alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11.1

<TABLE>
                               The Source Company

                   Calculation for Weighted Average Number of
                            Common Shares Outstanding
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                                          Weighted
                                                                                                       Weighted          Average
                                                              Common        Common                      Average           Number
                                                              Share         Shares        Days          Number          of Shares
Date                   Description                           Activity    Outstanding   Outstanding     of Shares       Outstanding
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                    <C>                                 <C>            <C>              <C>         <C>              <C>    
January 31, 1996       Balance                                            6,374,389        28          487,658

February 18, 1996      Issuance of 8,000 shares               8,000       6,382,389        96        1,674,069
June 3, 1996           Conversion of preferred stock        140,714       6,523,103        25          445,567
June 28, 1996          Issuance of 100,000 shares           100,000       6,623,103        31          560,973
July 29, 1996          Conversion of preferred stock         75,341       6,698,444        12          219,621
August 10, 1996        Issuance of 3,388 shares               3,388       6,701,832        20          366,220
August 30, 1996        Stock dividend on preferred stock      9,515       6,711,347        11          201,707
September 10, 1996     Issuance of 1,694 shares               1,694       6,713,041         1           18,342
September 11, 1996     Conversion of preferred stock        142,857       6,855,898        11          206,052
September 22, 1996     Conversion of preferred stock         64,285       6,920,183        66        1,247,902
November 27, 1996      Issuance of 10,050 shares             10,050       6,930,233        65        1,230,780

January 31, 1997       Balance                                            6,930,233                                     6,658,891

</TABLE>

Note: The effect of options  granted under the 1995 Incentive  Stock Option Plan
and the effect of the  possible  conversion  of the 1996  Series 7%  Convertible
Preferred  Stock  have  not  been  reflected  on  this  schedule  due  to  their
anti-dilutive effect.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0471

_________________

BRENDA ZASTOUPIL,

 Petitioner and Appellant,

 v.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY,

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS

BOARD, AND RYAN RESTAURANT 

CORPORATION,

 Respondents and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Brenda Zastoupil, Ryan Restaurant 

Corporation, all counsel of record, and to the Honorable Nickolas C. Murnion, District

Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 22 2024

05/22/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0471
Exhibit 32.2

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
Adolor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen W. Webster, Senior Vice President,
Finance and 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: October 28, 2010



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Stephen W. Webster                                    
|Stephen W. Webster                                        
|Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
#### Charles A. De Arnaud and Susan S. De Arnaud, appellants, *v.*Mary A. Peet, respondent.

A person occupying a confidential relation to another in respect to certain lands, procured a conveyance of such lands to himself by deception and for an inadequate consideration, and then conveyed them, through a third person, to his *wife.*— Held that, under the circumstances, the wife’s claim to be a *bona fide*purchaser for valuable consideration was negatived.

On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Pitney, whose opinion is reported in *Peet*v. *De Arnaud, 2 Dick. Ch. Rep. 502.*

*Mr. John W. Griggs*and *Mr. J. R. Coleman,*for the appellants.

*Mr. Addison Ely*and *Mr. W. H. Ely*(of New York), for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

Our consideration of the pleadings and proofs in this cause has convinced us that the appellant, Charles A. De Arnaud, while occupying a confidential relation to respondent in respect to the lands in controversy, procured a conveyance of those lands from her to him by misrepresentation and concealment of facts, and for an inadequate consideration, and that the circumstances under which the title was transferred to the defendant, Susan S. De Arnaud, negative her claim to be a *bona fide*purchaser for a valuable consideration. '

For these reasons the decree of the court of chancery is affirmed

*347
      *For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Depue, Dixon, Garrison, Mague, Reed, Van Syckel, Werts, Bogert, Brown, Clement, Krueger, Smith, Whitaker — 14.

*For reversal*— None.
**Exhibit10.20**

February 23, 2006

Mr. Robert Scott Moncrieff

211 Ice Wharf

17 New Wharf Road

London N1 9RF

Dear Robert:

Further to the amendedservice agreement provided to you, I confirm that in respect of your stockoptions, upon a Change of Control (as defined in Schedule 2 of that serviceagreement), any remaining installments of any stock options held by you, whichhad not yet become exercisable shall become exercisable on the effective dateof such Change of Control.

Once such options becomeexercisable, they shall remain exercisable until expiration, cancellation ortermination of such options.  Theseprovisions, instead of the provisions of Section 13(b) of the 1999 StockIncentive Plan, are intended to apply to such options.  Such options may be exercised during suchperiod only in accordance with the other provisions of the applicable optionagreement and the other terms of the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, which remainunaffected by the terms of this letter. In no event may such options be exercised after the Latest ExpirationDate of each respective option.

The terms of this letterwill only take effect and are conditioned upon your signature of the amendedservice agreement.  The terms of thisletter only extend to circumstances where there is a Change of Control.

Yours sincerely,

SITEL Corporationin its capacity as the issuer of the stock optionsand the parent company of SITEL Europe Limited
| By:    | /s/ James F. Lynch                      |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | James F. Lynch, Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JORDAN BLAKE MORRISON, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-784

LT Case No. 2016-CF-002847-A 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

 Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed January 17, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Seminole County, 

Melissa Souto, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and 

Teresa D. Sutton, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

WALLIS, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000943322
<NAME> TRUMP HOTELS & CASINO RESORTS HOTELS, LP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         140,324
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,625
<INVENTORY>                                     13,011
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               249,415
<PP&E>                                       2,301,688
<DEPRECIATION>                                 296,937
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,473,305
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          161,357
<BONDS>                                      1,726,343
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     477,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,473,305
<SALES>                                      1,399,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,582,229
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  891,362<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               364,617<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,160
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             211,537
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (66,120)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (66,120)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (66,120)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes gaming, lodging, food & beverage and other
<F2>Includes general & administration and depreciation & amortization and
development costs.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Frank KNIGHT and Mary B. Knight, Appellants, v. Arlene EDWARDS, as Administratrix of the Estate of Norman Edwards, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 76-847.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 6, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1977.

Marc Cooper of Greene & Cooper and Rollo E. Karkeet, Miami, for appellants.

Joel Miller of Miller, Squire & Braver-man, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

At the oral argument of this case counsel for the appellee conceded that the judg*526ment entered against the appellant, Mary B. Knight, was not supported by the record. We agree but find no other error. Accordingly, the judgment is hereby modified so that the total damages included therein of $47,791.32 are assessed against Frank Knight; and the judgment against Mary B. Knight is hereby vacated.

AFFIRMED as modified.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129934 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129934 COA: 264975 Kent CC: 98-008624-FH JAMES EMMANUEL BEARDSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Houlihan (Docket No. 128340).

d0524 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 31, 2006

Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof VCampus Corporation for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofVCampus Corporation as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

|                      |   | /s/  CHRISTOPHER L. NELSON |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------|
|                 |   | Christopher  L. Nelson     |
|                 |   | Chief  Financial Officer   |
| April 12,  2007 |   |                       |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1485 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1485

  To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to extend the authorization of 
                            certain leases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 26, 2005

  Ms. Cantwell (for herself and Mr. Dorgan) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to extend the authorization of 
                            certain leases.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF 99-YEAR LEASES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of 
August 9, 1955 (25 U.S.C. 415(a)), is amended in the second sentence--
            (1) by striking ``Moapa Indian reservation'' and inserting 
        ``Moapa Indian Reservation'';
            (2) by inserting ``the reservation of the Confederated 
        Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,'' before ``the Burns 
        Paiute Reservation'';
            (3) by inserting ``the'' before ``Yavapai-Prescott'';
            (4) by inserting ``the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation and 
        land held in trust for the Muckleshoot Indian tribe,'' after 
        ``the Cabazon Indian reservation,'';
            (5) by striking ``Washington,,'' and inserting 
        ``Washington,'';
            (6) by inserting ``land held in trust for the Prairie Band 
        Potawatomi Nation,'' before ``land held in trust for the 
        Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma'';
            (7) by inserting ``land held in trust for the Fallon Paiute 
        Shoshone tribes,'' before ``land held in trust for the Pueblo 
        of Santa Clara''; and
            (8) by inserting ``land held in trust for the Yurok tribe, 
        land held in trust for the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians of the 
        Hopland Rancheria,'' after ``Pueblo of Santa Clara,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to any lease entered into or renewed after the date of enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Charles Warner EATON v. STATE of Mississippi.

Misc. No. 842.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 22, 1978.

Charles Warner Eaton, pro se.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen A. Gilfoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appel-lee.

WALKER, Justice, for the Court.

Pro se petition for appeal denied with leave to amend.

*320PATTERSON, C. J., INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.11    
  


 
  Revolving Note    
  


        Revcare, Inc. (the "Company") promises to pay upon demand to the order of Manuel Occiano or Russell E. Mohrmann ("Note Holder"), the sum of Three Hundred Fifty
Thousand and no/100 Dollars or the unpaid portion of any advances made under this note plus interest and costs actually incurred under the Imperial Bank Master Revolving Note ("Master Note") between
Imperial Bank and the Note Holder dated September 24, 2001. 


        The
Company acknowledges that this Note matures upon issuance, and that the note Holder, at any time, without notice, and without reason, may demand that this note be immediately paid in
full. 


        The
Company waives presentment, demand, protest, notice of dishonor, notice of demand or intent to demand, notice of acceleration or intent to accelerate, and all other notices and
agrees that no extension or indulgence to the Company or release, substitution or nonenforcement of any security, or release or substitution of the Company, or any other party, whether with or without
notice, shall affect the obligation of the undersigned. The Company waives all defenses or right to discharge available under Section 3-605 of the California Uniform Commercial Code and waives all
other suretyship defenses or right to discharge. 



        The
Company agrees to reimburse the Note Holder for any and all costs and expenses incurred in collecting or attempting to collect this note or incurred in any other matter or proceeding
relating to this note or the Master Note. 


        The
Company acknowledges and agrees that there are no contrary agreements, oral or written, establishing a term of this Note and agrees that the terms and conditions of this Note may not
be amended, waived or modified except in a writing signed by the Note Holder expressly stating that the writing constitutes an amendment, waiver or modification of the terms of this Note. If any
provision of this Note is unenforceable in whole or part for any reason, the remaining provisions shall continue to be effective. This Note is made in the State of California and shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of California, without regard to conflict of laws principles. Disputes arising under this agreement are to be settled by Binding
Arbitration with the loser paying all costs incurred in the arbitration process. 



	Revcare, Inc.	 	September 28, 2001
	 	
	 
	 	by: Fred McGee, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary	 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.11


Revolving Note
No. 00-7368.

#### Bentley *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EX-4.3



  Exhibit 4.3 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR 
 We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in Suncor Energy Inc.’s registration statement on Form F-80 (No. 333-207268), as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 1, dated November 12, 2015 (the “Registration Statement”), of
our report, dated February 24, 2015 on the consolidated balance sheets of Suncor Energy Inc. as at December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013 and the consolidated statements of comprehensive income, changes in shareholders’
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2014, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Suncor Energy Inc. as of December 31, 2014, which appears in Suncor Energy
Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2014. We also consent to the references to our firm name in the documents incorporated by reference in the Registration Statement and under “Experts” in the Offer
and Circular that forms a part of the Registration Statement. 
 /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Chartered Professional Accountants 

Dated: November 12, 2015 
 Calgary, Alberta 

CANADA
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24447]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP95-194-005]


Northern Border Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 10, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 2, 1997, Northern Border Pipeline 
Company (Northern Border), tendered for filing to become part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff 
sheet, to become effective January 1, 1998:

First Revised Volume No. 1

Original Sheet No. 106A
    Northern Border states that the purpose of this filing is to comply 
with ordering paragraph (E) of the Commission's order issued on August 
1, 1997 in Docket Nos. CP95-194-000, et al. In the instant filing, 
Northern Border is tendering a tariff sheet implementing a straight-
line depreciation rate of 2.5 percent for purposes of financial 
accounting and the recording of a regulatory asset (liability), as 
appropriate, for the difference between the depreciation expense 
required under the straight-line method and transmission depreciation 
expense allowed for tariff billing purposes which was required by the 
order.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said filing should on or before October 1, 1997, file with 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in 
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211) and the Regulations under 
the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests with the Commission 
will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be 
taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24447 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M