alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc.
Exhibit 11--Earnings per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Three months ended Sept. 30,  Nine months ended Sept. 30,
                                               2002          2001          2002          2001
                                             --------      --------      --------      --------
<S>                                          <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Numerator:
     Net income                              $171,957      $ 61,643      $406,540      $586,833


Denominator:
     Denominator for basic earnings per
         share--weighted-average shares       388,052       388,052       388,052       388,052

     Effect of dilutive securities:
         Nonqualified stock options             6,662         7,530         7,231         7,530
                                             --------      --------      --------      --------
     Denominator for diluted earnings
         per share                            394,714       395,582       395,293       395,582
                                             ========      ========      ========      ========


Basic earnings per share                     $   0.44      $   0.16      $   1.05      $   1.51
                                             ========      ========      ========      ========

Diluted earnings per share                   $   0.44      $   0.16      $   1.03      $   1.48
                                             ========      ========      ========      ========
</TABLE>

                                 Page 23 of 25
#### Calvin L. Stinson, Appellant, *vs.*Jesse W. Taylor, Commissioner of Labor In re Wage Board.

Kennebec.

Opinion, July 23, 1942.

*98
      *Blaisdell & Blaisdell,*for petitioner-appellant.

*Frank I. Cowan,*Attorney General,

*John S.S. Fessenden,*for the Commissioner of Labor.

Sitting: Sturgis, C. J., Thaxter, Hudson, Manser, Worster, Murchie, JJ.

Per curiam.

Appeal from the decision of a Justice of the Superior Court in an action brought by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry of this State to enforce the minimum fair wage rates established by the Wage Board for women and minors employed in the Industry of Packing of Fish and Fish Products.

Under Section 12 of Chapter 289 Public Laws, 1939, by which this proceeding is authorized, it is provided that the Commissioner of Labor and Industry as conditions precedent to the maintenance of an action to enforce minimum fair wage rates established for this Industry shall file in the office of the clerk of the Superior Court for Kennebec County the record of hearing before the Wage Board, together with its report, findings and determinations as filed with the Commissioner and his certificate of service thereof on each employer in this state of whom he has information or record. Here neither the record of hearing before the Wage Board nor the certificate of service on employers by the Commissioner of Labor- and Industry have been filed. For this failure to comply with the statute the *99Justice of the Superior Court from whose decision appeal is taken was without jurisdiction and the proceeding before him was a nullity. *Stinson, Apl’t.*v. *Commissioner of Labor,*137 Me., 332, 334, 17 A. (2d), 760.

On this record without a consideration of other questions raised by the appeal the mandate is

*Appeal sustained.*

*Case remanded for dismissal for want of jurisdiction.*
No. 66254.

#### Norman G. Jensen, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/19772 (Pembina).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decharacterized horsemeat, fresh, chilled, or frozen, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Arlene Hamilton 

Town Clerk 

Box 237 

Gypsum, CO 81637 

Dear Ms. Hamilton: 

DENVER, COLORADO 80203 IN REPLY REFER TO 

We correct the sales tax returns, but we 

should have a copy of your amended ordinance 

for our files. 

r;c.CEIVED • 104. 

Tax Examiner . 

December 9, l9760EC 2 9 '\976 

l:>" . Of HEVENUB 11-lcoMING MAlL 

In reviewing your town ordinance, I note that the ordinance does 

not provide for a vendor's fee. We will set up your tax accord- ingly and will provide information on the returns for the merchants in your town that there is no vendor's fee allowable. 

I would appreciate, however, if you would confirm this for me and advise me if it was your intention to not allow a vendor's fee or if this was merely an oversight when the ordinance was drafted. 

Very truly yours, 

Sales. Use and 

Cigarette Tax Section 

JAM:cj 

Dear Sir: 

December 15, 1976 

This was an oversight on our part and was to be included in the ordinace. 

Please allow the merchants a 3-1/3% vendor's fee. If there is any question 

please advice. Thank you. 

(Itrs.) Arlene Hamilton 

Town Clerk
ex10_3.htm


    Exhibit
10.3

    


    THIRD
AMENDMENT

    TO
THE

    DOLLAR
TREE, INC.

    2004
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CASH BONUS PLAN

    


    


    THIS
THIRD AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the Dollar Tree, Inc. 2004 Executive
Officer Cash Bonus Plan (the “Plan”) is made effective as of the 13th day of
March, 2008 by Dollar Tree, Inc. (the “Company”).  All capitalized
terms in this Amendment not otherwise defined shall have their respective
meanings under the Plan.

    


    WHEREAS,
on March 13, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Company approved an increase in
the annual limit of tax-deductible bonus compensation from $1,000,000 to
$3,000,000.

    


    NOW,
THEREFORE, the Company hereby adopts this Amendment upon the following terms and
conditions effective immediately:

    


    1.           Section
4.c. of the Plan shall be amended by striking $1,000,000 and inserting
$3,000,000 in its place.

    


    2.           Except
as modified hereby, the Plan shall continue in full force and
effect.

    


    WITNESS
the signature of the undersigned officer of Dollar Tree, Inc.

    


    


    DOLLAR
TREE, INC.

    


    


    By:_/s/ Bob
Sasser_______

    Name:  Bob
Sasser

    Title:  President
& CEO

    Date:  June
19, 2008
# C_2016145EN.01002001.xml

| 25.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 February 2016 — The Shirtmakers BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-59/16)

(2016/C 145/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Shirtmakers BV

Applicant:

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party:

Question referred

Question referred

Should Article 32(1)(e)(i) of the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘cost of transport’ should be understood to mean the amounts charged by the actual carriers of the imported goods, even where those carriers have not charged those amounts directly to the buyer of the imported goods but to another operator who has concluded the contracts of carriage with actual carriers on behalf of the buyer of the imported goods, and who has charged the buyer higher amounts in connection with his efforts in arranging the transport?

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20516

Conference Calendar

 

JOHN R. STRICKLAND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GLENDA GIVENS; PACE, Lieutenant; OBERGON, Captain;

TIMOTHY CARTER, Captain; L. N. HODGES; MORRIS M.

JONES, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CV-5418

- - - - - - - - - -

October 22, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

John Strickland, Texas prisoner # 539477, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as

frivolous. He argues that Glenda Givens retaliated against him

by filing a false disciplinary charge because Strickland made a

disparaging remark about Givens, that other prison officials

conspired with Givens to have false disciplinary action taken

against Strickland, and that the disciplinary proceedings and

subsequent punishment violated his constitutional rights.
No. 98-20516

-2-

We review the district court’s dismissal of Strickland’s 

§ 1983 action for abuse of discretion. See Siglar v. Hightower,

112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). A prisoner civil rights

action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in

fact. Id. 

Strickland has not demonstrated that Givens’s filing of the

disciplinary charge would not have occurred but for Strickland’s

invocation of a constitutional right, and Strickland’s claim of

retaliation lacks an arguable basis in law. See Johnson v.

Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct.

559 (1997). Because the disciplinary sanction Strickland

received consisted only of solitary confinement without

extraordinary circumstances, his claim that false disciplinary

charges filed against him resulted in a constitutional violation

also lacks an arguable basis in law. See Pichardo v. Kinker, 73

F.3d 612, 612-13 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court did not

abuse its discretion in dismissing Strickland’s § 1983 action as

frivolous. 

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Wilson W. Cheung, certifythat:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of AXT, Inc.;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I am responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on my mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors:

 

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Dated: November 5, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Wilson W. Cheung    |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                    |   | Wilson W. Cheung        |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4753 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Exhibit 32.1

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, J. Stephen Barley, President, Secretary and Treasurer of Tuscany Minerals, Ltd., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Tuscany Minerals, Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2005 (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 Tuscany Minerals, Ltd. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated:  March 31, 2006

/s/ J. Stephen Barley

J. Stephen Barley

President, Secretary and Treasurer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Tuscany Minerals, Ltd. and will be retained by Tuscany Minerals, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VIACHESLAV DMITRIYEVICH NEVROV and YURI NEVROV, Petitioners,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 06-70471 Agency Nos. A072-115-988 A072-115-986
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 11, 2010 San Francisco, California Before: SILVERMAN, FISHER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Viacheslav Dmitriyevich Nevrov and his son Yuri Nevrov (collectively, the Nevrovs) petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against To rture (CAT). We have jurisdiction 

# FILED
MAY 17 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Tekle v. Mukasey , 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BI A’s conclusion that the Nevrovs’ experiences of discrimination and harassmen t in Latvia do not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s failure to find a well-founded fear of persecution, as the Nevrovs fa iled to establish the existence of an individualized risk of persecution or a pa ttern or practice of persecution against similarly situated individuals. See Lolong v. Gonzales , 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Although the Nevrovs may be stateless, that fact alone does not warrant a grant of asylum. See Ahmed v. Keisler , 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007). They are still required to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, see id ., which they have failed to do in this case. Because the Nevrovs failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily fail to meet the more stringe nt standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). The Nevrovs did not raise any challenge to the BIA’s denial of their CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano3 v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument in the opening brief are deemed waived). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of AXT, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wilson W. Cheung, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”),that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: November 7, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Wilson W. Cheung    |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                    |   | Wilson W. Cheung        |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13851-13852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06113]

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

ENVIRONMETAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9924-53-Region-5]

Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; Shaw 
Road Drum Site, Clyde, Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response,

[[Page 13852]]

Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 
9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement 
for recovery of past response costs concerning the Shaw Road Drum Site 
in Clyde, Ohio with the settling party: Lamar M. Durst Sr. Estate. The 
settlement requires the settling party to pay $50,000 to the Hazardous 
Substance Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the 
settling party pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). 
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, 
the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. 
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or 
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is an 
appropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. 
EPA Record Center, Room 714 U.S. EPA, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathleen R. Martwick, Associate 
Regional Counsel, EPA Region 5, Office of Regional Counsel, C-14J, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 
60604-3590; telephone number (312) 886-7166; fax number (312) 697-2060; 
email address: martwick.cathleen@epa.gov.

    Dated: March 9, 2015.
Doug Ballotti,
Acting Director, Superfund Division, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015-06113 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
January 2013 to January 2014 Schedule

For Treasury-Disbursed Recurring Benefit Payments

Settlement Dates

Agency Jan’13 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

OPM Office of Personnel Management Civil Service Retirement/Annuity

1/2** 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/3** 7/1 8/1 9/3** 10/1 

RRB Railroad Retirement Board Railroad Retirement/Annuity

1/2** 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/3** 7/1 8/1 9/3** 10/1 

VA Department of Veterans Affairs Compensation and Pension

12/31* 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 5/31* 7/1 8/1 8/30* 10/1 

SSA Social Security Administration 3rd of Month

1/3 2/1* 3/1* 4/3 5/3 6/3 7/3 8/2* 9/3 10/3 

SSACycle -2 2nd Wednesday

1/9 2/13 3/13 4/10 5/8 6/12 7/10 8/14 9/11 10/9 

SSACycle -3 3rd Wednesday

1/16 2/20 3/20 4/17 5/15 6/19 7/17 8/21 9/18 10/16 

SSACycle -4 4th Wednesday

1/23 2/27 3/27 4/24 5/22 6/26 7/24 8/28 9/25 10/23 

SSI Supplemental Security Income 

12/31* 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 5/31* 7/1 8/1 8/30* 10/1 

DOL-Black Lung (Legacy Payments) 

1/3 2/1* 3/1* 4/3 5/3 6/3 7/3 8/2* 9/3 10/3 

DOL – Black Lung

(New Enrollees) 

1/15 2/15 3/15 4/15 5/15 6/14* 7/15 8/15 9/13* 10/15 

. * = Settlement Date Adjusted to the Preceding Business Day ** = Settlement Date Adjusted to the Following Business Day 

Prepared by the U. S. Department of the Treasury/Bureau of the Fiscal Service
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC
SPA RENTAL, LLC, d/b/a/ MSI AVIATION, Complainant, 

### v. SOMERSET- PULASKI COUNTY AIRPORT BOARD, Respondent. FAA Docket No. 16- 13-02

NOT ICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with 

### FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-AssistedAirport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination 

### will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to June 30, 2015
. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

Randall S. Fiertz Director, Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 

# #v7 I

## ~ 2.!JI 

## r Date

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 12,2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime to June 30, 2015 for FAA Docket No. 16

- 13

-02 addressed to: Counsel for Complainant: Konrad Kuczak 130 West Second Street, Suite 1010 Dayton, OH 45402
Counsel for Respondent: Rachel Owsley Bethany A. Breetz Stites & Harbison, PLLC 400 West Market Street, Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202
Hand delivered to: 

### fAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

### fAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100

laudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

KARAM ELIAS,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

 State.

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-15-00057-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20100C07299)

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief until 

October 7, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE 

STATE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jo Anne Bernal, the State’s Attorney, prepare the 

State’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before October 7, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3

rd day of September, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.