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

               
<TABLE>               
<CAPTION>               
               MIRAGE RESORTS, INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES

            COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK
                                              
                                              
                                                Three months ended March 31
                                                ----------------------------
                                                     1997            1996 
                                                -------------   ------------
<S>                                             <C>             <C>
Weighted-average shares outstanding.......       178,453,799     183,805,496
                                                           
Common stock equivalents..................        12,077,867      11,888,308
                                                ------------    ------------
Weighted-average shares outstanding and
 common stock equivalents used in the
 computation of primary earnings per
 share....................................       190,531,666     195,693,804

Additional shares for fully diluted
 calculation..............................         1,444,227       1,572,404
                                                ------------    ------------
Total shares outstanding assuming full
 dilution.................................       191,975,893     197,266,208
                                                ============    ============

Net income................................      $ 54,464,000    $ 64,587,000
                                                
Primary earnings per share................      $       0.29    $       0.33
                                                 
Fully diluted earnings per share..........      $       0.28    $       0.33
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**** 

**Certification of Principal Executive Officer**

**and Principal Financial Officer**

**** 

 

I, Frederick Pevow, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Gateway Energy Corporation for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2013, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o (d)) and that information contained in such report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gateway Energy Corporation. 

 

 

 

Date:  August 16, 2013                                              /s/ Frederick M. Pevow                                                 

                                                                                          Frederick M. Pevow

                                                                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

                                                                                          (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
#### Earl A. BOWERS, Appellant, v. Marion T. BOWERS, Appellee.

No. 72-576.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 9, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
      32





**CAREADVANTAGE,
      INC**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




Pursuant
      to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Dennis J. Mouras, Chief
      Executive Officer and acting principal financial officer of CareAdvantage,
      Inc.
      (the “Company”), hereby certify that (i) the Annual Report of the Company on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: March,
      31, 2008




/s/
                Dennis J. Mouras
              Dennis
                J. Mouras,
              Chief
                Executive Officer andacting
                Principal Financial Officer
#### Rose Boe, wife of Charles BONOMO, et al. v. LAKE FOREST, INC.

No. 60180.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1977.

In re: Lake Forest, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 346 So.2d 358.

Writ denied. Since the court of appeal has remanded the case for trial on the merits, the judgment is not final.
S i l v i c u l t u r e Best Management Practices 11

Figure 2
12 S i l v i c u l t u r e Best Management Practices

Perennial Lakes and Sinkholes

A Primary Zone of 35' applies to all perennial lakes that are 2 acres or 

larger in size, and to sinkholes that maintain perennial surface waters. This 

Zone is measured from the lake or sinkhole, beginning at the break in slope at 

the top of the shoreline, out to the designated width. In addition, a Secondary 

Zone may apply to these waterbodies depending on the SSC associated with 

the harvest unit (Table 2). The Secondary Zone, if required, would begin at 

the outer boundary of the Primary Zone and continue outward from the lake or 

sinkhole the specified distance (See Appendix 1).

Intermittent Lakes and Sinkholes

A Stringer and a Secondary Zone of at least 35 feet apply to all intermittent lakes that are 2 acres or larger in size and to sinkholes that maintain 

intermittent surface waters (Figure 3). Depending on the SSC associated with 

the project site, the Secondary Zone could extend out as much as 300 feet 

(Appendix 1).

OFW, ONRW and Class I Waters

Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) and Outstanding National Resource 

Waters (ONRWs) are waterbodies that have been identified as having unique 

and/or exceptional values and therefore are afforded extra protection from 

potential sources of pollution. Class I Waters are those that have been 

designated as a drinking water supply and are also afforded extra water 

quality protection. For these reasons, a 200 foot Primary Zone applies to all 

OFWs, ONRWs and Class I Waters, regardless of the type or size of the 

waterbody. A list and location of these waterbodies is provided in Appendix 4.

Table 2: SMZ Widths for Lakes, Sinkholes & Special Waters

Perennial Intermittent

Primary Zone	 Secondary Zone	 Primary Zone	 Secondary Zone

Lakes 35’ varies with SSC (Stringer) min. 35’

Sinkholes 35’ varies with SSC (Stringer) min. 35’

OFW 200’ varies with SSC 200’ varies with SSC

ONRW 200’ varies with SSC 200’ varies with SSC

Class I 200’ varies with SSC 200’ varies with SSC

Application of SMZs: Lakes, Sinkholes 

and Special Waters
Schedule of Warrants to Purchase Common Stock


 




EXHIBIT 10.4

				
	WARRANT RECIPIENT LIST

	 
	 
	 

	Name

	$4 Warrants

	$12 Warrants

	Total


	 
	 
	 
	 

	Officer/Directors:

	 
	 
	 

	William Koppelmann, President, Chairman

	25,000

	75,000

	100,000


	Bobby Story, Chief Financial Officer, Director

	15,000

	75,000

	90,000


	Samuel Konig, Vice-President, Director

	-

	25,000

	25,000


	Brian Krogol, Vice-President

	5,000

	50,000

	55,000


	 
	 
	 
	 

	Directors:

	 
	 
	 

	Carl C. Hoechner,Director

	-

	25,000

	25,000


	Mark Kutner, MD, Director

	15,000

	50,000

	65,000


	James Wall, Director

	-

	25,000

	25,000


	Chris Perrucci, Esq., Director

	-

	25,000

	25,000


	John Leavitt, PhD, Director

	-

	25,000

	25,000


	Scott Howell, MD, Director

	-

	25,000

	25,000


	 
	 
	 
	 

	Total Officers and Directors

	60,000

	400,000

	460,000


	 
	 
	 
	 

	Service Providers

	 
	 
	 

	LFH Trust

	100,000

	 
	100,000


	Bayshore Corporate Finance

	240,000

	 
	240,000


	 
	 
	 
	 

	Grand Total

	400,000

	400,000

	800,000
#### Phyllis Malling-Holm BRADY, d/b/a Manor House Apartments, Appellant, v. LEASING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-1085.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 18, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Clarence SHANNON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-391.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 16, 1973.

Peter W. Mitchell, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction and sentence after pleading nolo con-tendere to the charges against him.

Our examination of the record on appeal and consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties indicate that no reversible error was committed in arriving at the judgment appealed. Kelly v. State, 254 So.2d 22 (Fla.App. 1st, 1971). Accordingly, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### Richard M. SAFFIR, and all those persons serviced by Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, etc., Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, etc., Appellee.

No. 42690.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 13, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Raymond Gene Lazarine v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00982

- CR

Trial court case number: 1411997

Trial court: 184th District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is DENIED

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas

- Molloy

 Acting for the Court

The en banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau,

Hightower, Countiss, Rivas

- Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

Date: February 17, 2022
Exhibit 15—Letter Re: Unaudited Interim Financial InformationTo the Shareholders and Board of Directors of Goodrich CorporationWe are aware of the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements and intheir related Prospectuses, of our report dated October 27, 2006 relating to the unauditedcondensed consolidated interim financial statements of Goodrich Corporation that are included inits Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006:     **Registration**    **Number** **Description of Registration Statement** **Filing Date**33-49052 The B.F.Goodrich Company Key Employees’ Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 June 26, 1992     333-03293 The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 May 8, 1996     333-19697 The B.F.Goodrich Company Savings Benefit Restoration Plan — Form S-8 January 13, 1997     333-53879 Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan — Form S-8 May 29, 1998     333-53881 Rohr, Inc. 1982 Stock Option Plan, Rohr, Inc. 1989 Stock IncentivePlan and Rohr, Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive Plan — Form S-8 May 29, 1998     333-76297 Coltec Industries Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan and Coltec IndustriesInc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors — Form S-8 April 14, 1999     333-77023 The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan and Goodrich Corporation2001 Equity Compensation Plan — Form S-8 April 26, 1999     333-60210 Goodrich Corporation Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 May 4, 2001     333-60208 Goodrich Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan — Form S-8 May 4, 2001     333-98165 Shelf Registration for Debt Securities, Series Preferred Stock,Common Stock, Stock Purchase Contracts and Stock Purchase Units —Form S-3 August 15, 2002     333-107866 Goodrich Corporation Employees’ Savings Plan — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-107867 Goodrich Corporation Wage Employees’ Savings Plan — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-107868 Goodrich Corporation Savings Plan for Rohr Employees — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-109247 Goodrich Corporation Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan — Form S-8 September 29, 2003     333-123721 Goodrich Corporation Outside Director Deferral Plan — Form S-8 March 31, 2005     333-124244 Goodrich Corporation 2001 Equity Compensation Plan — Form S-8 April 22, 2005     333-136437 Goodrich Corporation 2006 Offers to Exchange Notes — Form S-4 August 9, 2006              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP  Charlotte, North Carolina
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20832 Conference Calendar

RONNIE DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH; DR. JOHN STOBO, President; GENE MCMASTERS, Practice Manager; GLENDA ADAMS, M.D.; JULIA LAWSON, P.A., Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CV-2104

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ronnie Davis, Texas prisoner # 1250016, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Davis alleged that the defendants’ treatment constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Scanlan v. Texas A&M Univ. , 343 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003). Unsuccessful medicalNo. 05-20832 -2- treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 cause of action. Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). In addition, a physician’s failure to follow the advice of another physician is not evidence of deliberate indifference. Stewart v. Murphy , 174 F.3d 530, 535 (5th Cir. 1999). While Davis may have disagreed with the treatment he received from prison medical staff, their level of care does not demonstrate deliberate indifference to his medical needs. See Varnado , 920 F.2d at 321. Davis is cautioned that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). He is also cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
# L_2009055EN.01S00301.xml

| 27.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 55/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 55/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 167 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 167

Adjusting the status of an existing position on the Capitol Police for 
           duty with respect to the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 1993

 Mr. Manton submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Adjusting the status of an existing position on the Capitol Police for 
           duty with respect to the House of Representatives.

    Resolved, That there is established one additional position of 
lieutenant on the Capitol Police for duty with respect to the House of 
Representatives, to serve as agency training representative for the 
Capitol Police. Each appointment to the position shall be made--
            (1) by the Capitol Police Board from among members and 
        officers of the Capitol Police, with prior approval of the 
        Committee on House Administration; and
            (2) without regard to political affiliation and solely on 
        the basis of fitness to perform the duties of the position.
    Sec. 2. (a)(1) The position of agency training representative, as 
established by the first section of House Resolution 320, is abolished.
    (2) The former position of an officer or member serving as agency 
training representative, as referred to in section 2 of House 
Resolution 320, is abolished.
    (b) The resolution referred to in subsection (a) is House 
Resolution 320, Ninety-ninth Congress, agreed to November 14, 1985, as 
enacted into permanent law by section 102 of the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 1987 (as incorporated by reference in section 
101(j) of Public Law 99-500 and section 101(j) of Public Law 99-591 (40 
U.S.C. 206 note)).
    Sec. 3. Until otherwise provided by law, there shall be paid out of 
the contingent fund of the House such sums as may be necessary to carry 
out this resolution.

                                 <all>
```
254 La. 779

#### BONFANTI INDUSTRIES, INC. v. TEKE, INC., et al.

No. 50008.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 8, 1969.

In re: Teke, Inc., et al applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 224 So.2d 15.

Writ refused. The judgment is correct.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.3


           (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 on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2003 of Golf Host Resorts, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof (the
"Report") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Merrick Kleeman, President of the
Company, certify, that:

         1)       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
                  (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended; and

         2)       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results
                  of operations of the company.


                                     /s/ Merrick  Kleeman
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     Name:    Merrick Kleeman
                                     Title:   President
                                              (Chief Executive Officer)
                                     Date:    May 15, 2003
#### MERRITT SCOTTEN, d. b. appl’t *vs.*JOSHUA BROWN, p. b. resp’t.

A paroi contract relating to lands, is void by the statute of frauds, and cannot be proved for any purpose, either of claim or defence.

Kent,

October term, 1845.

This was an appeal from the judgment of a Justice of the Peace, in an action of assumpsit for work and labor. The pro narr. contained the common counts for work and labor, and a special count on a contract, that in consideration that defendant would clear and grub a piece of new ground, plaintiff would pay what it was reasonably worth.

/The plaintiff proved a clearing of a certain meadow for defendant; and that it was worth $30 to clear it.

The defence was, that Brown was the tenant of defendant on a farm for five years, and that he cleared this meadow which was not a part of the farm, for his own benefit, without any agreement on the part of defendant to pay him any thing. After the meadow was cleared the defendant agreed that he should have the meadow for three years as a compensation for clearing it; he seeding it. The defendant offered a witness to prove this, and the evidence was objected to on the ground that such a contract if proved was void, by the statute of frauds, being a paroi contract .concerning lands. *(Dig.*88; 2 *Stark. Evid.*347.) It respects an interest in the soil; and not merely in the crops at maturity; which is the distinction between- cases in, and those out of the statute. (7 *Johns. Rep.*205; 11 *Mass. Rep.*533; 9 *Johns. Rep.)*

*325
      *Bates*and *Bates,*jr., for plaintiff.

*Frame,*for defendant.

*Mr. Frame*

said, the statute of frauds only prohibited the bringing suits upon such contracts, and did not make it void under all circumstances.

*The Court:*

Booth, *Chief*Justice.

—The statute of frauds introduces no new principle, but a new rule of evidence, requiring that contracts relating to lands shall be evidenced by writing and not otherwise. This rule is to prevent perjury, by avoiding the danger and removing the inducements to false swearing in relation to contracts relating to lands. The danger in this respect, and the necessity of the rule which the statute prescribes, are equally strong, whether the suit is directly upon the contract, or the contract is sought to be proved incidentally and by way of defence. The only question then is, whether this contract is for or concerning *such*an interest in lands as is within the statute *1*and being of the opinion that it is, we rule out any paroi evidence of such a contract.

This ended the case, and the plaintiff below had a verdict.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1



         Exhibit 10.1  Exclusive Marketing and Technology Agreement filed under
Form SE with the Securities and Exchange Commission on 7/24/01.