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


Exhibit 11.1

Corporate Express, Inc.
Statement Regarding Computation of Net Income Per Share

Primary Earnings Per Share
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                   Three Months Ended                      Six Months Ended
                                             ---------------------------------     --------------------------------
                                               August 31,         August 26,           August 31,       August 26,
                                                  1996               1995                 1996             1995
                                             --------------   ----------------     ----------------   ------------- 

<S>                                          <C>              <C>                  <C>                <C> 
Net income                                    $     11,165     $        5,755       $       20,781     $    12,261
                                             ==============   ================     ================   =============  

Net income per share                          $       0.15     $         0.09       $         0.27     $      0.19
                                             ==============   ================     ================   =============  
                                                                          
                                                                          
Weighted average shares outstanding                 70,031             60,264               69,631          59,689
                                                                          
Common Stock Equivalents:                                                 
    Stock options and warrants                       6,174              4,246                6,111           4,028
                                             --------------   ----------------     ----------------   ------------- 
                                                                          

Total weighted average shares outstanding           76,205             64,510               75,742          63,717
                                             ==============   ================     ================   =============  
</TABLE> 

Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share

Fully diluted earnings per share differs from primary earnings per share by less
than 3%.
February 25, 1958

No. 61614.

#### J. Goldenberg and Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 238439-K and 238408-K.

C. D. 1950. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5

The Board of Directors
Osage System Group, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-3 of Osage Systems Group, Inc. (333-77329) of our report dated January
24, 1997, with respect to the balance sheet of Open System Technologies, Inc.
(formerly known as Computer Health and Safety, Inc.) as of December 31, 1996,
and the related statements of income and retained earnings, and cash flows for
the year then ended, which report appears in the Form 8-K/A of Osage Systems
Group, Inc. filed June 9, 1998.




/s/ KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP
Miami, Florida
June 29, 1999
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TEXAS HEALTH & HUMAN 

SERVICES AND EL PASO STATE 

SUPPORTED LIVING CENTER,

 

 Appellants,

v.

DAVID SEPULVEDA,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00043-CV

Appeal from the

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2018-DCV-0349)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s third motion for extension of time within which to file 

the brief until July 19, 2022. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Connie J. Flores, the Appellee’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellee’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before July 19, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of June, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of America Service Group
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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: May 15, 2003



                                       Name: /s/ Michael W. Taylor
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Title: Senior Vice President &
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to America Service Group Inc. and will be retained by America Service
Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 on Form 10-Q of Vertical Communications, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth M. Clinebell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the
Act), that:



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



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



|                         |  |                         
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------
|Dated: November 19, 2007 |  | /s/ Kenneth M. Clinebell
|                         |  | Kenneth M. Clinebell    
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer
Before the Second Division,

January 14, 1954

No. 57767.

petition 6931-R (New York).

#### Allied Food Corporation of America *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The merchandise in question was entered at the invoice price of $6 per case and appraised on the basis of foreign value at $8.70 per case, net, packed. Upon appeal for reappraisement, the court adopted United States value as the proper basis for determining the value of the importation and found that value to be $7.45 per case, net, packed. The president of the petitioner testified that he was in Cuba during 1945 and 1946 and personally made arrangements with Industrias Ferro, S. A., for the production and sale of a special type of jelly for the American market; that the jelly was to be produced according to specifications provided by petitioner, under continuous United States Department of Agriculture inspections as to quality; and that this was a very special product and no other Cuban factory produced or was able to produce it. Prior to the first importation of this merchandise — in all, there were 40 to 50 shipments — -the witness consulted with the attaché of the American Embassy in Havana and with the Treasury representative in the Embassy concerning the proper value at which entry should be made. The Treasury representative advised him to enter the merchandise on the basis of the manufacturer’s cost, which was the invoice price. After the jelly began coming in, the witness was told that the appraiser at New York was delaying appraisements pending a determination of the proper value. The witness thereupon consulted bis attorney who requested the appraiser to select a test case for appeal and withhold appraisement on the balance of the shipments. On the record presented, it was held that entry of the importation at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
----

----

| RCC      Real Estate, Inc., a Delaware corporation                                                    |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Resource      Real Estate Funding 2006-1 CDO Investor, LLC, a Delaware limited liability      company |
| Resource      real Estate Funding CDO 2006-1 Ltd.                                                     |
| Resource      Real Estate Funding 2007-1 CDO Investor, LLC, a Delaware limited liability      company |
| Resource      Real Estate Funding CDO 2007-1 Ltd.                                                     |
| RCC      Real Estate SPE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability  company                                  |
| RCC      Real Estate SPE 2, LLC, a Delaware limited liability    company                              |
| RCC      Real Estate SPE 3, LLC, a Delaware limited liability    company                              |
| RCC      Commercial, Inc., a Delaware corporation                                                     |
| Resource      Capital Funding LLC, a Delaware limited liability  company                              |
| Ischus      II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company                                             |
| Ischus      CDO II, Ltd., a Cayman Islands company                                                    |
| Apidos      CDO I, Ltd.                                                                               |
| Apidos      CDO III, Ltd., a Delaware company                                                         |
| Apidos      Cinco CDO, Ltd.                                                                           |
| Resource      TRS, Inc., a Delaware corporation                                                       |

----

----
Exhibit 4.16








EXHIBIT 4.16

 

San Antonlos Resources Inc.

P.O. Box 10073 West Georgia St., 

Vancouver, B.C.

V7Y 186




 

 

DEBT WAIVER AGREEMENT




THIS AGREEMENT is dated for reference the 2nd day of July,
2002.

The undersigned, ANTONIOS KRIPOTOS. hereby agrees to waive the outstanding
accrued salary amount of $144,000 on the books of the company and any other
payments made by me to or on behalf of San Antonios Resources Inc. or its
subsidiary San Antonios Resources (USA) Inc. up until such time as I remain a
Director of the company.

Yours faithfully,

/s/ Antonios Kripotos

President

SAN ANTONIOS RESOURCES INC.
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

MAURICE DALTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SARGEANT PAUL ESTES et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5820RJB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS

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 defendant’s motion asking for sanctions as a

result of plaintiff’s refusal to participate in his deposition (Dkt. # 39).

Counsel for defendants explains that despite taking extra measures to insure plaintiff would

take part in a deposition scheduled for November 16, 2006 plaintiff refused to be deposed (Dkt. #

39). Defendant’s ask this action be dismissed as a sanction for plaintiff’s conduct or in the

alternative that costs be awarded (Dkt. # 39). Defense counsel asks for One Thousand Seven

Hundred and Thirty Two Dollars, $1732 in costs (Dkt. # 39, page 2).

Counsel alleges Mr. Dalton refused to participate in the deposition because he was not

represented by counsel (Dkt. # 39). The court noted that the deposition was scheduled to take place

Case 3:05-cv-05820-RJB Document 43 Filed 12/18/06 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

in the Larch Corrections Center in Yacolt Washington. According to counsel for defendants,

plaintiff is now at that facility. The address on file with the court for plaintiff is the Monroe

Correctional Complex, not Larch Corrections Center.

Local Rule 41 (b)(2) requires a pro se plaintiff to keep the court apprized of a current

address. Plaintiff has sixty days to send a notice of change of address to the court clerk’s office. 

Plaintiff has not responded to the motion for sanctions. Local Rule 7 (b)(2) states that failure

to respond to a motion may be taken as a indication the motion has merit. There does not appear to

be any valid reason for plaintiff’s refusal to be deposed. Sanctions are warranted. The court is

mindful that the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. The court does not intend to dismiss this

action at this point in time. Because of plaintiff’s financial situation the court will not impose the full

amount of sanctions requested.

The court does impose a Four Hundred Dollar $400 sanction for plaintiff’s refusal to

cooperate in discovery. Plaintiff will have 60 days to pay this sanction. If plaintiff has not tendered

the full amount to counsel for defendants in 60 days a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with

this order may be filed. Further, if plaintiff does not correct his address with the court this action will

be subject to dismissal 60 days from today. 

The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff and counsel for defendants. 

DATED this 18 day of December, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05820-RJB Document 43 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-mj-00354-MAT Document 12 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 57458.

#### Chas. Kurz Co. *v.*United States,

protests 186322-K, 186323-K, and 191769-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the papers in these cases, the court found nothing therein which tended in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector. The protests were therefore overruled.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 91 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 91

   To authorize the production of records by the Select Committee on 
                              Intelligence

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 1997

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To authorize the production of records by the Select Committee on 
                              Intelligence

Whereas the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of 
        Justice has requested that the Select Committee on Intelligence provide 
        it with copies of committee records relevant to the Office's pending 
        review of matters related to allegations of Central Intelligence Agency 
        involvement in crack cocaine trafficking with supporters of the 
        Nicaraguan Contras;
Whereas by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be 
        taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that documents, papers, and records under the control 
        or in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of 
        justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote the ends of 
        justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence, acting jointly, are authorized to provide to 
the Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of 
Justice or to other government investigators, under appropriate 
security procedures, copies of committee records related to allegations 
of Central Intelligence Agency involvement in crack cocaine trafficking 
with supporters of the Nicaraguan Contras.
    Sec. 2. That the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of any other 
committee of the Senate, acting jointly, are authorized to provide to 
the Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of 
Justice or to other government investigators, under appropriate 
security procedures, copies of records held by their committee related 
to allegations of Central Intelligence Agency involvement in crack 
cocaine trafficking with supporters of the Nicaraguan Contras.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



RULE 13A-14(A) CERTIFICATION
   (1)
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of State National Bancshares,
Inc.;(2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the periods covered by this report;(3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;(4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Reserved](c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
periods covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 (5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Dated: March 29, 2006
    By:
    /s/  Tom C. NicholsTom C. NicholsChief Executive Officer
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 50077 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Jose Refugio Nieto**

**- Uribe,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 730

- 1

Before **Higginbotham, Graves,**  and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Jose Refugio Nieto

- Uribe appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. The district court sentenced him within the guidelines range to 57 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir**  **cuit R**  **ule** 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 5, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50077 Document: 00516497624 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2022No. 22

- 50077

2 Because Nieto

- Uribe’s chall enge to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence was preserved, our review is for an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also Holguin

- Hernandez v. United States , 140 S. Ct. 762, 766

– 67 (2020). For a within

- gu idelines sentence , we presume that it is reasonable and that the district court has considered all of the statutory sentencing factors. See United States v. Jenkins , 712 F.3d 209, 214 (5th Cir. 2013); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The record reflects that the district court considered Nieto

- Uribe’s contentions in support of a sentence below the guidelines range but rejected them. Ultimately, Nieto

- Uribe simply disagrees with the sentence chosen by the district court and so fails to overcome t he presumption that the district court imposed a reasonable sentence. See United States v. Ruiz , 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010) ; see also United States v. Juarez

- Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008)

. As Nieto

- Uribe concedes, his challenge to the 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) recidivism enhancement is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553

- 54 (5th Cir. 2019)

. The district court’s judgment is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 22-50077 Document: 00516497624 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2022