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

                                             EXHIBIT 11.1
                                    ESPEY MFG. & ELECTRONICS CORP.
                                Computation of per Share Net Income as
                                  Disclosed in Item 13 of Form 10-KSB

                                                      Five years ended June 30,

                                      2007           2006           2005           2004           2003
                              ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------

                           <c>            <c>            <c>            <c>            <c>
Computation of net income
     per share:

         BASIC
         Weighted average
         number of primary
         shares outstanding      2,048,626      2,012,761      2,021,234      2,027,326      2,050,400
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============

Net income ................   $  2,544,720   $  1,558,016   $    978,920   $    960,826   $    964,700
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============


Per share-basic ...........   $       1.24   $        .77   $        .48   $        .48   $        .47
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============

         DILUTED
         Weighted average
         number of primary
         shares outstanding      2,077,664      2,049,455      2,043,208      2,044,688      2,055,372
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============

         Net effect of
         dilutive stock
         options based on
         treasury stock
         method ...........         29,038         36,694         21,974         17,362          4,972
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============

Net income ................   $  2,544,720   $  1,558,016   $    978,920   $    960,826   $    964,700
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============

Per share-diluted .........   $       1.23   $        .76   $        .48   $        .47   $        .47
                              ============   ============   ============   ============   ============
</table>


32
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51250

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VICTOR MANUEL MORENO-PARRILLA,

also known as Victor A. Moreno,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-1283-ALL-DB

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Victor Manuel Moreno-Parrilla appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Moreno complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He

argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Moreno

thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the two-year

maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 
No. 02-51250

-2-

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Moreno acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Jagged Peak, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 27, 2008, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 7, 2008
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ Paul B. Demirdjian 
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mniteb $>tates QCourtof§ppeaIs fortbejfeberaIQCircuit

CHRISTINE BALDRIDGE (DOING BUSINESS AS INVENTORY DISCOUNT PRINTERS),

Petitioner,


### v. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, Respondent.

2012-6001

On appeal from the Government Accountability Office, ContractAppeals Board no. 11-72994.



### ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.



### ORDER Christine Baldridge moves for reconsideration of the court's August 22, 2012 order denying her motion to correct and supplement the certified list and requests leave to file an amended complaint. The Government Printing Office opposes. Baldridge also files a corrected motion for leave to file a corrected briefout oftime.BALDRIDGE V. GPO 2 A party "adversely affected by

... an order ofthe clerk may move for reliefwithin 14 days ofthe order or action." Federal Circuit Rule 27(k). Because Baldridge's motion for reconsideration was filed on October 10, 2012, well after the time for seeking review ofthe court's August 22, 2012 order, we deny the motion. Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion for reconsideration is denied. (2) The motions for leave to file a corrected briefout of time are granted. The corrected brief is accepted for filing.
FOR THE COURT 

## DEC 14 2012 Date

cc: Christine Baldridge A. Bondurant Eley, Esq. s26 /s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk



## u.s.

## eouRfb~PEALS FOR THEFEDERt'J r.mculT



## DEC 142011. JANHORBALY 

### CLERK
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21716]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Review of a Revised 
Information Collection; Presidential Management Intern Program 
Application (3206-0082)

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management has submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget a request for clearance of a revised information collection. The 
Office of Personnel Management is requesting OMB to authorize emergency 
procession of collection of information associated with the 
Presidential Management Intern Program Application. Emergency 
processing and approval of the 1997 Presidential Management Intern 
Program Application is necessary to facilitate the timely nomination, 
selection and placement of Presidential Management Intern Finalists in 
Federal agencies.
    We estimate 2000 applications will be received and processed in 
1997. Each application takes approximately 2 hours to complete (one 
hour for applicants (nominees) and one hour for nominating school 
officials). The annual estimated burden is 4000 hours. For copies of 
this proposal, contact Jim Farron on (202) 418-3208 or E-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a7cdcac1c6d5d5c8c9e7c8d7ca89c0c8d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee8483888f9c9c8180ae819e83c0898198">[email protected]</span></a>.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before August 
21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: 
Kathleen A. Keeny, Presidential Management Intern Program, U.S. Office 
of Personnel Management, William J. Green, Jr., Federal Building, 600 
Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106
    and
Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information & Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management & Budget, New Executive Office Building, 
NW, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION CONTACT:
Kathleen A. Keeney, (215) 597-1920.

Office of Personnel Management.
James B. King,
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
[FR Doc. 97-21716 Filed 8-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0325-01-M


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


    
      	
              Exhibit 10.16

            	 	 
	
              Summary
                of New Jersey Resources Corporation Non-Employee Director
                Compensation

            
	 	 	 
	
              Annual
                Retainer Fee:

              (effective
                November 14, 2007)

            	 	
               

              $30,000
                cash (paid quarterly)

            
	 	 	
              800
                shares of NJR Common Stock

              (paid
                annually)

            
	 	 	 
	
              Lead
                Non-Management Director Fee:

            	 	
              $10,000

            
	 	 	 
	
              Annual
                Retainer for Committee Chairs:

            	 	 
	
              Audit
                Committee Chair:

            	 	
              $10,000

            
	
              Executive
                Committee Chair:

            	 	
              $10,000

            
	
              Financial
                Policy Committee Chair:

            	 	
              $5,000

            
	
              Leadership
                Development and Compensation Committee Chair:

            	 	
              $5,000

            
	
              Nominating/Corporate
                Governance Committee Chair:

            	 	
              $5,000

            
	
              Committee
                Meeting Fees:

            	 	
              $1,500
                per meeting
                attended
No. 99-7923.

#### Arvidson *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

November 18, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00564-CV

VINCENT ZAHORIK, Appellant

V.

METROPLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, MOHSIN NOON, AMY 

CATCHING, AND SUZANNE WYZINSKI-SMITH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-61851

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 24, 2014. The clerk’s record 

was filed September 11, 2014. No reporter’s record was taken. No brief was filed.

On October 21, 2014, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. App. P. 42.3(b). Appellant filed no response. Accordingly, 

appellee’s motion is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown and Wise.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.24

                               [MAXUS LETTERHEAD]

                                 April 13, 1995


TO:      Michael C. Forrest


         RE:     Change in Control Agreement

Dear Mike:

         This letter has reference to the letter agreement dated April 7, 1995
between you and Maxus concerning Maxus' obligations under that certain Change
in Control Agreement dated June 1, 1992.  You and Maxus are engaged in
discussions concerning your possible employment beyond the June 30, 1995 date
specified in said letter.  In order to facilitate such discussions, you and
Maxus have mutually agreed to extend the date by which Maxus must pay you
severance compensation as contemplated in said letter agreement until July 3,
1995.  Except as modified as to the payment date by the preceding sentence,
Maxus' obligations under said April 7 letter agreement remain in full force and
effect.

         Please indicate your agreement to the foregoing by signing and
returning a copy of this letter.

                                           MAXUS ENERGY CORPORATION


                                           /s/ MARK J. GENTRY


                                           Mark J. Gentry, Vice President


AGREED TO
APRIL 13, 1995


/s/ MICHAEL C. FORREST
-------------------------------
Michael C. Forrest
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19832]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License; M.E. Harris & 
Company

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent 
to grant to M.E. Harris & Company a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive 
license in the United States to practice the Government owned 
inventions described in: U.S. Patent Number 5,190,624 entitled 
Electrorheological Fluid Chemical Processing; U.S. Patent Number 
5,194,181 entitled Process for Shaping Articles from Electrosetting 
Compositions; U.S. Patent Number 5,518,664 entitled Programmable 
Electroset Processes; U.S. Patent Pending; Navy Case Number 75,833 
entitled Programmable Electroset Materials and Process.
    Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has 60 days 
from the date of this notice to file written objections along with 
supporting evidence, if any. Written objections are to be filed with 
the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Code 004, 9500 
MacArthur Blvd., West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dick Bloomquist, Director, 
Technology Transfer, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, 
Code 0117, 9500 MacArthur Blvd., West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700, 
telephone number (301) 227-4299.

    Dated: July 16, 1997.
M. D. Sutton,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-19832 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Exhibit
    11. Computation of per share earnings
    Year Ended December 31,2009


2008


2007(000s except share data)Numerator:Net income available to common shareholders for basic and
    diluted earnings per share

$
19,012


$
30,877


$
34,483Denominator:Denominator for basic earnings per common share 
    weighted average shares(1)


12,404,305



11,969,937



11,844,712Effect of diluted securities:Stock options(1)


246,665



405,159



474,918Denominator for diluted earnings per common share 
    diluted weighted average shares(1)


12,560,970



12,375,096



12,319,630Basic earnings per common share(1)

$
1.53


$
2.58


$
2.91Diluted earnings per common share(1)


1.50



2.50



2.80     (1)
    
    Adjusted for the effects of the 10 percent stock dividends
    in 2009 and 2008.
*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR.R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should

not e 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. 01-40986

Summary Calendar

 

JAMES STEWART,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:00-CV-419

 

May 16, 2002

Before POLITZ, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Stewart appeals an adverse summary judgment rejecting his claims under

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. He contends that the district
1 Meditrust Fin. Servs. v. Sterling Chems., Inc., 168 F.3d 211, 214 (5th Cir.

1999); Duhon v. Texaco, Inc., 15 F.3d 1302, 1306-08 (5th Cir. 1994).

2

court erred in holding that the Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company acted

within its discretion in terminating his disability benefits.

Stewart’s suit against Hartford alleges that he had been an employee of WalMart Stores and that he had applied for and received disability insurance benefits

provided by Hartford following an injury. He claims that after initially honoring his

claim for disability benefits Hartford wrongfully terminated those payments. Finding

that Hartford had not abused its discretion in determining that Stewart was not disabled,

the district court granted summary judgment dismissing Stewart’s claims. Our review

ofthe record persuades beyond peradventure that Stewart has failed to demonstrate that

Hartford abused its discretion in determining that he was not disabled under the subject

disability plan.1 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Agenda Item 4

1 FEATHER RIVER AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

MEMORANDUM

02/03/2014

TO: FRAQMD BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: Christopher D. Brown, AICP , APCO

SUBJECT: Approve the adoption of Resolution # 2014

- 01 directing the APCO to submit

Regulation II, Rule 2.0 Open Burning to the U.S. Environmen tal Protection

Agency as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan

.

DISCUSSION :

This is an administrative action only and the adoption of Resolution #2014

- 01 only directs staff

to submit current District rules to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and does

not adopt or implement new controls on local sources.

EPA has requested that any District rule that controls emi ssions of directly emitted fine particle

pollution (PM2.5) or its precursors to be submitted as a revision to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP).

District Regulation II, Rule 2.0 controls emissions of PM2.5 from agricultural and residential

outdoor open burning. The Rule resulted in emission reductions that assisted the Yuba City

Marysville Nonattainment area for the 24

- hour PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard

(NAAQS).

Regulation II, Rule 2.0 Open Burning was last amended by the Dist rict on October 6, 2008.

When the Rule was amended the resolution did not specifically direct staff to submit it to the

EPA as a SIP revision. Therefore, staff have prepared Resolution #2014

- 01 to direct staff to

submit the rule to EPA as a SIP revision.

Resolution #2014

- 01 will also remove the outdated burn rules from the SIP and replace them

with the current burn rule. The Feather River Air Quality Management District was formed in

1991 by combining the Yuba and Sutter Air Pollution Control District s. The Yuba and Sutter air

districts had previously submitted regulations controlling open burning to EPA and these burn

rules were adopted into the SIP. The original burn rules from the Yuba and Sutter air districts

need to be replaced with the current burn rule in the SIP because the EPA enforcement

actions can only occur on SIP approved rules.

The District published a public notice of the hearing on January 3, 2014, in the legal section of

the Appeal Democrat. The notice invited public comment on t he Rule SIP Submittal. The

District also published the notice on its webpage.Agenda Item 4

2

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no expected fiscal impacts as there are no proposed amendments to Rule 2.0.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve adoption of Resolution # 2014

- 01 di recting the APCO to submit Regulation II, Rule 2.0

Open Burning to the U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency as a revision to the California

State Implementation Plan

.Agenda Item 4

Attachment A: Resolution 2014

- 01Agenda Item 4

Attachment B: Rule 2.0 Open Burning (10/6/08)Agenda Item 4

Attachment C : Public Notice 01/03/2014Agenda Item 4

Attachment D : Public Comments
Exhibit No. 99.1
Form 10-QSB
Ozolutions Inc.
File No. 0-31343


    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 Ozolutions Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  February  28,  2003 as filed  with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Max
Weissengruber,  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.



Date: April 11, 2003                      By: /s/ Max Weissengruber,
                                              Chief Executive Officer


     In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Ozolutions Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  February  28,  2003 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, James
A. Clemenger,  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.


Date: April 11, 2003                      By: /s/ James A. Clemenger,
                                              Chief Financial Officer



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