alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                              ESS TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                     COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE (1)
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                            DECEMBER 31,
                                                                  ------------------------------
                                                                    2003       2002       2001
                                                                  --------   --------   --------
<S>                                                               <C>        <C>        <C>
Weighted average common shares ................................     39,517     44,044     42,274
Weighted average incremental common equivalent shares:
  Common stock (2) ............................................      1,721      2,687      2,988
                                                                  --------   --------   --------
Total weighted average common and common equivalent shares ....     41,238     46,731     45,262
                                                                  ========   ========   ========
Net income (loss) .............................................   $ 25,291   $ 37,277   $ (1,817)
                                                                  ========   ========   ========
Net income (loss) per share ...................................   $   0.61   $   0.80   $  (0.04)
                                                                  ========   ========   ========
</Table>

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

(1) This Exhibit should be read in conjunction with Note 10, "Shareholders'
    Equity," to the consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of this Report.

(2) Earnings per share is computed using the weighted average number of common
    shares and common equivalent shares ("weighted average shares") outstanding
    during the period. Common equivalent shares consist of the Company's common
    stock issuable upon exercise of stock options (using the treasury stock
    method), except when antidilutive.
# highway

- Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM): Publications Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM): Publicationsstephanie_matthewsMon, 10/03/2022 - 15:48            The IHSDM Library includes all recently published materials on IHSDM in online and/or hard copy format. Past published materials, denoted as archive, are also available; these materials are somewhat dated due to IHSDM's evolving nature, but may still contain information of interest to serious researchers. Some publications are available only for purchase from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).Please Note:Many of the online documents are in Adobe Portable Document (PDF) File format, which requires a free Adobe Acrobat Reader.            Editorial Category              Publications                Editorial Type              General                Subject                        Data and Information Technology          Design          Highways          Safety and Human Factors                      Keywords:                           Safety,                               highway            Contact Info              In-Kyu Lim                How to set Effective Date              Use the date the article is published as the effective date                Effective Date              Mon, 10/17/2022 - 12:00                Use Supplemental Image as Thumbnail Only              No                Placement              Off                Select Supplemental Content Alignment for the Image using the choices below:              float-right ml-3                Archive              Off
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61301-61304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29066]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary
[Transmittal No. 97-18]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Defense Security Assistance Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 
July 21, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/CPD, (703) 604-6575.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 97-18 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification pages.

    Dated: October 29, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000-04-M

[[Page 61302]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17NO97.036



[[Page 61303]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17NO97.037



[[Page 61304]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17NO97.038



[FR Doc. 97-29066 Filed 11-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-C
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58982-58983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28950]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Portland Cement Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 15, 1997, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Portland Cement 
Association (``PCA'') filed notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) a 
change in membership and (2) changes in the names of certain 
participants. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, effective 
November 1, 1997, Texas Industries, Dallas, TX will become a

[[Page 58983]]

PCA member. Additionally, St. Marys Cement Company, Detroit, MI should 
now be listed as Blue Circle/St. Marys Cement Company; St. Marys Cement 
Corporation, Toronto, CANADA has been changed to Blue Circle Canada 
Inc.; ESSROC Corp, Nazareth, PA should be listed as Essroc Cement 
Corp.; ESSROC Canada, Downsview, Ontario, CANADA has been changed to 
Essroc Canada Inc.; ESSROC Materials Inc., Nazareth, PA should be 
dropped from the list; and the Southeast Cement Shippers Association, 
Salt Lake City, UT, an Affiliate Member, should be listed as the 
Southeastern Cement Shippers Association.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership, corporate 
name, or planned activities of the venture.
    On January 7, 1985, PCA filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 
5, 1985 (50 FR 5015). The last notification was filed with the 
Department on June 2, 1997. A notice was published in the Federal 
Register on July 16, 1997 (62 FR 38121).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-28950 Filed 10-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Sylvia F. GUILLEN et al., Appellants, v. Ruth S. KITCHING et al., Appellees.

No. 76-2200.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 24, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1978.

*901Levenstein, Burke & Associates and Linda Dakis, Miami, for appellants.

Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and Aliene D. Nicholson and W. Sam Holland, Miami, for appel-lees.

Before NATHAN and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, bring this appeal from a summary judgment dated July 31, 1975, entered by the trial court in favor of appellees, defendants below.

Appellants’ basic contention on appeal is that the trial court erred, in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment against the claims of appellants Hector and Sylvia Guillen, because it misinterpreted the word “survivors” in Section 768.-18, Florida Statutes (1975). The trial court interpreted the word “survivors” as follows:

> “That notwithstanding the liberal construction to be applied in accordance with Florida Statutes 768.17, this Court construes a blood relative, partly or wholly dependent on a decedent for support or services, to require actual dependency, though same may be partial, in order to qualify as a ‘survivor’ under the ‘Florida Wrongful Death Act’, and the word ‘dependent’ connotes one who looks to another for aid or support, relies upon same, and one who would not be able to sustain himself without such aid or support, and the Plaintiff brother, Hector Guillen, and the Plaintiff sister, Sylvia F. Guillen, do not qualify as ‘survivors’ as a matter of law under the facts in this cause.”

In our opinion, this was a correct interpretation. See *Duval v. Hunt,*34 Fla. 85, 15 So. 876 (1894), and *Burgh v. Carroll,*217 So.2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).

Having determined that Hector and Sylvia Guillen were not survivors under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, the trial court also found that there was no genuine issue of any material fact and, accordingly, entered the order granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment. After a careful review of the record, we have concluded that the order was properly entered; therefore, it is affirmed. See, e. g., *Wesley Construction Co. v. Lane,*323 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); *Ham v. Heintzelman’s Ford, Inc.,*256 So.2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); *Turner Produce Co.*v. *Lake Shore Growers Coop. Ass’n,*217 So.2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510.

Affirmed.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 1997 / Notices 59673

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 97–27]

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Defense Security Assistance

Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

publishing the unclassified text of a

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

This is published to fulfill the

requirements of section 155 of Pub. L.

104–164 dated July 21, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/CPD, (703)

604–6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to

the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, Transmittal 97–27,

with attached transmittal and policy

justification.

Dated: October 29, 1997.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M
59674 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 1997 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 1997 / Notices 59675
59676 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 1997 / Notices

[FR Doc. 97–29067 Filed 11–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–C
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28896]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Application for a License To Import Nuclear Waste

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b) ``Public notice of receipt of an 
application'', please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission has received the folowing application for an import license. 
Copies of the application are on file in the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's Public Document Room located at 2120 L Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C..
    A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be 
filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene 
shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the 
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington D.C. 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. 
Department of State, Washington, D.C. 20520.
    The information concerning the application follows.

                                         NRC Import License Application                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of applicant, date of                        Description of material                                    
   application, date received,   --------------------------------------------------------------    Country of   
         application no.             Material type          Total qty             End use            origin     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chem-Nuclear Systems, October     Contaminated         1.4 million........  Decontamination     Taiwan.         
 14, 1997, October 20, 1997,       Condenser tubes                           and recycling.                     
 IW005.                            and tube plates.                                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated this 24th day of October 1997 at Rockville, Maryland.
Ronald D. Hauber,
Director, Division of Nonproliferation, Exports and Multilateral 
Relations, Office of International Programs.
[FR Doc. 97-28896 Filed 10-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





TDK Mediactive, Inc.


Calabasas, California





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of TDK Mediactive, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos.
333-48158, 333-63567, 333-11483 and 333-11481) of our report dated April 9, 2002 (except for Notes 1 and 6 which are as of April 30, 2002), relating to the consolidated financial statements of TDK Mediactive, Inc. appearing in the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2002.








/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


---




Los Angeles, California


June 26, 2002
# L_2005106EN.01001601.xml

| 27.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 106/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 106/16

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 638/2005

of 26 April 2005

fixing the production refund for olive oil used in the manufacture of certain preserved foods

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats (1), and in particular Article 20a thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Article 20a of Regulation No 136/66/EEC provides for the granting of a production refund for olive oil used in the preserving industry. Pursuant to paragraph 6 of that Article, and without prejudice to paragraph 3 thereof, the Commission shall fix this refund every two months. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Article 20a of Regulation No 136/66/EEC provides for the granting of a production refund for olive oil used in the preserving industry. Pursuant to paragraph 6 of that Article, and without prejudice to paragraph 3 thereof, the Commission shall fix this refund every two months.

| (2) | By virtue of Article 20a(2) of the abovementioned Regulation, the production refund must be fixed on the basis of the gap between prices on the world market and on the Community market, taking account of the import charge applicable to olive oil falling within CN subheading 1509 90 00 and the factors used for fixing the export refunds for those olive oils during the reference period. It is appropriate to take as a reference period the two-month period preceding the beginning of the term of validity of the production refund. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By virtue of Article 20a(2) of the abovementioned Regulation, the production refund must be fixed on the basis of the gap between prices on the world market and on the Community market, taking account of the import charge applicable to olive oil falling within CN subheading 1509 90 00 and the factors used for fixing the export refunds for those olive oils during the reference period. It is appropriate to take as a reference period the two-month period preceding the beginning of the term of validity of the production refund.

| (3) | The application of the above criteria results in the refund being fixed as shown below, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The application of the above criteria results in the refund being fixed as shown below,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the months of May and June 2005, the amount of the production refund referred to in Article 20a(2) of Regulation No 136/66/EEC shall be 44,00 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 May 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 April 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ 172, 30.9.1966, p. 3025/66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 865/2004 (OJ L 161, 30.4.2004, p. 97).

1

---
#### John H. KEHL, as Trustee for Kelda Land Trust, Appellant, v. Robert FEWELL, Appellee.

No. 69-300.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 10, 1969.

Rehearing Denied July 31, 1969.

S. Harold Skolnick, Miami, for appellant.

Aronovitz, Aronovitz & Haverfield, and Arnold D. Schatzman, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of State ex rel. Weber v. Register, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 619.
×

×

                    Step 1                    Identify                    Stakeholders                

                    Step 2                    Use                    Safety Data                

                    Step 3                    Choose Proven                    Solutions                

                    Step 4                    Implement                    Solutions                

                    Finish Line                

You made it. Congratulations! You’ve taken a huge step toward making your community safer. Now that you have a plan, put it to work. We’re always here to help if you have trouble. Use the contact information on this page to reach out anytime. And again, thank you for doing your best to get the people under your care home safely.
support team

Jerry Roche, Office of Safety |

Hillary Isebrands,  Resource Center - Safety & Design Tech Service Team

Rosemarie Anderson, Office of Safety |

Adam Larsen, Office of Tribal Transportation

----

Local Agency Insights: Finish LineCalifornia Case Study
EXHIBIT
32




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 Progreen Properties, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jan
Telander, President and 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 to the best of my knowledge: (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 result of
operations of the Company.




/s/
      Jan TelanderJan
      Telander, President, Chief Executive Officerand
      Principal Financial
Officer




December
14, 2010
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

490
KA 15-01843

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TERRANCE GIBSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Christopher S. Ciaccio, J.), entered October 13, 2015. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq .), defendant contends that County Court erred in assessing points for his criminal history based upon a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication. We agree. Defendant was assessed 15 points under risk factor 9 for a prior crime as a juvenile delinquent, and the court, relying on People v Catchings (56 AD3d 1181, 1182, lv denied 12 NY3d 701), rejected defendant’s challenge to the assessment of points under risk factor 9. As we recently held in People v Brown (148 AD3d 1705, ___), however, a juvenile delinquency adjudication may not be considered a crime for purposes of assessing points in a SORA determination, and Catchings should no longer be followed to that extent. Consequently, we conclude that the court erred in considering defendant’s juvenile delinquency adjudication in assessing 15 points under risk factor 9.

Removing the improperly assessed points under risk factor 9 renders defendant a presumptive level two risk. Under the circumstances of this case, we remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings to determine whether an upward departure is warranted ( see Brown , 148 AD3d at ___).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
# L_2005331DE.01004201.xml

| 17.12.2005 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 331/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2005

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 331/42

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1954/2005 der Kommission vom 29. November 2005 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 796/2004 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Einhaltung anderweitiger Verpflichtungen, zur Modulation und zum Integrierten Verwaltungs- und Kontrollsystem nach der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1782/2003 des Rates mit gemeinsamen Regeln für Direktzahlungen im Rahmen der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik und mit bestimmten Stützungsregelungen für Inhaber landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe und zur Abweichung von der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1782/2003 hinsichtlich der Beihilfezahlung

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 314 vom 30. November 2005
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 314 vom 30. November 2005

Seite 12, Artikel 2 zweiter Unterabsatz:

anstatt:

„Als erste Tranche darf nur ein Betrag bis zu einer Höhe gezahlt werden, die einem aufgrund der Kontrollen gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 796/2004 bereits festgestellten Beihilfeanspruch entspricht und sofern nicht die Gefahr besteht, dass der noch zu ermittelnde Gesamtbetrag der Zahlung nicht unter der Höhe der ersten Tranche liegen wird.“

muss es heißen:

„Als erste Tranche darf nur ein Betrag bis zu einer Höhe gezahlt werden, die einem aufgrund der Kontrollen gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 796/2004 bereits festgestellten Beihilfeanspruch entspricht und sofern nicht die Gefahr besteht, dass der noch zu ermittelnde Gesamtbetrag der Zahlung unter der Höhe der ersten Tranche liegen wird.“

---