alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EUROPEAN MICRO HOLDINGS, INC.

                                  EXHIBIT 11.01

                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


The calculation of earnings per share are detailed in the table below:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED          SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                             DECEMBER 31,               DECEMBER 31,
EARNINGS                                                    1998      1997            1998        1997
<S>                                                   <C>        <C>             <C>         <C> 

Net income ($ in thousands)                                 $24       $669            $746      $1,154
                                                            ===       ====            ====      ======
   WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES
Outstanding common stock during the period            4,933,900  4,000,000       4,933,900   4,000,000
                                                      ---------  ---------       ---------   ---------

Effect of dilutive stock options                         17,926          -           8,963           -

Diluted weighted average number of shares             4,951,826  4,000,000       4,942,863   4,000,000
                                                      =========  =========       =========   =========

Basic earnings per share                                  $0.00      $0.17           $0.15       $0.29
                                                      =========  =========       =========   =========

Diluted earnings per share                                $0.00      $0.17           $0.15       $0.29
                                                      =========  =========       =========   =========
</TABLE>


During the  three-month  period  ended  December 31,  1998,  the Company  issued
options to purchase 35,000 shares of its common stock at exercise prices ranging
from  $9.1875 to $11.00.  The above  dilutive  earnings  per share  calculations
exclude  the effect of  options to  purchase  20,000  shares of common  stock at
$11.00 per share in the  three-month  period ended December 31, 1998, due to the
fact they were  anti-dilutive.  The year-to-date period ended December 31, 1998,
reflects   only  a  pro-rata   impact  of  all  options  as  such  options  were
anti-dilutive  in the first  quarter of fiscal 1999.  Also see Note 8 related to
contingently  issuable  shares  related  to an  acquisition.  The effect of such
contingent  shares has been excluded from the above dilutive  earnings per share
calculations as the conditions necessary for such contingent shares to be issued
have not been met as of December 31, 1998, and further that no contingent shares
would  have  been  issuable  if  December  31,  1998,  was  also  the end of the
contingency  period.  The  weighted  average  number of shares  used in the 1997
periods reflect a retroactive  adjustment to assume the 4,000,000  shares issued
in  January  1998 in  exchange  for the  shares of  European  Micro UK that were
outstanding for the complete periods in 1997.
No. 52578.

protests 965001-G, etc. (New York).

#### L. Gandolfi & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 46087.

#### Protest 45076-K of Draeger Shipping Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the record presented the protest was overruled.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13-A-14 AND 15D-14 OF					THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

I, James Farinella, certify that:

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of SoftNet Technology Corp

Based in my knowledge, the annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by the annual report.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in the annual 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 annual report:

The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

Designed such discloser controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared.

Evaluated the effectiveness the registrant’s discloser controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the evaluation date.

The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in the this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated:   March 17, 2006

                                                                                                _/s/ James Farinella_                                                                                                     James Farinella				                                                                                                President and Chief Executive Officer

----
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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jerry Treppel, Chief
Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)   Information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.





Date:
      November 15,
      2010
                
                /s/ Jerry TreppelJerry
      TreppelChief
      Executive Officerof
      Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.(Principal
      Executive Officer)





This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 32
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS


In connection with the amended Annual Report of Corus Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert J. Glickman, Chief Executive 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, 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Corus Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Corus Bankshares,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



March 19, 2004                                      /s/ ROBERT J. GLICKMAN
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Robert J. Glickman
                                                    Chief Executive Officer



In connection with the amended Annual Report of Corus Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tim
H. Taylor, 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, 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Corus Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Corus Bankshares,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



March 19, 2004                                      /s/ TIM H. TAYLOR
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Tim. H. Taylor
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN MENZIES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1009 DFL KJM PS

vs.

MARY MUSE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees is pending before the court. Upon review

of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and counsel,

upon in camera review of billing records and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT

FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 

Defendants El Dorado County Grand Jury, Warren, Lacy, Roth, Brunner and

Gumpert move for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. That section provides in relevant

part: “. . . In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of . . . 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 - 1983 

. . ., the Court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a

reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01009-DFL -KJM Document 86 Filed 09/26/05 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

1

 The moving defendants specifically contended in their motion to dismiss that all claims

alleged against them were barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Defendants’

Memorandum, filed July 2, 2004, at 7:12-9:25.

2

Plaintiff’s section 1983 claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1 See Findings and Recommendations filed

January 13, 2005; Order filed March 22, 2005. This court therefore lacks jurisdiction to make an

award of fees under section 1988. See Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291-93 (9th Cir. 1995)

(under Feldman, court was without subject matter jurisdiction and no award of attorneys’ fees

under section 1988 could be made). Defendants do not move on any alternative basis for

attorneys’ fees.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ motion for

attorneys’ fees be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties 

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 26, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

menzies.fee

Case 2:04-cv-01009-DFL -KJM Document 86 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0776 LKK EFB P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court is the January 10, 2008, request for

clarification filed by defendants Chapman, Gower, St. Andre, and Arnold.

This action proceeds on the June 21, 2006, third amended complaint, based upon which

the court found that plaintiff stated cognizable claims against 16 defendants. On April 18, 2007,

defendants Chapman, Gower, St. Andre, and Arnold filed a motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Also

contained within the motion to dismiss was a request by the twelve defendants who did not move

to dismiss to extend the time to file an answer to the third amended complaint. On December 5,

2007, all defendants moved to modify the schedule in this case. On January 3, 2008, the court

granted that motion, vacated the dates set in the schedule and directed all defendants to answer

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 111 Filed 04/03/08 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

2

the complaint. The twelve defendants who did not move to dismiss filed an answer on January

11, 2008. On February 22, 2008, findings and recommendations were issued recommending that

the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Chapman, Gower, St. Andre, and Arnold be granted in

part and denied in part. This included the recommendation that if the district judge adopted the

findings and recommendations, then defendants Chapman, Gower, St. Andre, and Arnold be

given 15 days from the date of service of the district judge’s order to file and serve an answer to

the third amended complaint. On March 25, 2008, the district judge adopted the February 22,

2008, findings and recommendations in full. The time for defendants Chapman, Gower, St.

Andre and Arnold to file a responsive pleading is governed by the March 25, 2008, order

resolving the motion to dismiss. 

Accordingly, the January 10, 2008, request for clarification is GRANTED and it is

ORDERED that:

1. The portion of the court’s January 3, 2008, order directing defendants Chapman,

Gower, St. Andre and Arnold to answer the complaint within ten days is vacated; all other

portions of that order remain in effect; and

2. The time for defendants Chapman, Gower, St. Andre and Arnold to file a responsive

pleading is governed by the March 25, 2008, order resolving the motion to dismiss.

Dated: April 3, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 111 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 2
CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




   We consent to the incorporation by reference,

        (a)  In the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-14771) pertaining
             to Journal Employees' Stock Trust and in the related prospectus,
             and

        (b)  In the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-15669)
             pertaining to Journal Communications, Inc. Employees' Stock
             Trust submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission for
             filing on November 5, 1996 with respect to 1,500,000 units of
             beneficial interest in said trust, and in the related prospectus

   of our report dated February 3, 1997 with respect to the consolidated
   financial statements of Journal Employees' Stock Trust included in this
   Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.




                                      ERNST & YOUNG LLP

   Milwaukee, Wisconsin
   March 31, 1997
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0914 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM166AD
737 - 53A1301 --- 9/3/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket **MA Y BE VIEWED AT:**  Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4000 

AN ACT 

To reaffirm the applicability of the Indian Reorganization 

Act to the Lytton Rancheria of California, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4000 ES

1 SECTION 1. LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA LAND RE2 AFFIRMATION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi4 sion of law, the Lytton Rancheria of California is subject 

5 to the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the ‘‘In6 dian Reorganization Act’’) (48 Stat. 984, chapter 576; 25 

7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), and the Secretary of the Interior 

8 may acquire and take into trust land for the benefit of 

9 the Lytton Rancheria of California pursuant to section 5 

10 of that Act (25 U.S.C. 5108). 

11 (b) LAND TO BE MADE PART OF THE RESERVA12 TION.—Land taken into trust pursuant to subsection (a) 

13 shall be— 

14 (1) part of the reservation of the Lytton 

15 Rancheria of California; and 

16 (2) administered in accordance with the laws 

17 and regulations generally applicable to property held 

18 in trust by the United States for an Indian Tribe. 

Passed the Senate December 12, 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4000 

AN ACT 

To reaffirm the applicability of the Indian Reorgafornia, and for other purposes. nization Act to the Lytton Rancheria of Cali-
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment. 

Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. 

Governor 

Thomas W. Easterly 

Commissioner 

Mr. George T. Czerniak 

Acting Director, Air and Radiation Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, Illinois 60604-3950 

Dear Mr. Czerniak: 

May 24, 2012 

100 North Senate Avenue 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 

(317) 232-8603 

Toll Free (800) 451-6027 

www.idem.IN.gov 

Re: Clarification on Indiana's December 12, 

2011 "Infrastructure" State Implementation Plan 

to Address the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

This letter is in response to a request by your staff for clarification regarding Indiana's 

infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we 

want to clarify how our existing SIP meets the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), 

relating to Section 115 and Section 126 of the Clean Air Act. 

Indiana has no pending obligations under Section 115 of the Clean Air Act, which pertains 

to international pollution abatement. With respect to the requirements of Section 126(a), 

which would require Indiana to notify neighboring States of new or modified sources, 

Indiana's U.S. EPA-approved Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations 

contain the provisions to satisfy the applicable requirements of Section 126(a). Indiana has 

no obligations under Section 126{b), which pertains to petitions for finding that major 

sources emit or would emit prohibited air pollutants. 

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Scott Deloney, Air Programs 

Branch Chief, Office of Air Quality at (317) 233-5694. 

KB/cp 

cc: Scott Deloney, IDEM 

Recycled Paper (i) 

Sincerely, 

Keith Baugues 

Assistant Commissioner 

Office of Air Quality 

An Equal Opportunity Employer Please Recycle 0
M14004 – Chemical 4

Part II, Section A.2 and A.3 – Industrial Sites Con trolled by Submitter Occupational Exposure and Environmental Release and Disposal Page 1 of 1



## CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

215 Deposit Ticket Report

To view a 215 Deposit Ticket report, complete the following steps:

1. From the Reports tab, click Check Processing Reports. The View Check Processing 

Reports page appears. 

2. Under Business Reports, click 215 Deposit Ticket Report. The 215 Deposit Ticket

parameters page appears.

3. Enter the search criteria for the report you would like to view.

Under Report Filters,

• Select a From and To Start Date range

• Click Yes to Include Subordinate OTC Endpoint

• The From and To Start Date range is searchable for a duration of up to 45 days. 

Data for the report is available for a duration of one year.

• Click the Yes option to generate a report that contains data for lower level OTC 

Endpoints.

4. Under Expand All/Contract All, click the Plus Sign to expand the list of OTC Endpoints 

and locate the appropriate OTC Endpoint.

CHK denotes a check capture OTC Endpoint; TGA denotes a deposit processing OTC 

Endpoint; M denotes a mapped accounting code; an open lock denotes access 

permission; and a closed lock denotes no access permission.

Application Tips

Application Tip
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

5. Click an OTC Endpoint to initiate the report. The 215 Deposit Ticket Report preview page 

appears as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: 215 Deposit Ticket Report Preview Page

A 215 Deposit Ticket report will not generate for any day that is deemed a holiday 

during Monday - Friday hours.

6. Under Export as, 

• Select PDF, Word, or Excel format

• Click Download

Or

• Click Print PDF Report

Click Previous to return to the previous page.

Application Tip

Additional Button