alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                     Shopko Stores, Inc. and Subsidiaries
             Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Common and
                           Common Equivalent Share
                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Data)

                                       

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    First Quarters as of        Fiscal Years Ended
                               ---------------------------------------------------------
                                    May 2,          May 3,     January 31,  February 1,
                                     1998           1997         1998         1997
                                  (13 Weeks)      (13 Weeks)   (52 Weeks)   (52 Weeks)
                               ---------------------------------------------------------
<S>                              <C>          <C>            <C>          <C>
BASIC:
Net earnings                     $     2,151    $     1,011  $    49,382  $    45,669
                                 ===========    ===========  ===========  ===========
Weighted average number of
  outstanding common shares           25,869         32,195       28,398       32,090
                                 ===========    ===========  ===========  ===========

Net earnings per common
  share - basic (1)              $      0.08    $      0.03  $      1.74  $      1.42
                                 ===========    ===========  ===========  ===========


DILUTED:
Net earnings                     $     2,151    $     1,011  $    49,382  $    45,669
                                 ===========    ===========  ===========  ===========

Weighted average number of
  outstanding common shares           25,869         32,195       28,398       32,090

Number of common shares
  issuable assuming exercise
  of stock options                       477            346          377          473
                                 -----------    -----------  -----------  -----------

Weighted average number of
  outstanding common and
  common equivalent shares -
  assuming dilution                   26,346         32,541       28,775       32,563
                                 ===========    ===========  ===========  ===========

Net earnings per common
  share - diluted (1)            $      0.08    $      0.03  $      1.72  $      1.40
                                 ===========    ===========  ===========  ===========
</TABLE>

(1) Earnings per share are computed by dividing net earnings by the weighted
    average number of outstanding common and common equivalent shares.

                                      19
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1X

        CONSENT OF VIRCHOW, KRAUSE & COMPANY, LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the
use of our report on the financial statements of XYZ Group, Inc. as of December
31, 1997 and for the year then ended dated February 12, 1998, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-80131) and related prospectus of
Futech Interactive Products for the registration of 6,500,000 shares of its
common stock.



Brookfield, Wisconsin                         /s/ Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP
August 6, 1999
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 73863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23751]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; Diversity Training Grants.
    Date: December 1, 2023.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge I, 6705 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Sun Saret, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 
208-S, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-0270, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fe8d8b90d08d9f8c9b8abe909796d0999188"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1063657e3e6371627564507e79783e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 23, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-23751 Filed 10-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7650

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GABRIEL DANIEL MORRISON MITCHELL, a/k/a G,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:12-cr-00010-MSD-LRL-2; 4:16-cv00004-MSD)

Submitted: August 6, 2018 Decided: October 24, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gabriel Daniel Morrison Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gabriel Daniel Morrison Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 

debatable 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 Mitchell has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, while we grant Mitchell’s motion to 

supplement his memorandum in support of a certificate of appealability, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TANIKA WASHINGTON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 49 EAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATIONS






This
Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the
United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person for any other
purpose.




The
undersigned, who are (i) the President and Chief Executive Officer of UMTH Land
Development, L.P., sole general partner of United Development Funding III, L.P.
(the “Partnership”), and President and Chief Executive Officer of UMT Services,
Inc., sole general partner of UMTH Land Development, L.P., and (ii) the Chief
Financial Officer of UMTH Land Development, L.P., sole general partner of the
Partnership, each hereby certify as follows:




The
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Partnership (the “Report”), which accompanies
this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.









Dated
this March 31, 2009











/s/ Hollis M.
Greenlaw


Hollis M.
Greenlaw


President
and Chief Executive Officer of UMTH Land Development, L.P., sole general partner
of the Partnership, and President and Chief Executive Officer of UMT Services,
Inc., sole general partner of UMTH Land Development, L.P.








/s/ Cara D.
Obert


Cara D.
Obert


Chief
Financial Officer of UMTH Land Development, L.P., sole general partner of the
Partnership
A90A0155.

#### FEDD v. THE STATE.

(391 SE2d 24)

Deen, Presiding Judge.

Alonzo Fedd brings this appeal from his conviction of violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act (possession of cocaine), contending that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict and a new trial because the State failed to establish with a reasonable certainty the chain of custody of his urine sample. Held:

The evidence showed that a police officer was present when the sample was obtained. He sealed it, labeled it, and placed it in a refrigerator in the sheriff’s office. A GBI agent received possession of it *476from another officer, who took it out of the refrigerator. The agent checked to see that it was properly sealed and transported it to the State Crime Laboratory. The chemist who received it testified that the sample bore no evidence of tampering.

Decided February 12, 1990.

*William M. Shingler, Sr.,*for appellant.

*Charles M. Ferguson, District Attorney, J. Robert Smith, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

The chain of custody was sufficiently established. “Circumstances must establish a reasonable assurance of the identity of the sample, but need not exclude every possibility of tampering.” *Painter v. State,*237 Ga. 30, 33 (226 SE2d 578) (1976). “[W]hen there is only a bare speculation of tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt remains go to its weight.” *Johnson v. State,*143 Ga. App. 169, 170 (237 SE2d 681) (1977); *Anderson v. State,*247 Ga. 397, 399 (276 SE2d 603) (1981).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope and Beasley, JJ., concur.*
# L_2022275EN.01004801.xml

| 25.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 275/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 275/48

---

COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2022/2042

of 24 October 2022

amending Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 215 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/2052 of 24 October 2022 amending Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea (1),

Having regard to the joint proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 (2) gives effect to the measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 (2) gives effect to the measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea.

| (2) | Decision (CFSP) 2022/2052 introduces a modification to the title of Decision 2010/638/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision (CFSP) 2022/2052 introduces a modification to the title of Decision 2010/638/CFSP.

| (3) | Regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary to give effect to Decision (CFSP) 2022/2052, in particular with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulatory action at the level of the Union is therefore necessary to give effect to Decision (CFSP) 2022/2052, in particular with a view to ensuring its uniform application by economic operators in all Member States.

| (4) | Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The title of Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 is replaced by the following:

‘Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Guinea’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 24 October 2022.

For the Council

The President

A. HUBÁČKOVÁ

---

(1)  See page 74 of this Official Journal.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing certain restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea (OJ L 346, 23.12.2009, p. 26).

2

---
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
      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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;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 period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    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
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  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; andb)
    
    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.
  By:
    
    /s/ Gary C. Evans

Gary C. Evans,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
From: Hancy, Cindy Wang [ mailto:chancy@rti.org ]

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:46 PM

To: Pettis, Mike

Cc: Reeves, David; Susan Fairchild

Subject: HAP Test Results Submitted to EPA

Mr. Pettis,

RTI is one of the contractors assisting EPA with the wool fiberglass NESHAP. After reviewing the

formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol results of Owens Corning facilities, we would like to verify whether

the testing below was completed while the bonded lines were running a HAP/Phenolic Binder.

OC Eloy

– Testing performed 1/2005

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Regards,

Cindy Wang Hancy

RTI International

P.O. Box 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone: (919) 541

- 6623

Fax: ( 919) 316

- 3420
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**Certification
      by the Chief Executive Officer**


**of**


**Boardwalk
      GP, LLC**


**pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**


**(as
      adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned chief executive officer of Boardwalk
      GP, LLC hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that the annual report on
      Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, (the "Report") of Boardwalk
      Pipeline Partners, LP (the “Partnership”) fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the Consolidated Balance Sheets and Statements of Income of the
      Partnership.





February
      23, 2007


*/s/
      Rolf A. Gafvert*


Rolf
      A.
      Gafvert


Chief
      Executive Officer and Director


(principal
      executive officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7035

MICHAEL WAYNE CAMDEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

A. D. ROBINSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-99-517-7)

Submitted: October 7, 1999 Decided: October 14, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Wayne Camden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Wayne Camden appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. §

2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. See Camden v. Robinson,

No. CA-99-517-7 (W.D. Va. July 20, 1999). We 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 decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40324

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

SAUL MOLINA-MARTINEZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, JONES and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This case returns to us on remand from the Supreme Court, No.14–8913, 

United States v. Molina-Martinez. The Supreme Court reversed our 

affirmance of the district court’s sentence of Molina-Martinez and remanded 

this case to us for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion. 

Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s sentence of Molina-Martinez and 

REMAND this case to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas for 

resentencing consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 31, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-40324 Document: 00513527305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2016
David,

Please see our answers in blue below and as always, let me know 

if you have any questions. Thank you.

The range of sulfur content in the coke utilized to make anodes 

used

in the reduction cells over the last year of operation.

1.) Alcoa (Massena West) % S range over the last year = 2.38% -

2.46%

2.) Reynolds Metals Co. (Massena East) % S range (over the 

course of the last 12 operating months which due to curtailment 

was October 2008 - June 2011) = 1.97% - 2.80%.

The highest sulfur content in the coke utilized to make anodes 

used in the reduction cells at any time during the last 10 

years.

1.) Alcoa (Massena West) = 2.46%

2.) Reynolds Metals Co. (Massena East) = 2.80%

The lowest sulfur content anode coke that you believe you could 

consistently obtain in sufficient quantities to operate your 

facility at capacity, long term (e.g. over the next 10 years).

Given concerns about the future availability of low sulfur coke, 

Alcoa believes that the lowest sulfur content anode coke that 

will be available in sufficient quantities to operate Massena at 

capacity long term is 3% sulfur. This 3% sulfur coke will be a 

blend of low and high sulfur material.

Nathan Rufa

Senior Environmental Engineer

Alcoa Primary Metals

Massena Operations

Park Avenue East / PO Box 150

Massena, NY 13662

Tel: 315-764-4285

Fax: 315-764-4460

nathan.rufa@alcoa.com
Before Judge Donlon,

September 19, 1966

No. R66/33.

No. R66/34.

No. R66/35.

No. R66/36.

No. R66/37.

No. R66/38.

No. R66/39.

#### International Packers, Limited *v.*United States, reappraisements R60/19678, etc. (New York). International Packers, Limited *v.*United States, reappraisements R60/22862, etc. (Boston). The Tupman-Thurlow Co., Inc. *v.*United States, reappraisements R61/2383, etc. (Baltimore). International Packers, Ltd. *v.*United States, reappraisements R61/2389, etc. (Baltimore). The Tupman Thurlow Co., Inc. *v.*United States, reappraisements R61/2925, etc. (Boston). Stone & Downer Co. *v.*United States, reappraisements R61/2937 and R61/2938 (Boston). The Tupman Thurlow Co., Inc. *v.*United States, reappraisements R61/10059, R61/10060, and R61/10061 (New Orleans).

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *International Packers, Limited*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 636, Reap. Dec. 11147) and *International Packers, Limited*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 472, Reap. Dec. 10696), the court found and held that export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the canned meat exported from Argentina, during the period January 1,1959, through December 31, 1959, described on the invoices of the entries covered by the appeals for reappraisement recited in schedule “A,” and that such values per dozen tins, net packed, are the respective values shown as *847plaintiffs’ claimed values on schedule “B,” for the respective products and sizes of container described on the invoices and as stated in each entry and recited in said schedule “B,” during those periods which correspond to the time of exportation of the canned meat covered by the appeals for reappraisement recited in schedule “A,” which with schedule “B,” was attached to and made a part of the decisions.