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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             WEBLINK WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)


<Table>
<Caption>

                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2002
                                                     ------------------------------------------------
                                                       NUMBER               PERCENT        EQUIVALENT
                                                      OF SHARES           OUTSTANDING        SHARES
                                                     ----------           -----------      ----------
<S>                                                  <C>                  <C>              <C>
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                               2,300,000             100.00%         2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                            2,508,997             100.00%         2,508,997
   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
   1999 Treasury Stock Transaction                       (6,588)            100.00%            (6,588)
   March 2000 Debt Swap                               3,789,715             100.00%         3,789,715
   Canadian Transaction                                 714,286             100.00%           714,286
   Surrender/Cancelation of Stock                      (291,723)            100.00%          (291,723)
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued           190,651             100.00%           190,651
   Warrants Exercised                                   134,737             100.00%           134,737
                                                     ----------                         -------------
                                                     46,217,749                            46,217,749

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                        46,217,749

NET LOSS                                                                                $ (11,436,022)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                      $       (0.25)
                                                                                        =============
</Table>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 25, 2011

p0718 

# Order

July 25, 2011

142891

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142891 COA: 299586 Wayne CC: 09-006930-FH JERRY PRINGLE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 24, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented shou ld be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.2



ION Networks, Inc.



CERTIFICATION





In connection with the periodic report of ION Networks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Patrick E. Delaney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



.











Date:March   28, 2007

By:/s/ Patrick E. Delaney

Patrick E. Delaney

Chief Financial Officer









A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to ION Networks, Inc. and will be retained by ION Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.















































1
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                          -----------------------------


We consent to the incorporation into the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Sand
Technology Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2002, the
Form S-8 Registration Statements for the Sand Technology Inc. 1996 Stock
Incentive Plan (Registration No. 333-8538) and the 1996 Stock Option Plan
(Registration No. 333-7462), the Form F-2 Registration Statement of Sand
Technology Inc. (Registration No. 333-12216) and the Form F-3 Registration
Statement of Sand Technology Inc. (Registration No. 333-51014) of our report
dated September 20, 2002 (except for Note 13 which is as of October 18, 2002) on
the consolidated financial statements of the Company for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2002.






                                             /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


January 29, 2003
Montreal, Quebec


                                      -90-
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 24, 2018.

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, September 24, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0077. DEIDRA CRUTCHFIELD v. MAIN STREET RENEWAL, LLC.

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

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2018CV02501
Document

Exhibit 10.36

ENDORSEMENT NO. 4
to the
TITLE INSURANCE QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE CONTRACT
(the “Contract”)
by and among
The Applicable Companies listed in Schedule 1 in relation to the Relevant US State,
(as such Schedule 1 shall be amended from time to time to include additional Applicable Companies agreed by the Reinsurer and States Title, Inc)
(each an “Applicable Company” and together the “Companies”),
AND
States Title, Inc
(acting as Agent on behalf of the Companies)
AND
SCOR SE ─ Zurich Branch
(formerly SCOR Global P&C SE ─ Zurich Branch)
General Guisan-Quai 26, 8022 Zurich, Switzerland
(the “Reinsurer”)
(Effective: Date of Policy of first incepting Eligible Policy)
It is hereby noted and mutually agreed that this Endorsement No. 4 shall be made part of the Contract as amended by all preceding Endorsements, as follows:
1.AGREED AMENDMENT ADDING AN APPLICABLE COMPANY
1.1Schedule 1 to the Contract is amended to add North American Title Insurance Company as an Applicable Company ─ Category A under the Contract.
2.GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.1Expressions defined in the Contract and used in this Endorsement have the meaning set out in the Contract.
2.2Expressions not defined in the Contract or this Endorsement but defined by laws, regulations, or rules affecting mortgage loans or real estate transactions shall be interpreted according to such laws, regulations, or rules.
2.3Except as set out in this Endorsement and any prior Endorsements, the Contract shall continue in full force and effect.
2.4This Endorsement will be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of New York exclusive of that state's rules with respect to conflicts of laws, however, with respect to credit for reinsurance, the rules of all applicable states will apply.
2.5All other terms and conditions of the Contract shall remain unchanged.
[Signatures on following page]








SIGNING BLOCK
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Applicable Company, States Title and the Reinsurer have caused this Endorsement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives:
In Miami, Florida, this 12th day of June, in the year of 2019
On behalf of
STATES TITLE, INC
						
	By:
	Emilio Fernandez

	Signature:
	/s/ Emilio Fernandez

	Title:
	Secretary


In Miami, Florida, this 12th day of June, in the year of 2019
On behalf of
STATES TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
						
	By:
	Emilio Fernandez

	Signature:
	/s/ Emilio Fernandez

	Title:
	President


In Miami, Florida, this 12th day of June, in the year of 2019
On behalf of
STATES TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
						
	By:
	Emilio Fernandez

	Signature:
	/s/ Emilio Fernandez

	Title:
	President


In Miami, Florida, this 12th day of June, in the year of 2019
On behalf of
NORTH AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
						
	By:
	Emilio Fernandez

	Signature:
	/s/ Emilio Fernandez

	Title:
	President










In Zurich, Switzerland, this 1st day of   July   , in the year of 2019
On behalf of
SCOR SE ─ ZURICH BRANCH
(f/k/a SCOR Global P&C SE ─ Zurich Branch) 
									
	
	By:
	Doris Egli

	Signature:
	/s/ Doris Egli

	Title:
	Underwriting Manager C&S
		
	By:
	Tobias Povel
	Signature:
	/s/ Tobias Povel
	Title: 
	CUO C&S
#### STATE v. Robert Douglas MILLER. STATE v. Stephen Joseph AIKEN.

No. 38699.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Appeals dismissed without opinion. 220 So.2d 652.
#### Davis *et al. vs.*The State of Georgia.

A homestead set apart under the provisions of the constitution of 1868, for the family of a tax collector, is liable for his default in paying over to the state taxes collected by him.

Homestead. Taxes. Before Judge Tompkins. Bryan Superior Court. October Term, 1877.

Reported in the decision.

P. W. Meldrim ; Alfred B. Smith, for plaintiffs in error.

R. E. Lester, for the defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a claim case, on the trial of which the jury, under the charge of the court, found the property subject to *77
      *tliefi.fas.*levied thereon. A motion was made for a new trial on the ground therein stated, which was overruled, and the claimant excepted. It appears from the evidence in the record, that two *fi. fas.*were issued by the comptroller general of the state, against Thomas *~W.*Davis and his securities, as a defaulting tax collector of Bryan county for the years 1873 and 1874, for the aggregate sum of SI,661.00, which were levied on the land in dispute as the property of Davis, and claimed by his wife, Catherine Davis, for the benefit of herself and minor children, as a homestead. The homestead was applied for by Thos. W. Davis, for the benefit of his wife and children, and approved by the ordinary on the 23d of November, 1874. One of *the f. fas.*is dated 22d May, 1875, the other dated July 10th, 1875. The court charged the jury, “ that if they believed, from the testimony, that the executions issued for default of Thos. "W". Davis, as tax collector of Bryan county, that the homestead property set apart is liable,” and that is the alleged error complained of.

By the constitution of 1868, the homestead property set apart is exempt from levy and sale, except for taxes, etc., and the question is, whether the word “ taxes,” as used in the constitution, shall be construed in a limited sense — that is to say, to taxes due the state on the homestead property alone — or whether the word shall be construed in a more general sense, so as to include all taxes due to the state by the applicant for the homestead. The word “ taxes,” as used in the constitution, must be presumed to have been used in the same sense as that word was used in the Code when the constitution was adopted. The money collected by a tax collector, and in his hands, for which an execution issues against him, is recognized by the 3732d section of the Code as *“*taxes due the state.” See also section 934. The homestead, therefore, for which the defendant applied, and had set apart for the benefit of his wife and children, was not exempt from the payment of taxes due the. state by him as tax collector. The money collected by him, as such *78tax collector, as recognized by the Code, was “ taxes dire the state.” Apart from the legal aspect of the case, as made by the record, it is much more equitable that the homestead should pay the taxes due to the state by the tax collector, than that his securities should be compelled to pay them.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
# C_2022276EN.01002501.xml

| 18.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 276/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 276/25

---

Order of the General Court of 20 April 2022 — Paccor Packaging and Others v Commission

(Case T-148/21) (1)

(2022/C 276/35)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Tenth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15603]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of 
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors 
(UCR Board) and Subcommittee Meetings.

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

TIME AND DATE: The meetings will occur on the following schedule and 
will take place in the Mountain (Daylight) Time Zone:

Thursday, August 23, 2018

8:15 a.m.-9:00 a.m. Registration System Subcommittee
9:00 a.m.-12:00 Noon. UCR Board

PLACE: These meetings will be open to the public at the Radisson Hotel 
Salt Lake City Downtown, 215 West South Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 
84101, and via conference call. Those not attending the meetings in 
person may call toll-free; 1-877-422-1931, passcode 2855443940, to 
listen and participate in the meetings.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board 
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and 
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to 
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board. An agenda for 
these meetings will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern 
Daylight Time, August 14, 2018 at: https://ucrplan.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified 
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

    Issued on: July 16, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-15603 Filed 7-17-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
#### Edwin T. COMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 8164.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 22, 1937.

Slack & Zook, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Francis I. Howley, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before GARRECHT, and HANEY, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of stipulation of counsel for respective parties, ordered cause remanded to Board of Tax Appeals with directions to enter its decision that there are now no deficiencies in federal income taxes.
6200 Vogel Road, Evansville, Indiana 47715 • 812.479.6200

July 11, 2016 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 NewJersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Electronically Submitted via www.regulations.gov Re: Docket No. FAA-2015-1828, Petition forAmendmentto Exemption No. 12504A, Lochmueller Group, Inc. Dear Sir or Madam: Lochmueller Group, Inc. hereby requests an amendmentto FAA Exemption No. 12504A, Docket No. FAA-2015-1828to allowforthe use ofthefollowingsUAS (small unmanned aircraft systems) in addition tothe sUAS (small unmanned aircraftsystems) added under Exemption Amendment No. 12504A, dated November 19, 2015, forthe purpose ofaerial data collection:

• DJI Phantom 4 • DJI Matrice 100 • DJI SpreadingWings 5900 The sUAS originally authorized in FAA Exemption FAA-2015-1828, The DJI Phantom 2Vision+, is comparable in size, weight (under 55 pounds), speed, (less than 87 knotsL type and operating capabilitiestothe requested additional sUAS's listed above. The Applicant name and address is: Lochmueller Group Inc. Attn: Sean L. Suttles sUAS Project Manager 6200Vogel Road Evansville, Indiana 47715U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations PetitionforAmendmentto Exemption No. 12504A July 11, 2016

Phone: (812)-479-6200 Fax: (812) 479-6262 Email: ssuttles@lochgroup.com Page 2

This amendment petition is, in most regards, similar to granted exemption No. 12646 (FAA Exemption No. FAA-2015-1602) in terms ofrequested sUAS platformtypes. All operations of the requested additional sUAS platforms will be in full compliance with the terms ofLochmueller Group, Inc.'s current FAA Exemption No. 12504. Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner hereby requests that the FAA grant this amendment petition and provide such further reliefas deemed appropriateforthe operations proposed. Since the requested amendment to Lochmueller Group, Inc.'s exemption would not set any precedent or raise any novel issues, and because the Petitioner seeks to begin these operations without delay and because the addition ofthese sUAS's to ourfleetwould not materially affect our current granted exemptions No. 12504 

### & No. 12504A in any way, Lochmueller Group, Inc. respectfully requests the FAA to determine that good cause exists to dispense with publication of the summary of this petition in the Federal Register and grant the requested amendment expeditiously by summary means. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions concerning this request for an amendmenttothe exemption. Sincerely, LOCHMUELLER GROUP, INC.



# ,L~.a Sean L. Suttles sUAS Project Manager
# ^ ^ ^ 

# k t ^ H - » 

## O 

# p 

# 6 o _ > — * "- 1 

# d d 

# ? ^ ^ C 3 

# ^ 

# i 0 0 

# p o o 3 C L" O 

# o 3 1 - ' 

# a S o n 

# D o o 0 0O N

II U ) t o 0 0 4 ^ 

# > c r m 

# a C D O ) 0 0 

# D o 

# m t o 

# I I

= . I/ )

C D 

# n o 3 

# < 

# §

0 0 

# s ^ s D 8 o

c Q . C ( U 3 

# a . f D 3 O O 

## c (T ) 

# a Q

c u

7 r 

### n > c u T 3 

## o ' O J 

## o ' 3 O

- h </ l 

# -5" ft ) 

## S i 

# S > 

### o - n > 

# 3 . ft ) f D 3 O < u 3 

## o 3 

### r > 0 1 TO



# •<

•< Si . 

# i i (-> • 

# ^ 8

c 3 Q . 

## c r 0 1 

### o 

# i T 3 ( D 0 ) 3 Q
. (/ I

3 - O) 

## <u • a •o _ Q
. f D • D _ C U 

# o n _ ft - O i < u i n O C

- 1 o O) f D f D 

## c f D t D Q
. C 

## c - v > 

## a . n

( D 

## 3 ! TO' 3 - r + 1/ 1



## o c _ Q
. D - 

# ^ ^ 3 ' TO O C t o
D . C U 

# • < 0 1 3 Q . 

## c 3 Q . C U 

# • < 

# - 5 i ; t n n > O - 3 - 

# i . E r+ ' in ' 

### f ? C2
. 

# I ? s 2 ; i n o V) , 

## 3 - 5 - < TO C U3 </ ) ( D 

# § ? -< • = r 

# ^ i

= B ' TO 3 " C

- 1 

# -^ ' T 5 O C 3 Q . f D i n

f D

C U 3 Q
. 

# o fD
_ r + C U u i ' 3 - 3 ' l-f r 3 - f D TO O Q . f D 

# n lU < n f D f D f D 

# S " 3 TO 3 - £2 . 

## c f D 3 - f D m 

## (/ > c o - v > 

### Q I

• < • c _ 

## cu 3 1/ 1 

## O

• > 0 3 

# 35; Q . — 

## c^ • 5 ' 3iff D

3" > r + r + 3 - O </ > r * O3
-

- hf D 

### D T

## 5 ' 

# 5 ° ' Q - 3

- n > > 

# g- ^ S i f D



# •S n f D < • f D Q
. O O 3 r > f D 

## O f D
. I- + ! U 

# > 3 f D i n Q
. ( D n i n ' 

# 5 '

o c r * 

## o c 

# i f D X
- ( D 3 Q . TO 

# i
O 3 f D O 

# > c r ( D 

# s . ( D f D 3 

# a

f D CU

0 } 

## OTHWn co< D 3 

# s " s i

( D C O 

## o Cf l 

# 5 8 ( D 

# i o ' ( D 

## 0 5 

# t & d o 2 o 

# i f 11 8 tS3 ® O< 

# i l
> o ^ O J 

# a . o o 3 > D CTC D 

# i . C D < D 3 

## C O D 33 ( D ( Q 0 3 

# ^ >

- 1 • D 0 

# a . > O J 

# 3 C O ? r 

# •< . 

# < § v C 

## D C D 3 3 

## co' 

# 0 ^ H 

# — 

# s

D 3 3 

# O 

# i 3

F5Q 0
U J 

# 7

1 1 $ 0 

# o
Exhibit 32.1
 
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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/ Arthur A. Rodney

Arthur A. RodneyChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)November 16, 2009
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Sheila ERNEAST.

No. 60809.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

Patrick D. McArdle, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.