alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.3

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

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
                                                        ----------------------------------------------
                                                           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                                    702,486       90.83%            638,067
   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                  58,431       69.36%             40,526
   1997 Warrants Exercised                                     48,300       79.05%             38,182
                                                        --------------                 --------------
                                                           39,986,891                      39,894,449

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                        39,894,449

NET LOSS                                                                                 ($33,760,263)


NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                             ($0.85)
                                                                                       ==============
</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 73105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25518]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9954-41-OAR]

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee; Notice of Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal.

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

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2, the Clean Air 
Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) is a necessary committee which is in the 
public interest. Accordingly, CAAAC will be renewed for an additional 
two-year period. The purpose of the CAAAC is to provide advice and 
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on policy issues associated 
with implementation of the Clean Air Act. Inquiries may be directed to 
Tamara Saltman, CAAAC Designated Federal Officer, U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (Mail Code 6103A), Washington, DC 20460, or by 
email to saltman.tamara@epa.gov.

    Dated: August 29, 2016.
Tamara Saltman,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-25518 Filed 10-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### Henry HASS, Appellant, v. CITY GAS COMPANY OF FLORIDA, a Florida corporation, and Jack Langer, Appellees.

No. 71-179.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 13, 1971.

Engel and Halpern, Miami, for appellant.

Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and Warren D. Ha-mann, Miami, for appellees.

Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Glass v. Parrish, Fla. 1951, 51 So.2d 717; Gallucci v. Milavic, Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 375; and Sponder v. Brickman, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 631.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the
Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 12, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                           
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Dated: January 28, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Sean M. McCarthy                      
|                        |  |  |  | Sean M. McCarthy                          
|                        |  |  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich
Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Bennie H. Duck,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof First Investors Financial Services Group, Inc.

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

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

 

4.               The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) forthe Company and based on such evaluation:

 

a)        Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; and

 

b)       Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report(based on such evaluation); and

 

c)        Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonablylikely 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: December  12, 2007 |                    |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|
|                     |                    |
|                     | By: /s/ BENNIE H. DUCK  |   |
|                     | Bennie H. Duck          |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Robert Walter LEVY, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 74-96.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 30, 1974.

Habeas Corpus denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Terry BOWENS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53331.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: Terry Bowens applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ denied. On the basis of the trial court’s findings and of the evidentiary hearing below, we find no merit in the petitioner’s contentions.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7418
KEVIN J. KENDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT D. CENDO, Medical Doctor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-1000-JFM) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 14, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin J. Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Conrad Whiting Varner, Frederick William Goundry, III, VARNER & KASLICK, P.C., Frederick, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his civil complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel, for a stay of this appeal pending his release, and for imposition of a lien against Appellee. We affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kendrick v. Cendo , No. CA-97-1000-JFM (D. Md. Aug. 14, 1997; Sept. 10, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information extracted from SEC Form
10-QSB  and  is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to  such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         1022
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  15170
<ALLOWANCES>                                   60
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16452
<PP&E>                                         8663
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 21988
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6466
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5695
<OTHER-SE>                                     5231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   21988
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22669
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  19264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (12)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             351
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3066
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1153
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1913
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1913
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .38
        


</TABLE>
#### Mrs. Levy HANKS v. DRS. RANSON, SWAN AND BURCH, LTD., et al.

No. 62494.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: Mrs. Levy Hanks applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Lafayette. 359 So.2d 1089.

Writ denied.

DIXON, CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
**EXHIBIT 32**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd. Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended October 31, 2006, each of the undersigned hereby certifies 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 Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd. and will be retained by Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd. and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

 
| /s/ Dr. Lionel L. Reilly | December 14, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dr. Lionel L. Reilly     |  
President/Chief Executive Officer

 
 

/s/ Neal B. Soderquist

December 14, 2006

Neal B. Soderquist

 
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President

 
 

 

 

 

  |
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Barney SMITH.

No. 62506.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana, through the District Attorney, Ossie Brown, applying for supervisory writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ granted. The ruling of the trial judge is reversed, the motion to suppress is overruled, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

SUMMERS, DIXON and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant, schedule the case for a hearing and render an opinion.
-   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Important Notice Regarding Individuals’ Right of Access to Health Records

On January 25, 2013, HHS published a final rule entitled “Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; Other Modifications to the HIPAA Rules.”  (2013 Omnibus Rule).  A portion of that rule was challenged in federal court, specifically provisions within 45 C.F.R. §164.524, that cover an individual’s access to protected health information.  On January 23, 2020, a federal court vacated the “third-party directive” within the individual right of access “insofar as it expands the HITECH Act’s third-party directive beyond requests for a copy of an electronic health record with respect to [protected health information] of an individual  . . . in an electronic format.” Additionally, the fee limitation set forth at 45 C.F.R. § 164.524(c)(4) will apply only to an individual’s request for access to their own records, and does not apply to an individual’s request to transmit records to a third party.

The right of individuals to access their own records and the fee limitations that apply when exercising this right are undisturbed and remain in effect.  OCR will continue to enforce the right of access provisions in 45 C.F.R. § 164.524 that are not restricted by the court order.  A copy of the court order in *Ciox Health, LLC v. Azar, et al.*, No. 18-cv-0040 (D.D.C. January 23, 2020), may be found at https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv0040-51.

Content last reviewed January 28, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                          13,632
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,158
<PP&E>                                         221,706
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,579
<BONDS>                                        153,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,538
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                     (12,794)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,510
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               131,997
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  121,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,186
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,526)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,526)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   ($2.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0)
        

</TABLE>
#### Tim Makas, Appellant, v Lynn Russo, Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 455]

Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), entered April 29, 1996, which affirmed a judgment of the Town Court of the Town of Hurley in favor of defendant.

In June 1994, the parties entered into a lease governing certain premises located in the Town of Hurley, Ulster County. It appears that defendant thereafter failed to pay rent in accordance with the terms of the lease and, in June 1995, plaintiff obtained a warrant for defendant’s eviction. Defendant, believing that subsequent events had revived the landlord/tenant relationship, moved to, *inter alia,*annul the warrant of eviction. At the conclusion of the hearing that followed, Town Court terminated the eviction proceeding and permitted defendant to remain in the premises. By order entered April 29, 1996, County Court affirmed Town Court’s judgment, and this appeal by plaintiff followed.

Inasmuch as plaintiff’s brief reflects that defendant ultimately was evicted for failing to pay the July 1995 rent and, hence, has long since vacated the premises, plaintiff’s appeal, which concerns the propriety of the vacatur of the June 1995 *763warrant of eviction, is moot. As no exception to the mootness doctrine is present *(see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714-715), the appeal must be dismissed. Plaintiffs remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Her cure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
# **EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

# **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Theundersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee,Inc. (the “Company”), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of his knowledge:

 

•                  the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 24, 2003 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

•                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: | November 6,  2003                 | /s/  Roger M. Laverty |
|--------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------|
|   |                                   | Roger M.  Laverty          |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|        |                                        |                            |  |

 

Note:  A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich Coffee, Inc. andwill be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
261 La. 823

#### James R. GAILLARD v. Alwynn CRONVICH, Sheriff of the Parish of Jefferson and Roland Vicknair, Warden of the Jefferson Parish Prison.

No. 52415.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 11, 1972.

In re: James R. Gaillard applying for writ of review.

Granted. (See order).

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable H. Charles Gaudin, Judge of the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Jefferson, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 9th day of October, 1972, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A. M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
#### Martha Jane CARTER, Appellant, v. RAN INVESTMENTS, INC., Appellee.

No. 71-114.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 1, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Martin County ; D. C. Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.