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


                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                        Computation of Earnings per Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Three months ended                        Nine months ended
                                                     --------------------------------          --------------------------------
                                                      August 3,            August 2,            August 3,            August 2,
                                                         1997                1998                 1997                 1998
                                                     -----------          -----------          -----------          -----------
<S>                                                  <C>                  <C>                  <C>                  <C>      
Basic net earnings per share:

    Weighted average common shares
       outstanding during the period                   7,685,087            7,792,730            7,664,627            7,786,755
                                                     ===========          ===========          ===========          ===========

    Net earnings for the period - unaudited          $ 2,795,432          $ 4,393,975          $ 7,171,747          $11,828,827
                                                     -----------          -----------          -----------          -----------

    Basic net earnings per share                     $       .36          $       .56          $       .94          $      1.52
                                                     ===========          ===========          ===========          ===========


Diluted net earnings per share

    Weighted average common shares
       outstanding during the period                   7,685,087            7,792,730            7,664,627            7,786,755

    Common stock equivalents                              75,478              363,379               77,315              304,648
                                                     -----------          -----------          -----------          -----------

                                                       7,760,565            8,156,109            7,741,942            8,091,403
                                                     ===========          ===========          ===========          ===========

    Net earnings for the period - unaudited          $ 2,795,432          $ 4,393,975          $ 7,171,747          $11,828,827
                                                     ===========          ===========          ===========          ===========

    Diluted net earnings per share                   $       .36          $       .54          $       .93          $      1.46
                                                     ===========          ===========          ===========          ===========

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

CORY DEAN HAMILTON,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5180M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 (X) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( ) Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 (X) Failures to appear for past court proceedings and failure to comply with prior conditions of supervision.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Other:

 (X) Defendant stipulates to detention without prejudice per the Waiver of Hearing on Order of Detention filed with this court

on October 13, 2005.

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 October 13, 2005.

_s/ Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05761-BHS Document 8 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER - 1

CR05-355JCC

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220

Seattle, Washington 98101-1271

(206) 553-7970

Judge Coughenour 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR05-355C

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

THOMAS TURNER, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________)

FINDINGS AND ORDER

Having considered the Government’s motion for approval of notification

procedures pursuant to the Justice for All Act (Dkt. No. 92), the Court finds that the

United States has proposed a reasonable procedure to give effect to the rights of potential

victims, as described in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3771(a) and 3771(d)(2), that does not unduly

complicate or prolong these proceedings, and 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, having notified nearly 16,000 potential victims

by U.S. Mail under the applicable provisions of the Justice for All Act of 2004, the

United States may satisfy its continuing obligation to inform potential crime victims by

maintaining and continually updating the United States Victim Witness Notification

System with information about court proceedings in this case. 

Seattle, Washington this 24th day of May, 2007.

AJohn C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cr-00355-JCC Document 107 Filed 05/24/07 Page 1 of 1
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

660 FEET OR MORE FROM KNOWN ORE BODIES
150

00

Galena dolomite

THICKNESS, IN FEET

0.
30:

Decorah formation [ . S
P 4
20:
Quimbys Mill member
Plattevile formation

GENSLER ORE BODY

KITTO ORE BODY

150
ZINC ZINC
100. 100-
E E
Z 50. z
g
H g
3 3
= a
ale.
0

is 0, 1507
‘LEAD N ‘LEAD LEAD
100 16 roofs
Galena dolomite id in E fi
Ew z so Z eof
g 8 FA
4 z z
8 s 3
z z Fame
Ps

Decorah formation

‘Quimbys Mill member
Platteville formation

Galena dolomite

THICKNESS, IN FEET

Decorah formation

Quimbys Mill member
Platteville formation

Sa

NUMBER OF DRILL HOLES STUDIED

COMPARISON OF MINERALIZATION IN DRILL HOLES CUTTING ORE WITH THAT IN

THICKNESS, IN FEET

NUMBER OF DRILL HOLES STUDIED

THICKNESS, IN FEET

IRON

NUMBER GF DRILL HOLES STUDIED

DRILL HOLES NOT NEAR KNOWN ORE, SOUTH OF SHULLSBURG

BULLETIN 1000 PLATE 7

EXPLANATION

PERCENT OF RON, ZINC OR LEAD

Percent of iron, zinc, or lead were estimated
by visual examination of dil cuttings for
‘sphalente, galena, marcasite, and pyrite

‘The horizontal scale used was varied
‘So that 100 percent of the holes in
[ny of the three examples cited was
‘always plotted at the same distance

Data was obtained from driling record of
Calumet and Hecla Consolidated Copper Co.

369614 O—56 (In pocket) No. 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CALVIN ROUSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5183RJB/JKA

ORDER GRANTING AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXTEND

DISCOVERY

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to extend the discovery deadline for 60-days

(Dkt # 66).

Plaintiff contends there is an ongoing discovery dispute and that he is entitled to an extension of

time (Dkt # 66). The court has directed the parties to confer regarding the discovery already propounded. 

The discovery deadline in this action was January 25, 2008. No new discovery may be propounded. A

motion to extend discovery for new discovery requests is DENIED.

To the extent plaintiff’s motion addresses discovery that was timely sent to the defendants or their

Case 3:06-cv-05183-RJB Document 69 Filed 02/14/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

counsel the motion is GRANTED. The parties will meet and confer and attempt to resolve their dispute. 

If they are not able to do so plaintiff may renew his motion to compel.

 The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff and counsel for defendants a copy of this Order.

DATED this 13 day of February 2008.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05183-RJB Document 69 Filed 02/14/08 Page 2 of 2
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 4878 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2016

- CE

- 001

- AD
If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must en sure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Research and re identify engine ty pe plate if needed 1 .0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 

### 65 $ 5,525.00


### Modify installatio n to indicate a Maximum Coolant Temperature Limit 1.0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 

### 65 $ 5,525.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 11,050 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Replace a single engine cy linder head 1.5 $ 127.50 $2,500 $ 2,627.50

$ 0.00 $ 0.00$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### Special **considerations for Economic Analysis** ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### The On

condition costs were taken from AD 2013

- 17

- 04 for accomplishing the replacement of the previous, similar engine cy linder head.

**Executive Order 12866:**
Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act :**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for
either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation: 

### This AD only affects 65 US registered aircraft

. **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?
YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc. Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
and Statements of Operations.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000874808
<NAME> MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              23
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      107
<ALLOWANCES>                                        12
<INVENTORY>                                         31
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   184
<PP&E>                                              68
<DEPRECIATION>                                      20
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     460
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              468
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       (543)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       460
<SALES>                                            203
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   203
<CGS>                                              150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      150
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    46
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (30)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (32)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (32)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)
        


</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

July 24, 1957

No. 61079.

#### Arthur J. Fritz & Company *v.*United States,

protest 294160-K (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise, contained in cases numbered 1771 to 1775, inclusive, is properly dutiable, as claimed, and that, if presently before the collector, the merchandise would be so classified, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EX-10.7.1





 Exhibit 10.7.1 

 
 



 
 February 19, 2013 

Mr. Mark Pearson 
 AXA Financial, Inc. 

1290 Avenue of the Americas, 16th floor 
 New York, New York 10104

 Dear Mr. Pearson: 
 This letter confirms our
understanding regarding your waiver of certain tax gross-up benefits contained in Section 12 of your employment agreement dated March 9, 2011 (the “Agreement”). Please confirm your
acceptance of the terms of this letter by signing below. 
 As you know, Section 12 of the Agreement states that you will receive a full tax gross-up due to any imputed income from the following benefits provided under Section 6 of the Agreement: 
  

	 	•	 	Executive Car and Driver 

  

	 	•	 	Financial Counseling 

  

	 	•	 	Parking, Club Memberships, Physical Exams 

  

	 	•	 	Excess Liability Insurance 

  

	 	•	 	Trips to United Kingdom 

  

	 	•	 	Expatriate Tax Services 

  

	 	•	 	Company Car 

  

	 	•	 	Repatriation 

 For purposes of this letter, these benefits, excluding the Repatriation benefit, are
collectively called the “Section 6 Benefits.” 
 By signing below, you irrevocably relinquish and waive any and all rights and entitlements
to any tax gross-up payments related to Section 6 Benefits provided to you after 2012. As consideration for your waiver, the company will increase your minimum base salary as set forth in
Section 5(a) of the Agreement to $1,225,000, effective February 11, 2013. 
  

					
	Sincerely,
	
	AXA FINANCIAL, INC.


 
					
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Andrew Mcmahan

		 	 Andrew Mcmahan
 Senior
Executive Vice President

President, Financial Protection and Wealth Management





					
	
	AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY


 
					
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Andrew Mcmahan

		 	 Andrew Mcmahan

President



  

	
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:
	
	 /s/ Mark Pearson

	Mark Pearson
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyof the Tullock Creek coal field, Rosebud and Big Horn Counties, Montana**
 
Report | Plates: 1011141516
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:749
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000959117
 
August 2, 2018
## NO. 12

- 10

- 00 292

- C V

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS RONALD SMITH

, APPELLANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 114 TH

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

AMERICA’S BEST VALUE INN & SUITES

, ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLEE MEMORA NDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed because Appellant, Ronald Smith, has failed to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3. Pursuant to rule 32.1, Smith’s docketing statement was due to have been f iled at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., August 31, 2010. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1. On September 2, 2010, this court notified Smith that he should file a docketing statement immediately if he had not already done so. By separate letter, also dat ed September 2, 2010, this court requested that Smith pay his filing fee on or before September 13, 2010. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 5. Because Smith did not pay his filing fee or file the docketing statement as requested in the September 2, 2010 letters, this court issu ed a second notice on September 17, 2010, advising Smith that the filing fee and the docketing statement were past due. The notice further provided that unless the filing fee was paid and the docketing statement filed on or before September 27, 2010, the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3. The September 27 deadline has passed, and Smith has not complied with the court’s request. Because Smith has failed, after notice, to comply with rules 5 and 32.1, the appeal is
dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). Opinion delivered September 30, 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(PUBLISH)
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) (Mod. 10/93) Judgment in a Civil Case "

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

GENERAL METALS OF TACOMA, INC AMENDED JUDGMENT 

and ARKEMA INC., IN A CIVIL CASE

Jury Verdict / Fees and Costs

v.

BEAN ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC and

BEAN DREDGING LLC, CASE NUMBER: C05-5306RBL

[XX] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the

jury has rendered its verdict as follows:

1. The Jury finds for HHCG’s claim for breach of contract against Bean Environmental and

awards DAMAGES in the amount of $6,370,286. 

By Stipulation of the parties, the judgment is imposed against Bean Environmental LLC and

Bean Dredging LLC. Post judgment interest shall run from February 16, 2007.

[XX] Decision by Court. The following came under consideration before the Court. The issues have been considered and

a decision has been rendered

1. The Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or for a New Trial is DENIED. The

Court’s Order Staying Execution of Judgment Pending Post-Trial Motions is VACATED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Prejudgment Interest and Attorney’s Fees is DENIED.

3. Total Costs of $101,993.73 represents a reasonable taxation of costs.

 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Dated: APRIL 4, 2007 Clerk

 s/Jean Boring 

 (By) Deputy Clerk

Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 399 Filed 04/04/07 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 13,666a.

#### STURGES v. The MARY STAPLES et al.

[Betts’ Scr. Bk. 561.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

Oct. 20, 1857.

Practice in Admiralty— Costs — Part Owner— Demand for Security.

The libelant [Daniel L. Sturges], owning one-eighth of the brig, filed his libel, alleging that the majority owners were about to send her on a voyage to which he had objected, and refused to give him a bond for her safe return. On the libel being filed and the vessel seized, the bond demanded by the libel was given by the majority owners, and the vessel discharged from custody. The libel was filed before any actual demand of the bond was made by the libelant of the other owners [Horace Staples and others], and they claimed that he was not entitled to recover costs against them.

Benedict, Burr *&*Benedict, for libelant.

Beebe, Dean & Donohue, for respondents.

HELD BY THE COURT:

That a part owner has a right to protect his interest by admiralty process against the employment of the property against his dissent, until security is given him to the value of his interest that the vessel shall be safely restored to her home port. That his title to the appropriate remedy to maintain this right is not dependent upon any demand of the security from his co-owners. On his dissent to their putting her upon any particular voyage, their authority as representatives of the majority interest becomes suspended in that respect until they give him the indemnity appointed by law. That the libelant was not bound, therefore, to demand of the other owners the fulfillment of the duty cast upon them by law. That the submission of the majority owners to the requirement of the suit is tantamount to a decree of the court in his favor, and carries with it a right to costs, as an incident of the result. The discretion of the court to grant or withhold costs, since the act of congress of February, 1853 [10 Stat. 161], must be regarded as rescinded in effect. Decree for libelant for costs.