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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7881

JOHNATHAN LEE X SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; MARY TARNOWSKI;

O. ODUNSI; WILLINDA PURDIE; T. D. HATCHETT;

BRENDA WOLFORD; R. REED; A. WILSON; LINDA W.

MITCHELL; JANE DOE; C. DAVIS, Warden, K.

HAMLIN; VINCENT M. GORE; PAUL OHAI; LINDA B.

NHAMBURE; EARLINE HILL, V. APPLEWHITE; WILLIAM

HENCEROTH; DAVID BARNES; POWHATAN RECEPTION &

CLASSIFICATION CENTER; FRED SCHILLING,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District

Judge. (CA-03-665)

Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnathan Lee X Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Johnathan Lee X Smith appeals from the district court’s

orders dismissing without prejudice his action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2000), for failure to pay the filing fee, and denying his

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Smith v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. CA-03-665

(E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2003 & Nov. 17, 2003). 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


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

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------
                                                      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                               958,269               93.46%            895,585
   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             90,641               83.91%             76,053
   1997 Warrants Exercised                                48,300              100.00%             48,300
                                                  --------------                          --------------
                                                      40,274,884                              40,197,612

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                           40,197,612

NET LOSS                                                                                  $  (11,714,165)


NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                        $        (0.29)
                                                                                          ==============
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-148442, and No. 333-149753 on Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 333-49837, No. 333-44436 and No. 333-101962 on Form S-8 of our reports dated May 28, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R) “Share-Based Payment”), and the effectiveness of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc's. internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 8 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 8

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 3, 2013.
    Resolved, That pursuant to the Legislative Pay Act of 1929, as amended, the 
six minority employees authorized therein shall be the following named persons, 
effective January 3, 2013, until otherwise ordered by the House, to-wit: John 
Lawrence, George Kundanis, Richard Meltzer, Wyndee Parker, Wendell Primus, and 
Nadeam Elshami, each to receive gross compensation pursuant to the provisions of 
House Resolution 119, Ninety-fifth Congress, as enacted into permanent law by 
section 115 of Public Law 95-94. In addition, the Minority Leader may appoint 
and set the annual rate of pay for up to 3 further minority employees.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 118 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of public 

funds for political party conventions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2013 

Mr. COBURN (for himself and Mr. UDALL of Colorado) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules 

and Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit 

the use of public funds for political party conventions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITING USE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELEC4 TION CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR PARTY CONVEN5 TIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 95 of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking section 9008. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

9 of chapter 95 of such Code is amended by striking the 

10 item relating to section 9008. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•S 118 IS

1 SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. 

2 (a) AVAILABILITY OF PAYMENTS TO CANDIDATES.— 

3 The third sentence of section 9006(c) of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘, section 

5 9008(b)(3),’’. 

6 (b) REPORTS BY FEDERAL ELECTION COMMIS7 SION.—Section 9009(a) of such Code is amended— 

8 (1) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 

9 (2); 

10 (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of 

11 paragraph (3) and inserting a period; and 

12 (3) by striking paragraphs (4), (5), and (6). 

13 (c) PENALTIES.—Section 9012 of such Code is 

14 amended— 

15 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking the second 

16 sentence; and 

17 (2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (2) 

18 and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2). 

19 (d) AVAILABILITY OF PAYMENTS FROM PRESI20 DENTIAL PRIMARY MATCHING PAYMENT ACCOUNT.—The 

21 second sentence of section 9037(a) of such Code is amend22 ed by striking ‘‘and for payments under section 

23 9008(b)(3)’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•S 118 IS

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

3 respect to elections occurring after December 31, 2012. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with
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.                  

###### Office of Management and Budget

# AGENCY:

Office of Management and Budget.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) publishes the names of the members selected to serve on its Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB). This notice supersedes all previous notices of the PRB membership.

# DATES:

Applicable: June 28, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sarah Whittle Spooner, Assistant Director for Management and Operations, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C. requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more PRBs. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any response by the senior executive, and make recommendations to the final rating authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.

The persons named below have been selected to serve on OMB's PRB.

Kelly T. Colyar, Chief, Water and Power Branch

Jennifer L. Hanson, Chief, Income Maintenance Branch

Michael J. Hickey, Chief, Environment Branch

Kirsten J. Moncada, Chief, Privacy Branch

Robert J. Nassif, Chief, Force Structure and Investment Branch

Sarah Whittle Spooner, Assistant Director for Management and Operations

Sarah Spooner,

Assistant Director for Management and Operations.

[FR Doc. 2018-15423 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
Exhibit 32.2
 
  (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/ Blake T. Barnett

Blake T. BarnettChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)July 30, 2008
 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.
<PAGE>   1
                    BARRISTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION

                              EXHIBIT 23 - KPMG LLP
                           CONSENT REGARDING FORMS S-8
<PAGE>   2
Independent Auditors' Consent
-----------------------------

The Board of Directors
Barrister Information Systems Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-8749 and 33-23309) on Form S-8 and (No.333-3701) on Form S-3 of Barrister
Information Systems Corporation of our reports dated June 29, 1999 relating to
the balance sheets of Barrister Information Systems Corporation as of March 31,
1999 and 1998, and the related statements of operations, shareholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31,
1999, and the related schedule which reports appear in or are incorporated by
reference in the March 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of Barrister
Information Systems Corporation.

KPMG LLP

Buffalo, New York
June 29, 1999
#### Blair *et al. v.*McMillion *et al.*

(Division B.

Sept. 24, 1934.

Suggestion of Error Overruled, Oct. 22, 1934.)

[156 So. 519.

No. 31208.]

Price, Cassidy & McLain, of McComb, for appellants.

*34Williams & Hunt, of McComb, for appellees.

Argued orally by Will G. McLain, for appellant, and by E. G, Williams, f-or appellee.

*35Anderson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The question involved in this case is the correct location of the north and south line between the lots of appellants and appellees in square sixty-three in the city of McComb. The issue between the parties is purely one of fact; there is no controversy as to the law of the case. Appellants concede that to be true, hut contend that the decree against them ought to be reversed because it is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. In other words, they concede that there was evidence supporting the decree, but contend that in value it was wholly insufficient to sustain the chancellor’s finding. It may be true (we do not decide whether or not it is) that at the conclusion of the testimony of the witnesses the overwhelming weight of the evidence was with appellants; still the decree must be affirmed because of what then took place.

Appellants requested the chancellor, before deciding the case, to go view and measure the premises involved. Appellees joined in this request. "Whereupon the chancellor went upon the premises, viewed appellants’ and appellees’ lots, measured them twice, and, after so doing, rendered the decree appealed from, in which it was' recited that he found from such view and measurements in connection with the other evidence in the case that the facts were against appellants. What the chancellor saw in connection with his measurements cannot be ignored in deciding this question. It is a part of the evidence in the case, and may have been the turning point in the decision of the issue of fact.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Rule 13a-14(a)/15(d)-14(a) Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

 

I, Ronald L. Stewart, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Material Sciences Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a.) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

 

c.) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d.) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a.) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b.) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting. 

 

Dated: May 14, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4594

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BOBBY EUGENE CREWS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:13-cr-00019-BO-1)

Submitted: April 28, 2014 Decided: May 7, 2014

Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United 

States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Eugene Crews was confined at the Federal Prison 

Camp at Butner, North Carolina. On October 11, 2012 while Crews 

was part of an afternoon landscaping crew, he walked away from 

the camp and into the nearby woods. He was discovered missing 

and placed on escape status. On October 19, 2012, Crews was 

apprehended near Greensboro, North Carolina. Crews pled guilty 

to escape from federal custody and was sentenced to a term of 

twelve months’ imprisonment, to run consecutive to the sentence 

he was serving at the time of his escape. Crews appeals, 

arguing that the district court erred by not reducing his 

offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2P1.1(b)(3), which provides for a four-level reduction for 

escape from a non-secure community corrections center or similar 

facility. We affirm.

We review the application of the Sentencing Guidelines 

de novo. United States v. Sarno, 24 F.3d 618, 623 (4th Cir. 

1994); United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 

1989). Under the two-pronged test adopted in Sarno, the 

§ 2P1.1(b)(3) reduction applies if: (1) the escape is from a 

non-secure facility; and (2) the non-secure facility is “similar 

to a community corrections center, community treatment center or 

half-way house.” 24 F.3d at 623.
3

Crews does not qualify for a reduction under 

§ 2P1.1(b)(3) because a prison camp is not “similar to a 

community corrections center, community treatment center or 

half-way house.” Id. at 623 & n.4 (citing cases). Accordingly, 

the district court properly denied the reduction. 

For these reasons, we affirm Crews’ twelve-month 

sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 11.1



UNITIL CORPORATION



COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



|                                                      |  |                         |       |      |   |       |  |   |      
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ----- | ---- | - | ----- |  | - | -----
|                                                      |  | Year Ended December 31,
|                                                      |  | 2006                    |       | 2005 |   | 2004 
|EARNINGS PER SHARE (000s, except per share data)     |  |                         |       |      |   |       |  |   |      
|Net Income                                            |  | $                       | 8,033 |      | $ | 8,553 |  | $ | 8,226
|Less: Dividend Requirements on Preferred Stock        |  |                         | 133   |      |   | 156   |  |   | 215  
|                                                      |  |                         |       |      |   |       |  |   |      
|Net Income Applicable to Common Stock                 |  | $                       | 7,900 |      | $ | 8,397 |  | $ | 8,011
|                                                      |  |                         |       |      |   |       |  |   |      
|Average Number of Common Shares OutstandingBasic     |  |                         | 5,597 |      |   | 5,551 |  |   | 5,509
|                                                      |  |                         |      
|Dilutive Effect of Stock Options and Restricted Stock |  |                         | 15    |      |   | 17    |  |   | 16   
|                                                      |  |                         |      
|Average Number of Common Shares OutstandingDiluted   |  |                         | 5,612 |      |   | 5,568 |  |   | 5,525
|                                                      |  |                         |      
|Earnings Per ShareBasic                              |  | $                       | 1.41  |      | $ | 1.51  |  | $ | 1.45 
|                                                      |  |                         |      
|Earnings Per ShareDiluted                            |  | $                       | 1.41  |      | $ | 1.51  |  | $ | 1.45
# C_2023035EN.01006201.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/62

---

Order of the General Court of 22 November 2022 — Fieldpoint (Cyprus) v EUIPO (HYPERLIGHTOPTICS)

(Case T-800/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark HYPERLIGHTOPTICS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Equal treatment - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 35/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fieldpoint (Cyprus) LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: P. Rath and S. Gebele, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite and T. Klee, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2021 (Case R 1166/2021-2).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Fieldpoint (Cyprus) LTD shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Fieldpoint (Cyprus) LTD shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---