alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11
                        PHYSICIAN COMPUTER NETWORK, INC.
                     COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                     Year Ended
                                                                    December 31,
                                                      -----------------------------------------
                                                          1996          1995            1994
                                                      -----------   ------------    -----------
<S>                                                   <C>           <C>             <C>
INCOME (LOSS)
 Net income (loss) before extraordinary item ......   $16,056,246   $(11,500,187)   $ 1,247,219
Extraordinary  loss ...............................          --         (180,000)          --
                                                      -----------   ------------    -----------
Primary and fully diluted net income (loss) .......   $16,056,246   $(11,680,187)   $ 1,247,219
                                                      ===========   ============    ===========

SHARES
 Weighted average Common Stock outstanding ........    49,700,888     40,068,406     34,163,928

  Common Stock issuable upon the exercise
      of outstanding options and warrants .........     4,243,963            (a)      1,470,178

  Common Stock issuable upon the
      conversion of Preferred Stock ...............       363,296            (a)           --
                                                      -----------   ------------    -----------
  Weighted average Common Stock
     outstanding as adjusted ......................    54,308,147     40,068,406     35,634,106
                                                      ===========   ============    ===========

PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED:
  Income (loss) before extraordinary item per share   $      0.30   ($      0.29)   $      0.04

  Gain/(loss) from extraordinary item per share ...          --             --             --
                                                      -----------   ------------    -----------
  Net Income (loss) available to Common
     shareholders per share .......................   $      0.30   $      (0.29)   $      0.04
                                                      ===========   ============    ===========
</TABLE>


(a)      For 1995, common stock equivalents and other dilutive securities were
         not included as they were anti-dilutive on loss per share.

Note:    Fully diluted calculation results in no material dilution for 1996 and
         1994 and antidilution of loss per share in 1995.
#### Jimmy BASS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42644.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 18, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 263 So.2d 611.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2565 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2565

      To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow 
manufacturers and sponsors of a drug to use alternative testing methods 
  to animal testing to investigate the safety and effectiveness of a 
                     drug, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2021

Mr. Buchanan (for himself, Mrs. Luria, Ms. Mace, Ms. Sherrill, and Mr. 
Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow 
manufacturers and sponsors of a drug to use alternative testing methods 
  to animal testing to investigate the safety and effectiveness of a 
                     drug, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``FDA Modernization Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES.

    Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
355) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(5)(B)(i)(II), by striking ``animal'' 
        and inserting ``nonclinical tests or studies'';
            (2) in subsection (i)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``(including 
                tests on animals)''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``animal or 
                human studies'' and inserting ``nonclinical tests or 
                studies''; and
            (3) after subsection (y), by inserting the following:
    ``(z) Nonclinical Test or Study Defined.--For purposes of this 
section, the term `nonclinical test or study' means a test or study 
that is most likely to predict human response based on scientific 
evidence and occurs before or during the clinical trial phase of the 
investigation of the safety and effectiveness of a drug. Such test or 
study may include the following:
            ``(1) Cell-based assays.
            ``(2) Organ chips and microphysiological systems.
            ``(3) Sophisticated computer modeling.
            ``(4) Other human biology-based test methods.
            ``(5) Animal tests.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Chester CORLEY and Hazel Lee Corley v. Eric E. WEST, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of his minor daughter, Lisa Bea West.

No. 60318.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 7, 1977.

In re: Chester Corley and Hazel Lee Cor-ley applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 346 So.2d 1272.

Writ denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6710-6711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3234]


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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96-AGL-12]


Establishment of Class E Airspace; Gettysburg Municipal Airport; 
Gettysburg, SD; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the bearing description of a 
final rule that was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 
1996 (61 FR 65939), Airspace Docket No. 96-AGL-12. The final rule 
established Class E airspace at Gettysburg, SD.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, March 27, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 John A. Clayborn, Air Traffic Division, Operations Branch, AGL-530, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, 
IL 60018, telephone: (847) 294-7568.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register Document 96-31869, Airspace Docket No. 96-AGL-12, 
published on December 16, 1996 (61 FR 65939) established the 
description of the Class E airspace area at Gettysburg, SD, and 
Gettysburg Municipal Airport, SD. An error was discovered in the 
bearing description for the Gettysburg Municipal Airport, SD; Class E 
airspace area. This action corrects that error.

[[Page 6711]]

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the bearing 
description for the Class E airspace area at Gettysburg Municipal 
Airport, SD, as published in the Federal Register on December 16, 1996 
(61 FR 65939), (FR Doc. 96-31869), is corrected as follows:

PART 71--[CORRECTED]


Sec. 71.1  [Corrected]

AGL SD E5  Gettysburg, SD [Corrected]
    On page 65940, in column 2, in the Class E airspace designation for 
Gettysburg Municipal Airport incorporated by reference in Sec. 71.1, 
correct ``323 bearing from'' to read ``143 deg. bearing from''.

    Issued in Des Plaines, IL on January 17, 1997.
Maureen Woods,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 97-3234 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Exhibit 10.1


 


FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE

AMENDED AND RESTATED

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

OF

MERIDA MERGER CORP. I


 


Pursuant to Section 242 of the


 


Delaware General Corporation Law


 


The undersigned, being a duly authorized officer
of MERIDA MERGER CORP. I (the “Corporation”), a corporation existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware, does hereby certify as follows:


 


		1.	The name of the Corporation is Merida Merger Corp. I



 


		2.	The Corporation’s Certificate of Incorporation was filed
in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on June 20, 2019, and an Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation
was filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on November 4, 2019.



 


		3.	This First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate
of Incorporation further amends the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation.



 


		4.	This Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation was duly adopted by the affirmative vote of the stockholders holding at least a majority of the shares of common stock
outstanding on the record date at a meeting of stockholders in accordance with ARTICLE SIXTH of the Amended and Restated Certificate
of Incorporation and the provisions of Sections 242 the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.



 


		5.	Section F of ARTICLE SIXTH is hereby deleted and replaced
in its entirety as follows:



 


F. In the event that the Corporation
does not consummate a Business Combination on or before December 31, 2021 (the “Termination Date”), the Corporation shall
(i) cease all operations except for the purposes of winding up, (ii) as promptly as reasonably possible but not more than ten
(10) business days thereafter, convert 100% of the IPO Shares for cash for a conversion price per share equal to the amount then
held in the Trust Account, including the interest earned thereon, less any interest for income or franchise taxes payable, divided by
the total number of IPO Shares then outstanding (which conversion will completely extinguish such holders’ rights as stockholders,
including the right to receive further liquidation distributions, if any), subject to applicable law, and (iii) as promptly as reasonably
possible following such conversion, subject to approval of the Corporation’s then stockholders and subject to the requirements of
the GCL, including the adoption of a resolution by the Board pursuant to Section 275(a) of the GCL finding the dissolution of
the Corporation advisable and the provision of such notices as are required by said Section 275(a) of the GCL, dissolve and
liquidate, subject (in the case of clauses “(ii)” and “(iii)” above) to the Corporation’s obligations
under the GCL to provide for claims of creditors and other requirements of applicable law.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this Amendment
to the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation this 29th day of October 2021.


 


	 	/s/
    Peter Lee
	 	Peter Lee
	 	President and Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 07, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 07, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0547. KIMBERLY GRESHAM v. ATLANTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL SYSTEM 

et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2014242999
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33236]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-405-802]


Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Finland: 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Extension of Time Limit

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limit.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limit of the final results of the antidumping duty administrative 
review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Finland. This 
review covers the period August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 19, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heather Osborne or Linda Ludwig, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group 
III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C.; telephone (202) 482-3019 or 482-3833, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to the complexity of issues involved in 
this case, it is not practicable to complete this review within the 
original time limit. The Department is extending the time limit for 
completion of the final results until January 12, 1998, in accordance 
with Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994. See memorandum to 
Robert S. LaRussa from Joseph A. Spetrini regarding the extension of 
the case deadline, dated December 12, 1997.
    This extension is in accordance with 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(3)(A)).

    Dated: December 12, 1997.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 97-33236 Filed 12-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime VERDUZCO-LAUREL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-30334.

D.C. No. CR01-5195JET.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jaime Verduzco-Laurel challenges two sentencing enhancements applied to him by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

(1) Verduzco-Laurel argues that there was insufficient evidence to support a two-level aggravating role enhancement under USSG § SBl.lic),1 and that the district court failed to make the necessary findings concerning that enhancement. We reject the former contention; there was ample evidence that he exercised authority over his two nephews, who, upon his request, delivered the drugs from a remote location. We do, however, find merit in the latter contention. Despite the fact that Verduzco-Laurel specifically disputed the Presentence Report’s allegation that he had claimed that others worked for him, and despite the fact that testimony was heard from the undercover officer on the matter, the district court made no findings that resolved the dispute. That was error. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(1); *United States v. Carter,*219 F.3d 863, 866 (9th Cir.2000). Therefore, the sentence must be vacated. *See United States v. Fernandez-Angulo,*897 F.2d 1514, 1516 (9th Cir.1990) (en banc).

(2) Verduzco-Laurel also challenges the district court’s application of a two-level *254enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon. *See*USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1). We conclude that the district court did not commit clear error in determining that the guns found in Verduzco-Laurel’s home and buried with drugs in his backyard were “possessed” by him within the meaning of § 2D1.1(b)(1). *See United States v. Kyllo,*37 F.3d 526, 531 (9th Cir.1994); *United States v. Pitts,*6 F.3d 1366, 1368, 1372-73 (9th Cir.1993); *United States v. Gillock,*886 F.2d 220, 223 (9th Cir.1989).

AFFIRMED in PART, VACATED in PART, AND REMANDED. The district court need not take further evidence, or consider any sentencing issues other than the finding concerning the aggravating role enhancement.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. All references are to the November 1, 2000, version of the Guidelines.
**Exhibit 32.02**

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

 

In connection with the AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of Green Endeavors,Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard G. Clegg,Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

/s/ Richard G. Clegg____________

Richard G. Clegg

Chief Financial Officer andDirector

(Principal Accounting andFinancial Officer)

Date:  March 25, 2011

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Green Endeavors,Inc. and will be retained by Green and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES GEATHERS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 61 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
256 La. 363

#### OLYMPIA ROOFING CO., Inc. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 50609.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: Olympia Roofing Co., Inc., and the City of New Orleans applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 234 So.2d 273.

Writ refused. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is correct.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32723]


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

 FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, December 17, 1997.

PLACE: Board Room, Second Floor, Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

STATUS: The entire meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED DURING PORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:

    <bullet> Affordable Housing Program Applications Approval.
    <bullet> Final Rule Amending Definition of ``State'' in Membership 
Regulation to Include American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands.
    <bullet> Office of Finance Debt Authorization.
    <bullet> Resolution Clarifying Intention Regarding Member Subsidy 
Limit Provision of AHP Regulation.
    <bullet> Technical Amendment to the Financial Management Policy to 
Permit FHLBanks to Place Insured Deposits With All Members.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the 
Board, (202) 408-2837.
William W. Ginsberg,
Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 97-32723 Filed 12-10-97; 4:35 pm]
BILLING CODE 6725-01-P
## COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 77th District Court of Limestone County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on April 13,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Teddie Davenport v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-14-00280-CR Trial Court Number: 13,187-A

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated April 13, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on July 7, 2015

.



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
304(m) CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0824

DCN CBM00635 

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
#### Patrick SCHIFINI, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 77-999.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 1, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 1977.

Patrick Schifini in pro. per.

Kenneth H. Hart, J., General Counsel, Tallahassee, and James R. Parks, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The record shows that the untimely filing of a request for reconsideration by the petitioner, Patrick Schifini, was not due to any fault on his part but rather due to a mistake of the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation. Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the decision of the Industrial Relations Commission is quashed with directions that a rehearing be granted the petitioner on his request for reconsideration filed on November 24, 1973.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.