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

                                                                                       Exhibit 11.0

                                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                                                         Three months ended       Nine months ended
                                                         September 30, 2005      September 30, 2005
                                                         ------------------------------------------
<S>                                                      <C>                     <C>
Income available to common stockholders                  $          100,597      $          289,361

Weighted average shares outstanding                               2,408,339               2,352,808

Basic earnings per share                                 $             0.04      $             0.12

Income for diluted earnings per share                    $          100,597      $          289,361

Total weighted average common shares and
    equivalents outstanding for diluted computation               2,408,339               2,352,808

Diluted earnings per share                               $             0.04      $             0.12

</TABLE>



                                                  17
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4061]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-58,442]


Weyerhaeuser Company, Aberdeen, WA; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on January 25, 2006, applicable to workers of 
Weyerhaeuser Company, Large Log Mill, Aberdeen, Washington. The notice 
was published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2006 (71 FR 
7077).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The Department limited 
the certification coverage to only workers of the Large Log Mill of the 
subject firm. New corrected information revealed that the Aberdeen, 
Washington location of Weyerhaeuser Company operates as a fully 
integrated work site and that the workers are not separately 
identifiable by product or location at the production complex.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to cover all 
workers manufacturing softwood dimensional lumber at Weyerhaeuser 
Company, Aberdeen, Washington, who were adversely affected by increased 
customer imports.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification 
determination to properly reflect this matter.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-58,442 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    <bullet> All workers of Weyerhaeuser Company, Aberdeen, 
Washington, who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on after November 21, 2004, through January 25, 2008, are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative 
trade Adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 
1997.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of January 2007.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-4061 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 41 (Friday, March 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3673]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5708]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determinations: ``The Old Order and the New: P.H. Emerson and 
Photography 1885-1895''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``The Old Order and the New: P.H. Emerson 
and Photography 1885-1895'', imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, 
California, from on or about March 27, 2007, until on or about July 8, 
2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to 
be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: (202) 453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, 
SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: February 26, 2007.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E7-3673 Filed 3-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                       1,701,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               45,829,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,507,000
<INVENTORY>                                 99,984,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           147,631,000
<PP&E>                                      31,721,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,643,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             200,479,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       66,528,000
<BONDS>                                     22,734,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  94,706,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               200,479,000
<SALES>                                    202,405,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           202,405,000
<CGS>                                      149,788,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              149,788,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               456,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,157,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             17,786,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,221,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,565,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                266,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,299,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
        

</TABLE>
No. 64864.

#### Frederik Lunning, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/18811 (New York).

*367Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vases in mineral colors similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62694, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6216

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODERICK DONTA STRONG,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (4:09-cr-00020-H-1; 4:12-cv-00177-H)

Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roderick Donta Strong, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roderick Donta Strong seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 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) (2006). 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) 

(2006). 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Strong has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability 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
Case No. 8,440.

#### LOCKE v. CANNON.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 186.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1819.

Bail in Civil Case — Right to Appear without Bail — Plea to Jurisdiction.

Upon a common-law attachment under the Virginia statute of 20th December, 1792 (section 0), the court may. in its discretion, suffer the principal defendant to appear without bail, and without discharging the attached effects, at the first term after the return of the attachment, to plead to tlie jurisdiction.

This was a common-law attachment against an absconding debtor, issued by a justice of the peace, under the act of Virginia of 20th of December. 1792 (page 11G, sections 6-8j. A vessel belonging to the defendant and one Primus Woodland was attached, and judgment entered at this term, which was the first term after the attachment.

Mr. Mason, for defendant,

offered to appear without bail, for the purpose of pleading that the defendant was never an inhabitant of the District of Columbia, and therefore could not be an absconding debtor, and the justice had no jurisdiction to issue the attachment.

Mr. Swann, for plaintiff,

contended that the defendant could not appear without bail.

Mr. Mason, in reply.

If bail be given, the defendant can only plead to the debt; not to the jurisdiction.

THE COURT

(MORSELL, Circuit Judge, absent)

set aside the judgment, and permitted Mr. Mason to appear for defendant without bail, and without discharging the attached effects; and to plead to the jurisdiction as suggested.
**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
 
 I,
Scott V. Fainor, President and Chief Executive Officer and Eugene T. Sobol,
Senior Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of KNBT Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:
 
 1.
    The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
      ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
      U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
 
 2.
    The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.
 
 
 DATE:May
      10, 2005
    BY:/S/
      Scott V. FainorScott
      V. FainorPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerDATE:May
      10, 2005
    BY:/S/
      Eugene T. SobolEugene
      T. SobolSenior
      Executive Vice President, TreasurerChief
      Operating Officer andChief
      Financial Officer
 
 
 
 A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to KNBT Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained
by KNBT Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 14
 
     If you are
in a situation which you believe may violate or lead to a violation of the Code, follow the
guidelines described in Section 14 of the Code.
 1. Compliance with Laws, Rules and Regulations




---



##### 



2. Conflicts of Interests
   3. Insider Trading




---



##### 



4. Corporate Opportunities
  5. Competition and Fair Dealing




---



##### 



6. Discrimination and Harassment
  7. Health and Safety
   8. Record-Keeping




---



##### 



9. Confidentiality
  10. Protection and Proper Use of Company Assets




---



##### 



11. Payments to Government Personnel
   12. Waivers of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
  13. Reporting and Illegal or Unethical Behavior
  14. Compliance Procedures




---



##### 




    
    Make sure you have all the facts. In order to reach the right solutions, we
must be as fully informed as possible.
    
    Ask yourself: What specifically am I being asked to do? Does it seem
unethical or improper? This will enable you to focus on the specific question you
are faced with, and the alternatives you have. Use your judgment and common sense;
if something seems unethical or improper, it probably is.
    
    Clarify your responsibility and role. In most situations, there is shared
responsibility. Are your colleagues informed? It may help to get other involved
and discuss the problem.
    
    Discuss the problem with your supervisor. This is the basic guidance for
all situations. In many cases, your supervisor will be more knowledgeable about the
question, and will appreciate being brought into the decision-making process.
Remember that it is your supervisors responsibility to help solve problems.
    
    Seek help from Company resources. You should consult the Companys Employee
Handbook. In the rare case where it may not be appropriate to discuss an issue with
your supervisor, or where you do not feel comfortable approaching your supervisor
with your questions, discuss it locally with your office manager or your Human
Resource manager.
    
    You may report ethical violations in confidence and without fear of
retaliation. The Company does not permit retaliation of any kind against employees
for good faith reports of ethical violations.
    
    Always ask first, act later. If you are unsure of what to do in any
situation, seek guidance before you act.
Before the First Division,

May 27, 1959

No. 63103.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

protest 321719-K (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of glued stock pine lumber of a length, width, and thickness which is recognized in the trade as lumber, if of 1-pieee material. Applying the principle of the decision in *B. A., McKenzie & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 52, C.D. 1903) to the stipulated facts, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****USAFA discovery**
 
1998:Jul-Sep
1999:Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun | Jul-Sep
2000:Jan-Mar | Apr-Jun |Jul-Sep | Oct-Dec
 
 
SuDoc Number:D 305.18:
Item Number:Link0425-A-17 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000556047
 
February 11, 2020
No. 47867.

#### Protests 10628-K, etc., of Absorbo Beer Pad Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated between counsel that the involved merchandise is not plate finished, supercalendered or friction calendered, laminated by means of an adhesive substance, coated, surface-stained or dyed, lined or vat-lined. In accordance with said stipulation and the record in *Absorbo Beer Pad Co.*v. *United States*(30 C. C. P. A. 24, C. A. D., 209), which was incorporated in the case at bar, the pulpboard in question was found to be not embossed, decorated, or ornamented in any manner, and therefore held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1402 as claimed.
No. 48511.

#### Protest 95448-K of Italian Furniture Frames Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial the examiner testified that in case 398 two-sofa fronts in excess were found and there was nothing to indicate that they were-contained in other cases on the invoice. The plaintiff testified there were two sofa fronts missing in case 399, but as the invoice contained all of the merchandise shipped he did not think it necessary to file a claim for shortage. In view of *Borgfeldt*v. *United States*(11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 421, T. D. 39433), since the burden of proving that there had been a nonimportation was not met by competent evidence on behalf of the importer the protest was overruled, the court stating that the importers may not submit their protests to this court without any supporting-testimony to establish that the missing articles were not in fact landed in this country.
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 

1

ROBERT A. NAEVE (State Bar No. 106095) 

SHAWN M. LARSEN (State Bar No. 204439) 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

19900 MacArthur Boulevard 

Suite 1200 

Irvine, California 92612-2445 

Telephone: (949) 251-7500 

Attorneys for Defendant 

TARGET CORPORATION sued erroneously as 

TARGET CORPORATION dba 

TARGET T-615 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHERIE WHITE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TARGET CORPORATION dba 

TARGET T-615; and DOES 1 

through 10, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV.S-04-1338 DFL (PAN) 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), plaintiff Sherie White 

(“Plaintiff”) and defendant Target Corporation (“Target”) hereby stipulate that this 

action, including all claims for relief that have been or could have been asserted by 

Plaintiff in connection with the general set of facts and circumstances underlying this 

action, shall be dismissed with prejudice in their entirety. The parties also stipulate that 

each party shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs in this action. The parties 

further stipulate that this Court shall retain jurisdiction to the extent necessary to enforce 

Case 2:04-cv-01338-DFL-CMK Document 11 Filed 05/03/05 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

27

28 

2

the terms of the Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement reached between the 

parties. 

Dated: April 7, 2005. LYNN HUBBARD, III 

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

By: /s/ Lynn Hubbard 

 Lynn Hubbard, III 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SHERIE WHITE 

Dated: April 28, 2005. ROBERT A. NAEVE 

SHAWN M. LARSEN 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 

By: /s/ Shawn Larsen 

 Shawn M. Larsen 

Attorneys for Defendant TARGET 

CORPORATION 

ORDER 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 4/29/2005 

_/s/ David F. Levi_______ 

DAVID F. LEVI 

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01338-DFL-CMK Document 11 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 2
May 22, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LEON THOMAS, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00913-CV V.

CHANDRA JONES, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard the parties’ agreed motion to vacate the judgment 

signed by the court below on August 22, 2012, made final by an order of severance 

signed September 13, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the judgment VACATED AND REMAND the cause to the 

trial court for proceedings in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. 

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 
 
 I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Corumel Minerals Corp. for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Corumel Minerals Corp.
 
 
 
 
 
 By:                    /s/ Bruce P. Young
 
 Name: Bruce P. Young
 
 Title: Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
 
 Date: November 05, 2003
 
 
 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****India�s changing Afghanistan policy:regional and global implications**
 
PDF | Mobi | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:D 101.146:AF 3/3
Item Number:0307-A-31 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000894460
 
February 6, 2020
No. 59547.

protests 111643-K (B), etc. (Pembina).

#### Norman G. Jensen et al. *v.*United States,

*339Opinion by

Donlon, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained. Protest 111643-K (B) having been abandoned as to entry No. 4731-A, said protest was dismissed as to that entry.
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Patrick R. Holley,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2006 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

California Department of

Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoNovember 1, 2005, defendant requested an extension of time

to serve responses to discovery requests. Good cause appearing,

defendant’s request is granted and time is extended until 30 days

from the date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: November 3, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 29 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 1