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

                       GLOBAL VILLAGE COMMUNICATION, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     Three Months Ended September 30,   Six Months Ended September 30,
                                            1996            1995            1996            1995
                                          --------        --------        --------        --------
<S>                                       <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>     
Net income (loss)
    from continuing operations            $   (173)       $  2,900        $ (4,979)       $  5,227
                                          --------        --------        --------        --------

Discontinued operations
    Income (loss) from continuing
       operations                         $ (1,565)       $   (597)       $ (1,822)       $ (1,320)

    Income (loss) from discontinued
       operations, net of taxes           $  2,133              --        $  2,133              --

                                          --------        --------        --------        --------
    Net income (loss)                     $    395        $  2,303        $ (4,668)       $  3,907
                                          ========        ========        ========        ========

Weighted average shares
    outstanding during the period           16,734          16,434          16,766          16,334
Common stock equivalents                       654           1,432              --           1,489
                                          --------        --------        --------        --------
                                            17,388          17,866          16,766          17,823
                                          ========        ========        ========        ========

    Net income (loss) per share
       from continuing operations         $  (0.01)       $   0.16        $  (0.30)       $   0.29
    Net income (loss) per share
       from discontinued operations       $   0.03        $  (0.03)       $   0.02        $  (0.07)

                                          --------        --------        --------        --------
    Net income (loss) per share           $   0.02        $   0.13        $  (0.28)       $   0.22
                                          ========        ========        ========        ========
</TABLE>



(1) Fully diluted earnings per share have not been presented because the
differences from primary are not significant.
From: MSMAH@ATT.NET

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:17:47 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,

MARY ANN HARDER

Muskogee, OK 74402
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 744 

Recognizing the contributions of Native American veterans and calling upon 

the President to issue a proclamation urging the people of the United 

States to observe a day in honor of Native American veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 15, 2007 

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico (for herself and Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the contributions of Native American veterans 

and calling upon the President to issue a proclamation 

urging the people of the United States to observe a 

day in honor of Native American veterans. 

Whereas there are 195,871 Native American veterans in the 

United States; 

Whereas Native Americans have participated for over 200 

years in United States military actions; 

Whereas the participation of Native Americans in the War of 

1812, the Civil War, and the Spanish-America War was 

significant; 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 744 IH 

Whereas in World War I, it is estimated that more than 

12,000 Native Americans served the United States 

Armed Forces; 

Whereas more than 44,000 Native Americans served in the 

Armed Forces during World War II, in both the European and Pacific fronts, representing a substantial portion of the 350,000 Native Americans then living in the 

United States; 

Whereas Native Americans fought in the Korean conflict, and 

more than 42,000 Native Americans fought in the Vietnam War, 90 percent of whom served as volunteers; 

Whereas Native Americans also provided significant contributions in the military operations in Grenada and Panama 

and the Persian Gulf War in 1980s and 1990s; and 

Whereas Native Americans should also be recognized for their 

participation in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom: Now, therefore, be it— 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes all Native American veterans 

3 who have served the Nation with honor, pride, devo4 tion, wisdom and strength for serving their country 

5 and protecting their homeland; and 

6 (2) calls upon the President to issue a procla7 mation urging the people of the United States to ob8 serve a day honoring Native American veterans with 

9 appropriate ceremonies and activities. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 85 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 1 of 3 Doc. 85

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 85 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 85 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 3 of 3
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **7431**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

– Appell ee ,
v. DAVID HOWARD HUGHES , Defen d a nt

– Appell ant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1 : 0 5

- cr - 0 0 273

- MR

- 1 )

Submitted : January 18, 2011 Decided: January 28, 2011

Before NIEMEYER , DUNCAN, and AG EE, Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by unpublished per curiam op inion
. David Howard Hughes, Appellant Pro Se
. Amy Elizabeth Ray , A ssistant United States Attorney , Asheville , North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Howard Hughes seeks to app eal the district court’s order construing his Petition for Writ of Error Audita Querela , 28 U.S.C. § 1651 ( 200 6 ) , as a successive 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and d enying it on that basis, and a subsequent order denying his motion for recons ideration
. The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutiona l right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is deba table or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hughes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a ce rtificate of appealability , deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We3 dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the d ecisional process.

DISMISSED
From: martercourtney@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:55:21 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,

Mary Courtney

Apache Junction, AZ 85119
No. P66/56.

protests 63/8309-13452 and 63/8359-13494 (Chicago).

#### Karl Schroff & Associates, Inc. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of parts of hydraulic pumps, dedicated to use therewith, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Karl Sohroff & Associates*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 395, Abstract 69245), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-059 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. Soethout

Dwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
Stephen G. Braun

John W. bit, P.E.

Manager, Fuels and Transportation

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

4301 Wilson Blvd. EPI 1-255

Arlington, VA 22203-1860

Telephone: 703/907-5805

Fax: 703/907-5517

Internet: jwhl @nreca.org

4— _II

AIR-CONDmONJNG

& REFRIGERATION INSTITUTE

Dfrector

Lawrence R. Wethje, PE. of Public Fblicy & Technical Services

4301 North Fairfax Drive Suite 425

Mington, Virginia 22203

lirector, Technical Services

NORTH

NAIMA AMERICAN INSULATION

MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TELl

44 CANAL CENTER PLAZA • SUITE 310 • ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314

703f684-0084 • FAX 703/654-0427

[EM MANUFACTURERS

1 PLUMBING

INSTITUTE

ROBERT CURRY

Director, Government Affairs

1825 I Street, NW, Suite 400

(202) 429-2038 Fax (202) 775-4191 J Washington, DC. 20006

Jason Glazer

Principal Engineer 847 698 5686

fax: 847 698 5600

jglazer@gard.com

GARD Analyticsl Eneçgy, Economic and EnWronnientai Research

1028 Busse Highway Park Ridge Illinois 60068-1802 USA

(703) 524-8800 ext. 318 FAX: (703)528-3816
ENERGY CODE FOR NEW FEDERAL COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY

HIGH RISE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS; PROPOSED RULE

SEPTEMBER 4, 1996

NAME

AFFILIATION

ADDRESS Pe’v ve.

O ooo

TELEPHONE (*5OOO FAX NO. OOS ;3

E-MAIL ADDRESS: QYMLP c c ei 0
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                      AMERICAN NORTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)

                                                     1998        1997
                                                  1ST QUARTER  1ST QUARTER
<S>                                              <C>           <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE: (NOTE 2)

Common shares outstanding, beginning of period.    13,845,016  8,769,500

Effects of weighting shares:
   Weighted common shares issued. . . . . . . .       225,874    448,788
                                                 ------------  ---------

Weighted average number of common shares. . . .    14,070,890  9,218,288
                                                 ============  =========
   outstanding

Net Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $ 561,444.01  12,323.05
                                                 ============  =========

Earnings Per Share. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $       0.04       0.00
                                                 ============  =========


DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE: (NOTE 2)

Common shares outstanding, beginning of period.    13,845,016  8,769,500

Effects of weighting shares:

   Weighted common shares issued. . . . . . . .       225,874    448,788
   10% Convertible Debentures . . . . . . . . .         5,844    314,613
                                                 ------------  ---------

Weighted average number of common shares and
   common equivalent shares outstanding . . . .    14,076,734  9,532,901
                                                 ============  =========

Net Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $ 561,444.01  12,323.05
                                                 ============  =========

Earnings Per Share. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $       0.04       0.00
                                                 ============  =========
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
EX-32
  ·   Section 1350 Certifications




LUX DIGITAL
PICTURES INC.





Pursuant
to Section  18U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Pursuant  to  section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002
(subsection  (a) and (b)
of  section  1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,
United  States  Code),  each of
the  undersigned  officers  of Lux Digital
Pictures Inc.,  a Nevada  corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify that:





The
Annual  Report of Form 10-k for the year ended  August 31,
2009  (the  "Form  10-K")  of  the  Company   fully   complies   with  the
requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act of
1934  and  information  contained  in
the  Form  10-K  fairly presents,  in
all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.







Date: November 25,
      2009/s/ Ingo
    JuchtIngo JuchtPrincipal Executive
      Officerand Principal
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


OF MOGGLE, INC.


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Ernest Cimadamore, Chief Executive Officer of Moggle, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to my knowledge, the accompanying Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











Dated:  March 7, 2011
By:
/s/ Ernest CimadamoreErnest CimadamoreChief Executive Officer
AFS-11-346-E 

August 10, 2011 

 Exemption No. 8629C 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2005-22015 

Ms. Jeanette Johnson 

Principal 

Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology 

3702 Estey Avenue 

Naples, FL 34104 

Dear Ms. Johnson: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8629, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated April 29, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology (LWIT) for an extension of Exemption 

No. 8629, as amended. That exemption from §§ 65.17(a), 65.19(b), and 65.75(a) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows LWIT to conduct FAA oral and practical tests 

as an integral part of an approved curriculum and give the aviation mechanic general written 

test after students complete the general curriculum. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to LWIT. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8629, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the conditions and 

limitations listed below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Before exercising the privileges of this exemption, LWIT must provide its operations 

handbook to its certificate holding district office (CHDO) and receive approval of the 

operations handbook from the CHDO. 

2. LWIT’s operations handbook must contain the manner in which oral and practical 

tests are to be administrated. It must also contain the times and places at which LWIT 

intends to administer tests under this exemption. 

3. LWIT’s operations handbook must contain procedures for retesting after failure of the 

oral or practical test for an instructional unit. 

4. Before retesting after failure, LWIT must require a student to repeat the entire 

instructional unit associated with the failed test and receive authorization from LWIT 

to retake the test. LWIT’s operations handbook must contain procedures for 

documenting and tracking compliance with all retesting procedures. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8629, as amended, to 

September 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service