alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23180]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 97D-0228]


Draft Guidance for Industry on Computerized Systems Used in 
Clinical Trials; Availability; Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reopening the 
comment period on the draft guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry: 
Computerized Systems Used in Clinical Trials'' until November 3, 1997. 
FDA published a notice of availability of the draft guidance in the 
Federal Register of June 18, 1997 (62 FR 33094). FDA is reopening the 
comment period in response to requests for additional time to review 
the agency's draft guidance on the use of computerized systems in 
clinical trials.
DATES: Written comments may be submitted on the draft guidance document 
by November 3, 1997. General comments on agency guidance documents are 
welcomed at any time.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch 
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, 
Rockville, MD 20857. Comments should be identified with the docket 
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James F. McCormack, Office of 
Enforcement (HFC-230), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-0425.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of June 18, 1997, 
FDA announced the availability of a draft guidance for industry 
entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Computerized Systems Used in Clinical 
Trials.'' The draft guidance is intended to assist applicants who wish 
to use computer systems to generate, collect, maintain and transmit 
clinical data for submission to FDA in support of marketing or research 
applications. The notice invited interested persons to submit written 
comments on the draft guidance by August 18, 1997.
    The agency received a number of requests for additional time to 
comment on the draft guidance and is reopening the comment period until 
November 3, 1997.
    Interested persons may submit written comments on the draft 
guidance to the Dockets Management Branch (address above). Two copies 
of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit 
one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in 
brackets in the heading of this document. The draft guidance and 
received comments may be seen in the office above between 9 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: August 25, 1997.
William B. Schultz,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 97-23180 Filed 8-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
#### Ex Parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SC 2768.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 19, 1977.

EMBRY, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, JONES and ALMON, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                 NEOPHARM, INC.
                        CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                              FOR DECEMBER 31, 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  12/31/96        12/31/97      12/31/98
                                               ------------    ------------  ------------
<S>                                          <C>             <C>           <C>
Net loss for the period                        $(1,865,645)    $(2,021,677)  $(1,573,723)
Weighted average shares outstanding              7,803,412       8,146,746     8,213,980
                                               ------------    ------------  ------------
                                               ------------    ------------  ------------
Net loss per share                                  ($0.24)         ($0.25)       ($0.19)
                                               ------------    ------------  ------------
                                               ------------    ------------  ------------

</TABLE>












                                       8
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1942

KHANG MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BMW MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-259-6-25AK) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Khang Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert M. Sneed, George Andrew Harper, JACKSON, LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Khang Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil action alleging employment discrimination. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 16, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on August 16, 2002. Because Martin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 11.1 The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.
Computation of Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Share
(in millions, except per share data) 12 Weeks Ended
    
    
    24 Weeks EndedJune 11,
    
    
    June 12,
    
    
    June 11,
    
    
    June 12,2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Number of shares on which basic earnings
per share is based:Average outstanding during period
    
    
    245
    
    
    
    258
    
    
    
    246
    
    
    
    259Add  Incremental shares under stock
compensation plans
    
    
    7
    
    
    
    9
    
    
    
    7
    
    
    
    9Number of shares on which diluted
earnings per share is based
    
    
    252
    
    
    
    267
    
    
    
    253
    
    
    
    268Net earnings applicable to common
shareholders
    
    $
    148
    
    
    $
    142
    
    
    $
    187
    
    
    $
    192Net earnings on which diluted earnings
per share is based
    
    $
    148
    
    
    $
    142
    
    
    $
    187
    
    
    $
    192Basic earnings per share
    
    $
    0.61
    
    
    $
    0.55
    
    
    $
    0.76
    
    
    $
    0.74Diluted earnings per share (1)
    
    $
    0.59
    
    
    $
    0.53
    
    
    $
    0.74
    
    
    $
    0.72
  (1)
    
    Diluted earnings per share reflect the potential dilution that could occur if the stock
options or other equity awards from our stock compensation plans were exercised and converted
into common stock that would then participate in net income. For the twelve and twenty-four
weeks ended June 11, 2005 and June 12, 2004, options to purchase 14.1 million shares and 6.6
million shares, respectively, are not included in the computation of diluted earnings per
share because the options exercise price was greater than the average market price of the
common shares and the effect of including the options in the computation would be
antidilutive. Total options outstanding at June 11, 2005 and June 12, 2004 were 42.9 million
and 42.6 million, respectively.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILLIAM SINEX,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2159

[April 1, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Charles A. Schwab, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 2014CF003680A.

Michael Bross, West Melbourne, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CIKLIN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0200 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TIMOTHY GALE MUNYAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 3, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening b rief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 28 2021

10/28/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0200
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23674]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 1997 / 
Notices

[[Page 47197]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Notice of Proposed Change to Section IV of the Field Office 
Technical Guide (FOTG) of the Natural Resources Conservation Service in 
Alabama

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Alabama, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed changes in Section IV of the 
FOTG of the NRCS in Alabama for review and comment.

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

SUMMARY: It is the intention of NRCS in Alabama to issue conservation 
practice standards: Animal Trails and Walkways (575), Composting 
Facility (317), Conservation Cover (327), Fence (382), Heavy Use Area 
Protection (561), Nutrient Management (590), Portable Chemical Mixing 
Station (192), Prescribed Grazing (528A), Riparian Forest Buffer 
(391A), and Waste Utilization (633), in Section IV of the FOTG.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquire in writing to Ronnie D. 
Murphy, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS), 3381 Skyway Drive, P.O. Box 311, Auburn, AL 36830. Copies of 
the practice standards will be made available upon written request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after 
enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out 
highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made 
available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days the NRCS 
in Alabama will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. 
Following that period a determination will be made by the NRCS in 
Alabama regarding disposition of those comments and a final 
determination of change will be made.
Ronnie D. Murphy,
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Auburn, 
Alabama.
[FR Doc. 97-23674 Filed 9-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-02-1997
<CASH>                                             358
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,890
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,095
<PP&E>                                          97,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,018
<BONDS>                                         14,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,436
<SALES>                                         88,775
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,775
<CGS>                                           18,003
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  38
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,683
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,343
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,340
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,340
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87
        

</TABLE>
COUNTY

LUNA

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Of THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1230 PLATE 1

7]

1
106° 30° a“ E | =
6 7 x | 00!
24 E, RSE.
aT eee | 1
vt z |
vv
Cy a
% ie R3EL- ee
a ee 2
Sve 3 ;
S R2E | = Is.
SS
IW ts, a
- OnE: =
107° 00' =
1
t
7
SIERRA COUNTY Ss
RaW. R.3 Ww R2 Ww. a oe !
ae 2
A: ALL ‘4
. °® Garfield “2 MOuy 5, .
wt eh, | ime 7
iy LTT | ie
: vi
Bony,
em Mp,
= a EXPLANATION
} 2°
aa Well for which information is given in
19

SAN

oy ’
5 imam

well tables. Figure indicates number

of wells if more than one in a small
area

JAWS:
My

py,
im

1 on
ew
=

sw

news

nis NY

Y]

Li,

“Picacho Min

WN

"

00.
50850

06 9.00.
095,,0°050°0,,0°C 00]
Po oO

16, 9.00.
8.290,
0°000°0,
lsSee'e 8 00

a8 N5

A s.
ie g%oc go BOG Soe
oe
yen
RAW. RIE R2E R3E Ay
1o7?00' ~=6 MEXICO

Cerro de Muléros

MAP OF DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. SHOWING CONTOURS ON THE WATER TABLE.
DEPTH TO WATER, AND WELLS FOR WHICH INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED, 1947

5

Sn Sen

°
i!

10 Miles
| 5

106°30°

ee
=:
z |, za
y iS 20 Contours drawn on the water table,
= s intervals 25, 50, and 100 feet,
Sr: dashed where approximate.
as. ! Datum is mean sea level
& 32°
A 30
ie i BF he DEPTH TO WATER BELOW LAND SURFACE
'
aeathe Ss.
Yay Mloalyg - i
AZT z
fF > Less than 25 ft
1 °
° i
T. 25-100 ft
22
S
4 ' fo}
<. 100-200 ft
g a
pas w
<> Le
a 23 ©
P S
300-400 ft
4
5 r
24
1s.
Unknown
In some areas, especially near mountain
masses, impervious rock may lie at
1 indicated depth to water
T.
25
Ss Mop prepared from General Highway Map,
Dofia Ana County, New Mexico, by the
1 New Mexico Highway Department in
cooperation with the F W.A. Public Roads
Administration, Map of Mesilla Valley,
New Mexico and Texas, by the U.S. Bureau
T of Reclamation, and topographic quadrangle
| 26 maps by the Geological Survey, U. S.
L Ss. Department of the Interior
2a . 32°
RSE. >
TEXAS

317267 O - 54 (In pocket) No.1
The Hon orable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for th e 1 West ern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition b y consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2400

___________ Padraic Angelo Cook, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Michael Groose; Dave Dormire; Lt. * Western District of Missouri. Ross; Donald Cline; Walter Richter; * Robert M. Malone, II, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 27, 1998 Filed: March 2, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circui t Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Padraic Angelo Cook appeals from the final judgment of the district court 1 entered upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant prison officials in this 42 U.S.C.-2-

§ 1983 acti on claiming Muslims were denied equal protection at the Jefferson City Correctional Center (JCCC). We affirm. Aft er a two-day jury trial, the jury concluded in its verdict interrogatory tha t Cook had a sincerely-held religious belief in the Muslim faith, but that he was no t denieda reasonable opportunity to practice his faith comparable to the opportunitie s afforded other prisoners of diff erent faiths. Cook moved for a new trial, arguing, inter alia , the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The district court denied the motion. On appe al, Cook argues the court erred in denying the new-trial motion, that counsel did not present all the evidence, and that he was prejudiced by the admission of evidence regarding his witnesses & criminal convictions.
We r eview for abuse of discretion the district court & s denial of a motion for a new trial. See Keenan v. Computer Assoc. Int & l, Inc. , 13 F.3d 1266, 1269 (8th Cir
. 1994). Where, as here, “the basis of the motion for a new trial is that the jury & s verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the district court & s denial of the motion # i s virtually unassailable on appeal. & ” Keeper v. King , 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir
. 1997) (q uoted cases omitted). Upon our review of the record, including the tria l transcript, weconclude that the jury & s conclusions were amply supported and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the new-trial motion. Cook & s complaints regarding his counsel & s representation are not grounds fo r reversal. See Glick v. Henderson , 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8t h Cir. 1988) (no constitutional ri ght to effective assistance of counsel during civil trial). As Cook failed to object to the admissi on of the evidence he now challenges, we review for plain error. Se e McAlinney v. Maron Mer

rell Dow, Inc. , 992 F.2d 839, 844 (8th Cir. 1993). Because the ju ry knew the witnesses were inmates at the JCCC, we find no plain error in th e limited admission of the types of their felony convictions. Accordingly, we affirm.-3-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 KIT digital, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robin Smyth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(3)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(4)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Date: May 10, 2011
/s/ Robin SmythRobin Smyth

Chief Financial Officer
Karen SureUa 14127 Settlement Acres Drive BrookPark, OH 44142-3964 March 7, 2010
The Honorable Ray LaHood Secretary ofTransportation 1200New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

.. ".Re:.Retirees SupportDelta's Haneda Application
Dear Secretary LaHood: Dear Secretary LaHood: Delta Air Lines has submitted an application to provide new nonstop service from the U.S. to Tokyo's Haneda airPort. As a retired employee ofDelta, I enthusiastically support this application. Under the new aviation agreement with Japan, Haneda will bereopened toU.S. carriers for the final time since 1976. Because ofits convenient location near central Tokyo, Haneda is the preferred airPort for business travelers. Delta employees, and many ofits retirees, have worked for many years to build Delta's business in Japan, and no U.S. airline has invested more in Tokyo than Delta. Delta has a strong record ofcompetitive trans-Pacific service. Butthe reopening ofHanedawillputthat investment andDeltajobs atrisk ifthey are unable to compete. Delta's major competitors, the Star and oneworld Alliances, have Japanese partners that dominate service at Haneda. Delta, which does not have a Japanese partner, would be at a serious disadvantage unless it is given the opportunity to compete at Haneda. IfDelta is provided with the Haneda slots they need, all three ofthe major airline alliances
- SkyTeam, Star and oneworld
- will be able to compete on a level playing field. That new competition would provide tremendous benefits for Delta's customers andDelta's employees. I urge you to approve Delta's application and providethe frequencies proposedto serve Haneda from Seattle, Detroit, Los Angeles andHonolulu. Sincerely,

Karen Surella :216-362-7425
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24541]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Washington State 
Advisory Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Washington State Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene 
at 9:30 a.m. and adjourn at 12 p.m. on October 29, 1997, at the Westin 
Hotel, 1900 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The purpose of the 
meeting is to discuss civil rights issues.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact committee Chairperson Bill Wassmuth, 
206-233-9136, or Philip Montez, Director of the Western Regional 
Office, 213-894-3437 (TDD 213-894-3435). Hearing-impaired persons who 
will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language 
interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least five (5) 
working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, September 8, 1997.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 97-24541 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-M