alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1


             Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

Computation of Earnings Per Share
---------------------------------

The following formula was used to calculate the earnings per share, Consolidated
Statements of Income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2001 and 2000,
included in this report as Exhibit 13.3.


Earnings Per Share

Net Income /
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding for the period

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                 Three months ended
                                       June 30,
                               -----------------------
                                 2001            2000
                               -------         -------
<S>                           <C>            <C>
Weighted Average
Shares Outstanding            1,538,443      1,538,443

Net Income                      603,218        584,860

Per Share Amount                    .39            .38
</TABLE>


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                  Six months ended
                                      June 30,
                               -----------------------
                                 2001            2000
                               -------         -------
<S>                           <C>            <C>
Weighted Average
Shares Outstanding            1,538,443      1,538,443

Net Income                    1,185,383      1,144,403

Per Share Amount                    .77            .74

</TABLE>

No common stock equivalents exist.
Appendix 1 

Emissions Inventory Support Memorandum 
Pharmaceuticals Production 
1

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Anne Pope, EPA 

FROM: Darcy Wilson, ERG 

DATE: July 15, 2010 

SUBJECT: Emissions Data Used in Residual Risk Modeling for Pharmaceuticals 

Production 

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information on the RTR database used in 

estimating residual risk for the Pharmaceuticals Production Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) source category. 

BACKGROUND 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage regulatory process to 

address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from stationary sources. In the first 

stage, section 112(d) requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop 

technology-based standards for categories of industrial sources. In the second stage, 

known as the residual risk stage, section 112(f)(2) requires EPA to assess the health and 

environmental risks that remain after sources come into compliance with MACT. If 

additional risk reductions are necessary to protect public health with an ample margin of 

safety or to prevent adverse environmental effects, EPA must develop standards to 

address these remaining risks. As part of this second stage, data were gathered to assess 

the residual risks from the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT source category. 

EMISSIONS DATA USED IN RESIDUAL RISK MODELING 

The 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data served as the starting point for this 

assessment. Using the process MACT code,1 a subset of the NEI was developed that 

contained facility, process, and emissions data for each facility in the Pharmaceuticals 

Production source category (MACT code 1201). The 2002 NEI data for Pharmaceuticals 

Production facilities were released through an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) in March of 2007, where NEI revisions for facilities in the MACT source 

category were solicited from State and local agencies, industry representatives, and EPA. 

The revisions that were provided to EPA were incorporated into the NEI prior to the 

initial NATA modeling. 

Risks associated with facilities covered by the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT 

standard were modeled in the initial 2005 NATA risk assessment in June of 2009. 

NATA comments on the initial risk assessment draft that have been incorporated into the 

 

1

 Assigning data with MACT codes allows EPA to determine reductions attributable to the MACT 

program. The NEI associates MACT codes corresponding to MACT source categories with stationary 

major and area source data. 
2

2005 NEI are identification of a closed facility in Puerto Rico (closed in 2008), and 

revisions to emissions, MACT code assignments, and locational coordinates for the 

facility. 

No additional revisions have been received for this source category based on the 2005 

NATA Risk Preview with state and local agencies in June of 2010.
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7954 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef 

Conservation Act of 1998. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 7954 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tropical Forest and 

3 Coral Reef Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2020’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

5 Section 806(d) of the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef 

6 Conservation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 2431d(d)) is amend7 ed by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: 

8 ‘‘(9) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2021. 

9 ‘‘(10) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2022. 

10 ‘‘(11) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2023. 

11 ‘‘(12) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2024. 

12 ‘‘(13) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2025.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7954 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Tropical Forest and Coral Reef 

Conservation Act of 1998.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2010
-NM - 243
- AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Louis E. ROBINSON.

No. 61693.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1978.

Charles Williams, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., William L. Brockman, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2314
CHARLES W. EZELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAN RIVER, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-17-4) Submitted: March 24, 2003 Decided: April 17, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles W. Ezell, Appellant Pro Se. James Phillip Naughton, Sara Lynne Berg, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles W. Ezell appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Dan River, Inc. (“Dan River”), his former employer, in this action alleging retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeEzell v. Dan River, Inc. , No. CA-02-17-4 (W.D. Va. Nov. 1, 2002). We deny Dan River’s motions to exclude an affidavit attached to Ezell’s informal brief and to exclude Ezell’s reply brief and deny, as moot, Ezell’s motion seeking an extension of time to file a response to the motion to exclude the affidavit. 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.

AFFIRMED
<Page>
                                                               EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

      WHEREAS, the undersigned officers and directors of Vital Signs, Inc. (the
"Corporation") desire to authorize Terence D. Wall, Herbert Javer and Jay J.
Sturm, to act as their attorneys-in-fact and agents, for the purpose of
executing and filing the corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended September 30, 2001, including all amendments thereto,

      NOW, THEREFORE,

      KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Terence D. Wall, Herbert Javer and Jay J. Sturm
and each of them, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full
power of substitution and resubstitution, to sign the Corporation's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2001, including any and all
amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power
and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, or their or his
substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this power of attorney
in the following capacities on this 19th day of December, 2001

SIGNATURE                     TITLE


                              President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
------------------------
Terence D. Wall


                              Director
------------------------
David J. Bershad


                              Director
------------------------
Anthony J. Dimun


                              Director
------------------------
Stuart M. Essig


                              Director
------------------------
E. David Hetz


                              Director
------------------------
Joseph J. Thomas


                              Executive Vice President,  Sales and Director
------------------------
Barry Wicker

                                         31
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.38

                        SHELLS SEAFOOD RESTAURANTS, INC.
                       16313 North Dale Mabry, Suite 100
                              Tampa, Florida 33618

January 19, 2000

Mr. Warren Nelson
Shells Seafood Restaurants, Inc.
16313 North Dale Mabry, Suitse 100
Tampa, Florida 33469

Dear Warren:

You have asked for clarification of your existing employment dated, May 18,
1993, with the Company, with respect to your entitlement to severance payments.
This letter confirms that in the event your employment is terminated by the
Company without cause, either while the employment agreement is in effect or
after its expiration and non-renewal by the Company, you will be entitled to
receive a severance payment equal to 12 months of your then annual salary. The
severance payment will be payable over the ensuing 12 month period in accordance
with the Company's then normal payroll practices.

This letter is written on behalf of the company and its Board of Directors and
is intended to bind the Company and its successors and assigns.


Very truly yours,

/s/ RICHARD A. MANDELL
---------------------------------------
Richard A. Mandell, Director on behalf
Of Shells Restaurants, Inc.



I agree

/s/ WARREN NELSON
---------------------------------------
Warren Nelson
1/24/00
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6846

IN RE: WALTER JACOB DAVIS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-73; CA-01-59-5-F) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 28, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Jacob Davis, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Walter Jacob Davis petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed in acting upon his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted, because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. We grant Davis’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.
PETITION DENIED
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8207 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the scope of procedural 

rights of members of the uniformed services with respect to their employment and reemployment rights, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2020 

Mr. CICILLINE (for himself, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Mr. GOLDEN, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, and Mr. 

JOHNSON of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the scope 

of procedural rights of members of the uniformed services with respect to their employment and reemployment 

rights, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice for Service5 members Act of 2020’’. 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8207 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING SCOPE OF EMPLOY2 MENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MEM3 BERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES. 

4 (a) CLARIFICATION REGARDING DEFINITION OF

5 RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.—Section 4303(2) of title 38, 

6 United States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ before ‘‘The term’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub9 paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(B) Any procedural protections or provisions 

11 set forth in this chapter shall also be considered a 

12 right or benefit subject to the protection of this 

13 chapter.’’. 

14 (b) CLARIFICATION REGARDING RELATION TO

15 OTHER LAW AND PLANS FOR AGREEMENTS.—Section 

16 4302 of such title is amended by adding at the end the 

17 following: 

18 ‘‘(c)(1) Pursuant to this section and the procedural 

19 rights afforded by subchapter III of this chapter, any 

20 agreement to arbitrate a claim under this chapter is unen21 forceable, unless all parties consent to arbitration after a 

22 complaint on the specific claim has been filed in court or 

23 with the Merit Systems Protection Board and all parties 

24 knowingly and voluntarily consent to have that particular 

25 claim subjected to arbitration. 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8207 IH

1 ‘‘(2) For purposes of this subsection, consent shall 

2 not be considered voluntary when a person is required to 

3 agree to arbitrate an action, complaint, or claim alleging 

4 a violation of this chapter as a condition of future or con5 tinued employment, advancement in employment, or re6 ceipt of any right or benefit of employment.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 32.1


                CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 accompanying quarterly report of Falcon Products,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Franklin A. Jacobs, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge 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: March 15, 2004                             /s/ Franklin A. Jacobs
                                                 ----------------------
                                                 Franklin A. Jacobs
                                                 Chairman of the Board and
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Trade Commission

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Theresa Kingsberry, Program Support Specialist, Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room CC-5301, Washington, DC 20024 (202) 326-3100.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-13189 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
#### Mrs. Anne B. MILLS (Harry E. Mills, Deceased), Petitioner, v. SUPER-TEST OIL & GAS COMPANY et al., Respondents.

No. 39728.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 22, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1062 TP 11-01098**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JAMAAL COLESON, PETITIONER,

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, RESPONDENT.

JAMAAL COLESON, PETITIONER PRO SE.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PETER H. SCHIFF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [David A. Murad, J.], entered April 18, 2011) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a Tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
#### Robert Tony BAGOCUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. HH-277.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 22, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 11, 1978.

Edwin Marger and J. Timothy Lawler, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Patti Eng-lander and George R. Georgieff, Asst. At-tys. Gen., for appellee.

*886SMITH, Judge.

Convicted and sentenced after a jury trial for four offenses associated with his possession of marijuana and narcotics, Bagocus urges errors including the trial court’s failure to suppress evidence taken in a search of his truck and the admission in evidence of self-incriminating statements.

Bagocus drove his pickup truck, the bed of which was covered by a camper top, past an agricultural inspection station on an interstate highway. He was pursued and stopped by two uniformed and armed agricultural inspection officers in an official vehicle with a flashing light. According to the testimony of the officers and Bagocus, the officers advised Bagocus that he had passed an agricultural inspection station and that they would like to inspect the contents of his truck. Bagocus opened the rear glass section of the camper top, revealing objects covered by a canvas; the officers then requested that Bagocus open the tail gate, which he did. One of the officers climbed into the truck and found several bags which were taped closed. The officers directed Bagocus to return to the inspection station and, on the way, he twice stopped and pleaded with the officers to “work something out.” At the officers’ request, Bagocus again admitted them to the rear of the truck at the inspection station, and they found bags containing vegetable matter which they believed to be marijuana. Ba-gocus was arrested by a deputy sheriff who, after advising Bagocus of his *Miranda*rights, took incriminating statements.

Nothing in this record impeaches the trial court’s finding that the searches on the highway and at the station were conducted with Bagocus’ consent. When Bagocus passed the inspection station in a pickup truck capable of transporting agricultural products that were subject to inspection, the officers were entitled to stop the truck. They were further entitled to request Bagocus to permit the inspection. Bagocus complied. We decline to extend the holdings in *Sarga v. State,*322 So.2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) and *Powell*v. *State,*332 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) to hold as a matter of law that uniformed agricultural inspection officers, carrying weapons they did not brandish in any way, have overborne the will of a lawfully stopped driver by simply asking him to permit an inspection.

Bagocus was suitably warned, upon his arrest, as required by *Miranda v. Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). There was no error in admitting in evidence his incriminating statements. We find no merit in Bagocus’ point that the state was permitted to use evidence of those statements at trial without having given appropriate notice, and the appeal is otherwise without merit.

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and BLACK, SUSAN, Associate Judge, concur.
EXHIBIT 23.01

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated January 31, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual
Report of Versant Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2010. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statements of Versant Corporation on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-08537, effective July 19, 1996, 333-29947, effective June 24, 1997,
333-80827, effective June 16, 1999, 333-43480, effective August 10, 2000, 333-58152, effective April 2, 2001, 333-67776, effective
August 17, 2001, 333-87922, effective May 9, 2002, 333-107956, effective August 14, 2003, 333-113871, effective March 24, 2004,
333-125368, effective May 31, 2005, 333-130601, effective December 22, 2005, 333-143278, effective May 25, 2007, 333-152550,
effective July 25, 2008, and 333-159931, effective June 12, 2009).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLPSan Francisco, California
January 31, 2011

---



QuickLinks