alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
                                                        -----------------------------------------
                                                          NUMBER         PERCENT       EQUIVALENT
                                                         OF SHARES     OUTSTANDING       SHARES
                                                        -----------    -----------       ------
COMMON STOCK
<S>                                                      <C>             <C>            <C>      
   From Founders' Stock                                  2,300,000       100.00%        2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                                 828,571        94.10%          779,658
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock            15,310,943       100.00%       15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                          11,242,857       100.00%       11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                           4,323,874       100.00%        4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                            6,000,000       100.00%        6,000,000
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued               75,891       100.00%           75,891
   1997 Warrants Exercised                                  48,300       100.00%           48,300
                                                        ----------                   ------------
                                                        40,130,436                     40,081,523

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                    40,081,523

NET LOSS                                                                             ($23,788,689)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                         ($0.59)
                                                                                     ============
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             300                     300
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,169                   4,169
<ALLOWANCES>                                        60                      60
<INVENTORY>                                     35,168                  35,168
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,020                  40,020
<PP&E>                                           2,202                   2,202
<DEPRECIATION>                                     542                     542
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,315                  42,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,709                  14,709
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             6                       6
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,107                  24,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,315                  42,315
<SALES>                                          7,296                  30,128
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,296                  30,128
<CGS>                                            5,126                  20,744
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,126                  20,744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,120                   4,860
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 338                     942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    712                   3,582
<INCOME-TAX>                                       272                   1,424
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                440                   2,158
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       440                   2,158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06                     .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06                     .31


</TABLE>
ex_235249.htm


Exhibit 10.3


 


 


BioLargo, Inc.


2021 Engagement Extension Agreement


 


This Engagement Extension Agreement (the “Extension”) references the Engagement Agreement and Scope Letter dated February 1, 2008 (“2008 Agreement”) by and between CFO 911 (Charles K. Dargan II) (the “Advisor)” and BioLargo, Inc. (the “Company”), and written extensions to the Agreement (the “Prior Extensions”), pursuant to which Charles K. Dargan II has been serving as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer. The parties desire to extend the terms of the prior agreements for a period of one year, pursuant to the terms of this Extension. The 2008 Agreement, the Prior Extensions and this Extension are collectively referred to herein as the “Agreement”.


 


Except as expressly amended or modified herein, all terms and conditions set forth in the 2008 Agreement and Prior Extensions are incorporated herein by this reference and continue to be in full force and effect. The parties acknowledge and confirm that Mr. Dargan has been serving as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer since February 1, 2008, and that he continues to do so through today’s date. The prior extension expired on January 31, 2021. The Advisor and the Company hereby agree to extend the Term of the engagement as set forth in the 2008 Agreement for one year, to expire January 31, 2022 (the “Extended Term”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may terminate this Agreement upon 30 days’ written notice. At the end of the Extended Term, unless this Agreement has been terminated, Advisor shall continue to serve as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer until new terms are agreed upon, or until one of the parties gives notice to terminate the relationship.


 


During the Extended Term, the Advisor shall receive the compensation as set forth in this Extension. The Company shall issue to Charles K. Dargan II an option (the “Option”) to purchase 25,000 shares of the Company’s common stock for each month during the Extended Term (thus, an option to purchase 300,000 shares, representing 12 months). The Option shall vest over the period of the Extended Term, with 25,000 shares having vested as of March 18, 2021, and the remaining shares to vest 25,000 shares monthly beginning March 31, 2021, and each month thereafter, so long as this Agreement is in full force and effect. The Option shall be exercisable at the closing price of the Company’s common stock as of the date signed by Advisor below (the “Grant Date”), and shall expire ten years from the grant date. The Option shall be issued pursuant to the Company’s 2018 Equity Incentive Plan.


 


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED AS OF THE DATE LAST SIGNED BELOW


 


	CFO 911	 	BioLargo, Inc.	 
	18851 NE 29TH Avenue, Suite 700	 	14921 Chestnut Street	 
	Aventura, FL 33180	 	Westminster, CA 92683	 
	 	 	 	 



 


	By:	 	 	By:	 	 



	Name: Mr. Charles K. Dargan II	 	Name: Mr. Dennis P. Calvert	 
	Title: Chief Executive Officer	 	Title: President/CEO	 
	Date signed: ______________	 	Date signed: _____________	 
	Stock price on date signed: ______
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60526 Summary Calendar

**Flaviane Almeida**

**- Goncalves,** 

Petitioner **,**

versus

**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200 023 579

Before **Wiener, Dennis,**  and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Flaviane Alme id a

- Gonclaves, a native and citizen of Brazil, timely petitions us for a review of a decision of the B oard of I mmigration A ppeals upholding the denial of her motion to reopen. She first argues that the B oard erred in holding that the motion is time and number barred because it

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 6, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60526 Document: 00516383178 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2022No. 21

- 60526

2 contained new evidence, in the form of allegations of continued harassment, that was not received until after the first motion. Second, she argues that she has proven a prima facie cas e of asylum, withholding o f removal , and
C onvention A gainst T orture protection. Third, she asserts that the Board and Immigration Judge should have granted sua sponte relief.

We review the denial of a motion to reconsider under an abuse

- of

discretion stan dard. Gonzales

- Veliz v. Barr , 938 F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2019). Under this standard, Alme id a

- Gonclaves must identify either a “change in the law, a misapplication of the law, or an aspect of the case that the BIA
overlooked.” Zhao v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 295, 30 1 (5th Cir. 2005)). The BIA's decision will stand unless it was “capricious, racially invidious [or] utterly
without foundation in the evidence.” Id. at 304 (quoting Pritchett v. INS , 993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir. 1993)).

T he country condition argumen t was not presented to the Immigration Judge. Matter of Jimenez

- Santillano , 21 I. & N. Dec. 567, 570 n. 2 (BIA 1996)

. Because the argument is unexhausted, we lack jurisdiction to
consider it. See Eduard v. Ashcroft , 379 F.3d 182, 195 & n.14 ( 5th Cir. 20 0 4)

. Accordingly, there is no basis to analyze the prima facie case in the motion. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
We lack jurisdiction to consider how or with what process sua sponte authority is used by the Immigration Judge or Board

. Qorane v. Barr , 919 F.3d 904, 911

- 12 (5th Cir. 2019) ; see Ahmed v. Gonzales , 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006).

**DISMISSED.** Case: 21-60526 Document: 00516383178 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2022
| **EXHIBIT 23**                                          |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                    |
| **Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants** |

 

To the Board of Directors

 

Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.

 

As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our report dated June 8, 2007, relating to the financial statements of Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd., which report appears in the Quarterly Report dated April 30, 2007 on Form 10-Q of Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.

 

| June 13, 2007 |
|---------------|

 

| /s/ Quick & McFarlin, P.C. |
|--------------------------------|
| Quick & McFarlin, P.C.     |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15588]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15553 and #15554; NEW JERSEY Disaster Number NJ-
00048]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of New Jersey

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Jersey 
(FEMA-4368-DR), dated 06/08/2018.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storm and Snowstorm.
    Incident Period: 03/06/2018 through 03/07/2018.

DATES: Issued on 07/13/2018.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/07/2018.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/08/2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of NEW 
JERSEY, dated 06/08/2018, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Burlington

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2018-15588 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Lampton *et al. v.*Stevens.

(Division B.

March 25, 1935.)

[160 So. 274.

No. 31660.]

Rawls & Hathorn, of Columbia, for appellant.

T. B. Davis, of Columbia, for appellee.

Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The motion for a new trial was overruled on August 13, 1934. Notice was given the court reporter August 21, 1934, to transcribe his notes. Appeal bond was filed; *317on October 23, 1934. The return day for the appeal was the first Monday in January, 1935. The record not having been filed, appellee moved, on January 16, 1935, to docket and dismiss. No response to this motion was made by appellant, although appellant admits that the motion was served on its attorney on the date last mentioned. The motion was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed on January 28, 1935'. The motion to reinstate the appeal' was filed on March 4, 1935.

The motion to reinstate must be overruled for two reasons : First, because no attention was paid by appellant to the motion to dismiss; and, second, because the statute by its express language limits the right of reinstatement to the term within which the order of dismissal was made. The language is that “the cause may be re-instated at any time during the term. ’ ’ Section 3382, Code 1930. The September, 1934, term of this court expired at twelve P. M., March 3, 1935'. Section 3358, Code.T930. Stovall v. Graves-Ramsey Motor Co., 167 Miss. 201, 149 So. 733. No such special circumstances are shown as would take the motion out of the operation of the limitations of the statute, if any special circumstances ’could so operate, as to which we do not decide.

Motion overruled.
#### Helen GAINES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40704.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
#### Earline Burgess, Appellant, v Memorial Sloan Kettering, Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 6]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered October 27,1995, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly granted in view of the climatological report for the day in question, which shows that plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall on snow and ice occurred during the course of a snow storm, and because liability may not be imposed on a property owner under such circumstances absent proof of "a reasonably sufficient time from the end of the storm to remedy the condition” *(Arcuri v*Vitola, 196 AD2d 519, 520). Nor can plaintiff be heard to argue that she should have been granted leave to amend her complaint to include a claim of detrimental reliance when she did not request such relief from the IAS Court *(see, Romar v Alli,*120 AD2d 420, 422). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
S IAT l' 01' II S0t'ltl 

DEPARTMENT 01· NATURAL RESOURChS 

t,l. Y 2 6 2011 

Dr. Karl Hrook$, Ph.D. 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agcncy 

Region VII 

901 NMh 5'h Street 

Kansas City, KS 66101 

Dear Dr. Brooks: 

Thank you for your agency's request for the State ofMissouri's position on whether the U,S, 

Enviromncntall'rotcction Agency (EPA) should procecd with acHons, which could ultimately lead to 

inclusion of the C01l11)ass Plaza Wc!! TeE Silc (site) on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). 

It is my understanding that the Department and EPA's sampling investigations at this site identified TCE 

conlaminated private drinking water wells posing a significant risk human health. I conunend the EPA's 

current actions to provide whole house water treatment systems to residences whose private drinking 

water wells :lrc contaminated with TCE above the Maximum Contailunents Level fOl'drinking water. I 

und~rsland thaI additillnal investigations of the source of the TeE contamination earulOt be addressed by 

the EPA through the removal program. I also undcrshllld that filllding for such investigations and elean 

up may not bc ?ossible unless the site is listed on the NPL and enters the Superfund remedial program. 

As Ihe Director of the Missouri Dcpal1mcnl ofNalural Resources, 'agree Ihal further CIWil'OllmCnlal 

illvcsti!(ationlllld remediation are wammted at the site for protection of public health and the 

eJlvironment. Therefore,' support 8nd encourage the EPA's eff0l1s in proceeding with actions. which 

could ultimately lead to inclusion of the site onlhe NPI.. 'ask that you conlinue to maintain close 

comOlunications with the Depal1ment's Division of Environmental Quahty as you proceed througb this 

proccss. 

If you have any questions, please conlact Ms. Leanne Tippett Mosby, Division of Environmcntal Quality 

Director. P.O. Dox 171i, Jeffcrson City, MO 65102-0176 or by telephone at (513) 751-0763. 

Sincercly, 

SPP:jwl 

() I:." .,·"" 1' "I ,.r
#### The City of New York, Appellant, *v.*Abraham Gurowitz, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

December, 1912.)

City of Hew York — Code of Ordinances, § 388 — sale — short weight — action for penalty.

Where defendant conducting a delicatessen store in the city of Hew York sold a pound of butter which was immediately and in his presence reweighed and found to contain but fourteen and one-half ounces, he is guilty of a violation of section 388 of the Code of Ordinances; and in an action to recover the penalty prescribed a judgment in his favor will be reversed as against the weight of evidence.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court, borough of Queens, rendered in favor of defendant.

Archibald R. Watson, corporation counsel (Martin H. Murphy, of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel W. Blumenthal, for respondent.

*512
      *Per Curiam.*

The municipal ordinance in evidence;, among other things, provides:

“ Sec. 388. No person shall sell or offer for sale any commodity or article of merchandise in any market or in the public streets or in any other place in The City of New York, at or for a greater weight or measure than the true measure or weight thereof * * *. No person shall violate any of the provisions of this section under a penalty of one hundred dollars for each offense.”

Defendant, conducting a delicatessen store, in the borough of Queens, sold and delivered to one of two inspectors of the bureau of weights and measures a pound of butter, which, upon being immediately and in his presence reweighed, was found to contain but fourteen and one-half ounces.

The fact that the purchaser and her male companion were such inspectors, of itself, raised no presumption against the credibility of their testimony and there is no evidence showing interest or bias on the part of either of them.

The proofs are convincing and clearly preponderate as to the sale by short weight of the butter, and defendant’s violation of the ordinance in the short weight sale of the butter, especially, was seemingly so well established that the conclusion of the trial justice to the contrary was unreasonable and against the weight of evidence.

Present: Maddox, Blackmar and Putnam, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 759 

Recognizing Survivors Victory Day to celebrate and honor the victims and 

survivors of trauma. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2014 

Mr. CARTER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing Survivors Victory Day to celebrate and honor 

the victims and survivors of trauma. 

Whereas, on November 19, 2002, Jessica Huber from Leander, Texas, was nearly killed after her mother, while 

under the influence of prescription pain killers, narcotics, 

and marijuana, ran a red light and crashed; 

Whereas Jessica, as a result of her injuries, underwent multiple blood transfusions and surgeries; 

Whereas, despite the extraordinary odds against her survival, 

Jessica is living a happy, healthy, and productive life; 

Whereas Jessica’s story is a poignant reminder of the thousands who have been victims and survivors of trauma; 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 759 IH 

Whereas stories of survivors of trauma remind us all of the 

indomitable nature of the human spirit and our basic desire to persevere in the face of adversity; and 

Whereas, in honor of Jessica Huber, November 19 is recognized as Survivors Victory Day: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes Survivors Victory Day to celebrate and honor the 

3 victims and survivors of trauma. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### DE BLASIS et al. *v.*VESTRY OF ADDISON PARISH DIOCESE OF WASHINGTON, INC., et al.

[No. 42,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided October 22, 1962.*

The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Prescott, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

*Samuel J. De Blasis,*with whom were *De Blasis & Kohler*on the brief, for appellants.

*531*William H. McCullough,*with whom were *McCullough & Pace*on the brief, for appellees.

P®r Curiam.

For the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Digges in the court below, in which he found no evidence of mistake in the original comprehensive zoning plan, nor that the character of the neighborhood had changed to such an extent that reclassification ought properly to be made (in which conclusions, after a careful review of the record before us, we concur, under the authority of *Didlake v. Poteet,*228 Md. 588, 180 A. 2d 828, and *Baltimore v. N. A. A. C. P.,*221 Md. 329, 157 A. 2d 433), the order of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County reversing the order of the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the District Council, which had granted the petition for rezoning, must be affirmed.

*Order affirmed, with costs.*