alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Remington Energy Corporation
                             Computation of Earnings per Share
                                       Exhibit 11.1
                          (In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                               Three Months Ended       Nine Months Ended 
                                                  September 30,            September 30, 
                                                1998        1997         1998       1997
                                             ---------  ---------    ---------  ---------
<S>                                          <C>        <C>          <C>        <C>
Net income (loss) available for basic
  income per share                           $ 24,816   $ (7,581)    $ 21,665   $ (6,236)
 Interest expense on the Notes (net of tax)       519          -        1,548          -
                                             ---------  ---------    ---------  ---------
Net income (loss) available for diluted
  income per share                           $ 25,335   $ (7,581)    $ 23,213   $ (6,236)
                                             =========  =========    =========  =========

Basic income (loss) per share                $   1.22   $  (0.37)    $   1.06   $  (0.30)
                                             =========  =========    =========  =========

Diluted income (loss) per share              $   1.06   $  (0.37)    $   0.97   $  (0.30)
                                             =========  =========    =========  =========

Weighted average
 Class A Stock                                  3,222      3,219        3,222      3,238
 Class B Stock                                 17,147     17,088       17,137     17,341
                                             ---------  ---------    ---------  ---------
Total common shares for basic income 
  (loss) per share                             20,369     20,307       20,359     20,579
 Dilutive stock options outstanding 
  (treasury stock method) (1)                       -          -            -          -
 Shares assumed issued by conversion of
  the Notes                                     3,488          -        3,488          -
                                             ---------  ---------    ---------  ---------
Total common shares for diluted income
  (loss) per share                             23,857     20,307       23,847     20,579
                                             =========  =========    =========  =========

(1)  Non dilutive.

Potential increase to net income for
  diluted income per share
 Interest expense on Notes (net of tax)                      744                   2,210

Potential issues of common stock for
  diluted income per share
 Weighted average stock options granted           801        417          755        306
 Weighted average shares issued assuming
  conversion of Notes                                      5,007                   5,007

</TABLE>
No. 66004.

#### J. J. Boll et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/20943, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in use to thrown silk not more advanced than singles, tram, or organzine and following the principles in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the merchandise entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse, prior to June 6, 1951, was held dutiable at 20 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1203 of the tariff act, by similitude, and the items entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse, on and after June 6, 1951, were held dutiable at 10 percent under said paragraph 1203, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52739), by similitude.
Before the Second Division,

March 16, 1967

No. P67/67.

#### Seedman International Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 64/10175, etc. (Los Angeles).

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of certain padlocks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Shriro Trading Corp.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 422, C.D. 2669), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

(Note: The following protests were decided by a special second division consisting of Kao, Ford, and Landis, Judges.)
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (i)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 Dated:  June 7, 2007
    /s/  SALLY FRAME KASAKSSally Frame KasaksChairman and Chief Executive Officer
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated:  June 7, 2007
    /s/  GERALD M. CHANEYGerald M. ChaneySenior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
(Principal Financial Officer)
From: westwinds2@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:28:08 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Oleva West

Mustang, OK 73064
No. 61505.

#### Richter Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 266413-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fried herring similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Richter Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(44 C. C. P. A. 128, C. A. D. 649), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 66503.

#### Bloomingdale Bros., a Div. of Fed. Dept. Stores, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/12993 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlestick holders, sconces, or similar articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Mottahedeh Creations, Ltd., et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 9, C.D. 2095), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
ex10.01

  
 EXHIBIT 10.01
 

 

 AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CONSOLIDATION SERVICES, INC. AND CARL CASARETO
 

 This Amendment ("Amendment") to the consulting agreement by and between CONSOLIDATION SERVICES, INC. ("Company") and Carl Casareto ("Consultant").
 WITNESSETH:
 WHEREAS, effective December 1st 2012, the Company and Consultant entered into a consulting agreement (the "Agreement"); and
 WHEREAS, the Consultant is proving to be a valuable addition to the management of the Company; and
 WHEREAS, the Company wishes to provide to Consultant additional incentive compensation, in the form of shares of its common stock.
 WHEREAS, the Corporation’s common shares are currently quoted at, and have most recently traded for, the equivalent of $0.08 (8 cents) per share.
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the Company hereby agrees to issue to Consultant, as additional consideration under the Agreement, two hundred thousand (200,000) shares of its common stock.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on this 11th day of January 2013.
 

 

 For:  CONSOLIDATION SERVICES, INC.
 

 

 

 By:_/s/ Richard S. Polep
 Richard S. Polep,
 Chief Financial Officer
 

 

 

 

 For:  CONSULTANT
 

 

 /s/ Carl Casareto
 Carl Casareto
H. Res. 361 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 25, 2007. 

Whereas Jack Valenti was born in Houston, Texas, on September 5, 1921, and resided in Washington, DC and 

Beverly Hills, California; 

Whereas Jack Valenti graduated from the University of 

Houston with a Bachelor of Arts degree and from Harvard University with a Master of Business Administration degree; 

Whereas Jack Valenti served as special assistant to President 

Lyndon B. Johnson; 

Whereas Jack Valenti was the distinguished president of the 

Motion Picture Association of America for 38 years; 

Whereas Jack Valenti was a trusted presidential advisor, a 

war hero, an author, and a pioneer in the American film 

industry; 

Whereas Jack Valenti was a great humanitarian who served 

as a powerful spokesperson for the global fight against 

AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria; 

Whereas Jack Valenti was a loving husband to his wife, Mary 

Margaret, and an exceptional father to his three children, 

Alexandra, John, and Courtenay; 
2 

•HRES 361 EH 

Whereas Jack Valenti’s spirit touched everyone he encountered, whether in his political career or in his time spent 

with the Motion Picture Association of America; 

Whereas Jack Valenti revolutionized the movie industry 

through the creation of a voluntary movie rating system 

that has endured to this day; 

Whereas Jack Valenti’s vision for the movie industry has 

withstood the test of time, and has provided guidance for 

families in their movie viewing experiences as well as 

safeguards for our filmmakers; 

Whereas the vision and character Jack Valenti brought to the 

movie industry will be greatly missed; and 

Whereas on April 26, 2007, Jack Valenti passed away, 

prompting his friend and confidant, Dan Glickman, to 

say, ‘‘Jack was a showman, a gentleman, an orator, and 

a passionate champion of this country, its movies, and 

the enduring freedoms that made both so important to 

this world. He also embodied the theatricality of our industry with his conviction, quick wit and boundless energy. In a very real sense, he was the ultimate leading 

man.’’: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes Jack Valenti as one of the greatest 

contributors to the motion picture industry; 

(2) honors Jack Valenti for his service to his country, for his tremendous accomplishments, and for his 

contributions to the movie industry and to the Nation; 

and 
3 

•HRES 361 EH 

(3) extends its deepest condolences to the family of 

Jack Valenti. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 61521.

#### Cresca Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 214059-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise, facts, and issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 59725. In accordance with stipulation of counsel, it was held that, on the respective dates of importation, under a then-existing established and uniform practice (T. D. 52941 (1)), the merchandise was dutiable, as claimed.
No. 67498.

#### I. D. L. Mfg. & Sales Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 61/6937 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hand-operated, 2-hole paper punches similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *IDL Mfg. & Sales Corp.*(48 CCPA 17, C.A.D. 756), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
2658 Del Mar Heights Road + Del Mar, CA 92014 + 858‐755‐3258 Phone

March 21, 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re:  Alaska Airlines’ application for SAN‐DCA, Docket No. DOT‐OST‐2012‐0029.  

Dear Secretary LaHood:

BURGES property + company fully supports the application of Alaska Airlines for air service between

San Diego and Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA).  San Diego is the largest region without

direct service to DCA.  Additionally, due to the profound community of interest between San

Diego and the nation’s capital, the region generates the largest passenger market demand

without nonstop service to the convenient and close‐in airport serving our nation’s capitol.   

San Diego’s sheer market size to Washington coupled with the fact that San Diego to Dulles average

airfares are the highest of west coast cities, should qualify for the limited slots available for this

flight.  The high airfare is exacerbated when factoring in taxi fares from Dulles to Washington’s city

center that average about $60 each way.  This means travelers between Washington’s city center

and San Diego via Dulles can pay on average close to $400 one‐way.   

There are also countless other San Diego‐based and Washington‐based businesses that are engaged

in health science, telecommunications, and national defense that need quick and convenient access

to Reagan National Airport.  BURGES property + company has an immediate need for additional

nonstop air service to our nation’s capital.  Alaska Airlines service would add a needed nonstop

option to a primary gateway to Washington, DC.  BURGES property + company joins with the San

Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the San Diego Regional Economic Development

Corporation, the World Trade Center San Diego, and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce

in support of Alaska Airlines’ application for San Diego – Washington Reagan National slots.

We thank the Department of Transportation for the opportunity to comment on the above

referenced docket and we hope to hear of a favorable review of Alaska Airlines’ San Diego – DCA

proposal soon.

Sincerely,

BURGES property + company

Jeffrey W. Burges

President
From: tas2b4life@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:06:40 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Tracy Sikon

Adena, OH 43901
| Exhibit      32.2 |
|-------------------|

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

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ ANTHONY J.      GALICI                                 |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Anthony      J. Galici                                     |
| Vice      President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |
| April      9, 2009                                         |
From: eataters@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:57:03 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Lorraine Robertson

Ormond Beach, FL 32174
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60544

Conference Calendar

__________________

CHRISTOPHER CARBIN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES NAVY ET AL.

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:94CV60-S-D

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 19, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Carbin appeals the district court's dismissal of

his $20 million suit against the Board for Corrections of

Military Records and other defendants. The Board is immune from

suit for monetary damages. See Gochnour v. Marsh, 754 F.2d 1137,

1138 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1057 (1985). Carbin has

not alleged any involvement by any of the other named defendants. 

The defendants cannot be liable without some personal involvement
No. 95-60544

-2-

or their implementation of a constitutionally deficient policy. 

Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303-04 (5th Cir. 1987). 

To the extent that Carbin's request for mandamus to speed

the proceedings may be construed as a request for injunctive

relief, that claim was properly dismissed as the Board had ruled

during the pendency of the suit, rendering the issue moot.

The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Before the Second Division,

February 20, 1957

No. 60510.

#### Keuffel & Esser Co. *v.*United States,

protests 209181-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59557, the merchandise entered prior to June 6, 1951, was held dutiable at 5 cents per pound and 10 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1405, as modified, *supra,*and the items entered subsequent to said date were held dutiable at *2}í*cents per pound and 10 percent ad valorem under said paragraph 1405, as modified, *supra.*
No. 75-1771.

#### Commissioner of Internal Revenue *v.*Standard Life & Accident Insurance Co.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari granted.