viscosity at 20 °C in mPa.s and, if the cargo's viscosity exceeds 25 mPa.s at 20 °C, the temperature at which the viscosity is 25 mPa.s.
( 2 ) For Category C NLS, the cargo's viscosity at 20 °C in mPa.s and, if the cargo's viscosity exceeds 60 mPa.s at 20 °C, the temperature at which the viscosity is 60 mPa.s. If the cargo's viscosity varies from shipment to shipment, the maximum viscosity and maximum temperature values may be supplied.
( b ) The person in charge of the ship may not accept a shipment of a Category A, B, or C cargo having a reference to this paragraph in the “Special Requirements” column of Table 1 unless the person has a written statement of the cargo's melting point in °C from the cargo's manufacturer or the person listed as the shipper on the bill of lading. If the cargo's melting point varies from shipment to shipment, the highest melting point may be supplied.
( c ) The person in charge of the ship shall ensure that the cargo temperature is read and recorded in the Cargo Record Book following the procedures in paragraph (d) of this section when a cargo having a reference to paragraph (a) or (b) of this section in the “Special Requirements” column of Table 1 is unloaded.
( d ) The cargo temperature measured in paragraph (c) of this section must be made using the following procedure: ( 1 ) Each reading must be made with the sensor or thermometer required by § 153.440(a)(3) or (c). If a portable thermometer is used, it must be located as prescribed for the temperature sensor in § 153.440(a)(3).
( 2 ) A total of 2 readings must be made, the first reading to be made no more than 30 minutes after cargo transfer begins and the second reading no more than 30 minutes before the main cargo pump is shut down.
( 3 ) The cargo's temperature is the average of the 2 readings made under paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
[CGD 81-101, 52 FR 7784, Mar. 12, 1987]
#### WILLIAM HOPPER, PLAINTIFF, v. WEST JERSEY AND SEASHORE RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

Submitted October term, 1928

Decided March 11, 1929.

Before Justices Tkenchakd, Kalisch and Lloyd.

Eor the rule, *Bourgeois & Coulomb.*

Contra, *Albert B. Woodruff.*

Pee Cueiam.

This is defendant’s rule for new trial in an action for damages arising out of a grade crossing accident, and the reasons for making the rule absolute are that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence as to negligence of the defendant and as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff himself.

*287A collision occurred at what was called the Ninth street crossing of the defendant’s railroad, near Ilammonton. There are two tracks and plaintiff was struck as he attempted to cross from the west side to the east side by a southbound train on the near track. He received personal injuries and his automobile was damaged.

The negligence alleged in the defendant was failure to give the statutory signal by bell or whistle; the crossing, though a public one, being unprotected otherwise. The accident happened about six-thirty o’clock in the evening when it was about dusk. There was a low place in which the view of the train was at the time obscured by fog or mist. Plaintiff testified that as he approached the crossing he could see no train and that no signal was given by those operating the locomotive. His testimony was corroborated by that of a young woman whom he had just taken to her home, several hundred feet to the west of the railroad right-of-way, and by this young woman’s mother. Similar evidence was given by a man named Hoover who was working in his chicken house one hundred and thirty feet from the crossing. There was also some corroboration from a woman named McGrath. Against this the defendant called the train crew, a flagman who happened to be on the train and two passengers, whose testimony, if believed, established that the train signals were given.

In this situation we think we cannot say that the verdict was so clearly against the weight of the evidence as to imply that the verdict was the result of improper motive in the jury.

The rule is discharged.
#### In the Matter of Stephen H. Tyng.

Orders affirmed, without costs. Opinion by

Brady, J.
# C_2012389EN.01000301.xml

| 15.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/3

---

Appeal brought on 10 February 2012 by Noscira, SA against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 28 November 2011 in Case T-307/11: Noscira, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-69/12 P)

2012/C 389/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Noscira, SA (represented by: A. Sirimarco, advocate)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 21 September 2012 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending September 9, 2006

----

Bank Holding CompaniesFederation Nationale du Credit Agricole, Paris, France, and SAS Rue La Boetie  -- to become bank holding companies and thereby retain control of Espirito Santo Bank, Miami, Florida, through their subsidiary, Credit Agricole S.A., Paris, France; and for Calyon, S.A., a subsidiary of Credit Agricole S.A., to establish a branch in Los Angeles, California.					-Approved, September 8, 2006 					

EnforcementBank of Gassaway, Gassaway, West Virginia  -- written agreement dated October 21, 2003, terminated September 5, 2006.					-Announced, September 6, 2006 					The Community State Bank, Poteau, Oklahoma  -- written agreement dated October 14, 2004, terminated August 15, 2006.					-Announced, September 6, 2006 					

Financial Holding CompaniesFederation Nationale du Credit Agricole, Paris, France, SAS Rue la Boetie, Credit Agricole S.A., and Calyon, S.A.  -- elections to become or to be treated as financial holding companies.					-Effective, September 8, 2006 					

Regulations And PoliciesBasel Capital Accord  -- interagency notices of proposed rulemaking (1) to implement the Basel II risk-based capital requirements in the United States for large, internationally active banking organizations (Docket No. R-1261) and (2) to enhance the sensitivity of the market risk capital rules and require public disclosures of certain qualitative and quantitative market risk information (Docket No. R-1266).					-Announced, September 5, 2006 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: September 14, 2006