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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                CSFB (USA), INC.
              SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF
             COMMON SHARES AND COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENTS OUTSTANDING
                AND BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE FOR THE YEARS ENDED
                        DECEMBER 31, 2000, 1999 AND 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Years Ended December 31,
                                                            2000            1999            1998
                                                        ------------    ------------    ------------
                                                       (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE DATA)
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>             <C>
CSFB (USA) COMMON STOCK
Weighted Average Common Shares:
     Average Common Shares Outstanding                         1,000           1,000           1,000
    Average Restricted Stock Units Outstanding                  --              --              --
                                                        ------------    ------------    ------------

Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding                     1,000           1,000           1,000
                                                        ============    ============    ============

Earnings:
     Net Income (Loss)                                  $ (1,075,812)   $    600,700    $    370,800
     Less: Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement               21,155          21,180          21,310
               Earnings Applicable to Common Shares -
                   CSFBDIRECT                                 (1,419)           (903)           --
                                                        ------------    ------------    ------------

Earnings (Loss) Applicable to Common Shares             $ (1,095,548)   $    580,423    $    349,490
                                                        ============    ============    ============

Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Common Share                  $ (1,095,548)   $    580,423    $    349,490
                                                        ============    ============    ============

CSFBDIRECT COMMON STOCK
Weighted Average Common Shares:
     Average Common Shares Outstanding                    18,400,000      18,400,000
                                                        ============    ============

Earnings:
     Net Income (Loss)                                  $     (1,419)   $       (903)
                                                        ------------    ------------

Earnings Applicable to Common Shares                    $     (1,419)   $       (903)
                                                        ------------    ------------

Basic Earnings Per Common Share                         $      (0.08)   $      (0.05)
                                                        ============    ============
</TABLE>
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

Application to Amend

Section 333 Exemption No. 12787

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-1845

November 1, 2015

Petitioner:

Ravenwood HD Services, llc

13870 East River Vista Circle

Palmer, AK 99645

Cell: 907-631-8791

Email: kevin@ravenwoodhd.com

Greetings,

By letter from the FAA dated September 8, 2015, an exemption was granted to Ravenwood HD Services 

for relief under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 12787 Regulatory 

Docket No. FAA-2015-1845. 

Ravenwood HD Services hereby requests that the exemption so granted be amended to include 3D 

Robotics Iris, Solo, Aero, and Aero-M. Ravenwood HD Services also requests that the exemption include 

the following DJI models: Phantom 2/3, Inspire, Spreading Wings, and Flame Wheel. Relevant facts and 

reasoning are:

 Size, weight and performance specification of the requested platforms are substantially similar 

to those of the 3D Robotics X8+ in all relevant aspects:

o Gross weight: less than 55 lbs.

o Top Speed: less than 87 knots.

o All requested airframes can be operated safely at less than 400 AGL

 The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in the FAA’s Exemption No. 12787 apply 

without modification to this application to include all airframes contained herein.

Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any additional 

information that is required.

Sincerely,

/Kevin D. Hubbard/

Managing Member, 

Ravenwood HD Services llc
EXHIBIT 10.2

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                 DEL LABORATORIES, INC. EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN

         Del Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Employer"), has
adopted the following First Amendment of the Del Laboratories, Inc. Employees'
Pension Plan, as amended and restated, effective January 1, 1989.

                               W I T N E S S E T H

         WHEREAS, by the provisions of Article VII of the Plan, the Employer has
a right to amend the plan;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be and it is hereby amended as follows:

                              FIRST AND ONLY CHANGE

         Effective January 1, 1996, Article I, Section 1.3, shall be deleted and
replaced by the following:

                  "1.3 `Actuarial Equivalent' means a form of benefit differing
                  in time, period or manner of payment from a specific benefit
                  provided under the Plan but having the same value when
                  computed using Pre-Retirement Table: GAM '71 Male, -1;
                  Post-Retirement Table: GAM '71 Male, -1 and Pre-Retirement
                  Interest: 6.0%; Post-Retirement Interest: 6.0%.

                           Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of paying
                  an Actuarial Equivalent Lump sum to a participant after 1995,
                  a Lump sum shall be the greater of the amount as calculated in
                  the preceding paragraph or that calculated by using the
                  average yield on thirty (30) year Treasury Constant Maturities
                  for the month of October which precedes the Plan Year of
                  distribution, and the 1983 Group Annuity Mortality Table."

         IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, the Del Laboratories, Inc. Employees' Pension
Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has caused this Amendment to be
executed by its duly authorized officer(s).

                                           DEL LABORATORIES, INC.



Dated:  DECEMBER 21, 1995                  By:  /S/ MELVYN C. GOLDSTEIN
        -----------------                       -----------------------





<PAGE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Eugene WALL.

No. 59473.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1977.

Gravel, Roy & Burnes, Richard V. Burnes, Alexandria, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Johnny C. Par-kerson, Dist. Atty., James A. Norris, Jr., Brian E. Crawford, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Trig Acquisition 1, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2012 (the “Report”), I, David Horin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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.



|Date: November 26, 2012 | /s/ David Horin                                              
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                        | David Horin                                                  
|                        | Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer)





A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
from within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1324

SARAH ANNE SYKES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LOUIS DAVENPORT, A Law Enforcement Officer

with the Town of Bladenboro, NC, in his

individual capacity,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-136)

Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: December 18, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Odum Richardson, Richard Brooks Glazier, BEAVER, HOLT,

RICHARDSON, STERNLICHT, BURGE & GLAZIER, P.A., Fayetteville, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Louis Davenport, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sykes

v. Davenport, No. CA-95-136 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 29, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6678

ROBERT P. HOWARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-97- 1467-L) Submitted: September 29, 2000 Decided: October 18, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Robert P. Howard, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert P. Howard appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Howard v. Corcoran , No. CA-97-1467-L (D. Md. Apr. 13, 2000). We deny Howard’s motion for preparation of transcripts at Government expense. 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
#### Robert Lawrence GREENWOOD, Appellant, v. E. Wilson PURDY, as Sheriff and Public Safety Director of Dade County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-175.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 19, 1968.

*278Milton E. Grusmark, Miami Beach, Hof-mann, Brandt & Doyle, Miami, for appellant.

Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Roy S. Wood, Asst. State Atty., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant stands charged by an information filed January 31, 1968, with the crimes of (1) breaking and entering a dwelling house and assaulting persons lawfully therein, (2) robbery and (3) assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree with a firearm.

The record discloses the appellant was arrested on January 28, 1968; that on January 29 a judge of the criminal court of record fixed his bail in the amount of $100,000, and on January 30 granted a hearing to the appellant (defendant below) on his motion to reduce the amount of the bail. That motion was denied by the trial court. Thereafter, on February 5, the defendant sought reduction of bail by petition for habeas corpus in the circuit court. After an evidentiary hearing thereon the circuit court denied the relief sought and dismissed the habeas corpus petition, without prejudice, by an order filed February 16, 1968, in which it was held that the petition in habeas corpus “has not been supported by sufficient facts to justify this court in reducing the amount of bail bond assessed by one of the judges of the trial court.” From that judgment in habeas corpus the petitioner filed this appeal on February 20, and on the appellant’s motion we advanced the appeal for an early hearing, and the matter was briefed and argued before this court.

> Section 9 of the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution, F.S. A., guarantees to those charged with an offense the right to release on bail (except for capital offenses when the proof is evident and the presumption great). And Section 8 of the Declaration of Rights enjoins the imposition of excessive bail. The Florida Supreme Court has held that bail as thus provided for by the Declaration of Rights means bail which is reasonable in amount; that what is reasonable bail is determined by the circumstances of the case; and that excessive bail amounts to a denial of bail.” State ex rel. Gerstein v. Schulz, Fla.App. 1965, 180 So.2d 367, 369.

Giving due accord to the above quoted statement of the applicable law, and having considered the record in this case and the briefs and arguments of counsel we conclude no reversible error has been shown. Accordingly, the circuit court’s judgment in habeas corpus is affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 22364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9669]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Louisiana Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the 
Louisiana Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene on Tuesday, 
May 10, 2011 at 2 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 6 p.m. at Southern 
University Law Center, Room 227, 1 Roosevelt Steptoe Dr., Baton Rouge, 
LA 70813. The purpose of the meeting is to conduct a public briefing 
and planning meeting to identify a future civil rights project.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the regional office by June 3, 2011. The 
address is U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 400 State Avenue, Suite 
908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Persons wishing to e-mail their 
comments, or to present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who 
desire additional information should contact Farella E. Robinson, 
Regional Director, Central Regional Office, at (913) 551-1400, (or for 
hearing impaired TDD 913-551-1414), or by e-mail to 
frobinson@usccr.gov.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Central Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Central Regional Office at the above 
e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, April 15, 2011.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2011-9669 Filed 4-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
#### FOR ADULTS ONLY, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. Richard E. GERSTEIN, as State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42207.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 25, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 257 So.2d 912.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, DEKLE and CARLTON, (Ret.), JJ., concur.

ERVIN and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fortegra Financial Corporation on Form 10-Q, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 operation of Fortegra Financial Corporation





Date: May 16, 2011By:/s/ Richard S. KahlbaughRichard S. KahlbaughChairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 16, 2011By:/s/ Walter P. MascherinWalter P. MascherinChief Financial Officer








The forgoing certifications are being furnished solely pursuant to Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code in accordance with Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears 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.
#### Gene A. HAWKINS v. RED BALL MOTOR FREIGHT, INC. and Transport Ins. Co.

No. 46963.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 22, 1973.

Pyles & Tucker, Jackson, for appellant.

Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Canna-da, Dan McCullen, Jackson, for appellees.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; Russel D. Moore, Judge.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and INZER, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

■Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3535 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3535

To require the Secretary of Education to permit student loan borrowers 
to defer repayment during periods for which the borrower or a spouse is 
   eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 1993

   Mr. Gene Green of Texas (for himself, Mr. Deutsch, Mrs. Mink, Mr. 
 Frost, Mrs. Thurman, and Mr. Becerra) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Education to permit student loan borrowers 
to defer repayment during periods for which the borrower or a spouse is 
   eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

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

SECTION 1. REVISION OF STUDENT LOAN DEFERMENT REGULATIONS.

    Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Education shall amend the regulations prescribed under 
sections 427(a)(2)(c)(iii), 428(b)(1)(M)(iii), 455(f)(2)(C), and 
464(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to permit a 
borrower to obtain a deferment in the repayment of a student loan under 
title IV of that Act during periods when the borrower or the borrower's 
spouse is entitled to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 
1993.

SEC. 2. PUBLICITY CONCERNING DEFERMENTS.

    The Secretary of Education shall take such steps as may be 
necessary to publicize the availability of the deferment required by 
section 1 of this Act, and of other deferments available (pursuant to 
the sections referred to in section 1 of this Act) to borrowers for 
whom repayment has caused or will cause economic hardship.

                                 <all>
```
Summary of State CAIR Allocation Methodologies

Are allocations adjusted for fuel type (including fuel adjustment factors)?

DC Yes, FIP

DE Yes, FIP

MD Yes, model rule methodology

GA Yes, model rule methodology

KY Yes, model rule methodology

MS Yes, model rule methodology

TN Yes, model rule methodology

IN Yes, model rule methodology

OH Yes, model rule methodology

FL Yes, model rule methodology (plus bonus for biomass – 150%)

WV Yes, model rule methodology (no gas units, so they did not include the gas factor)

LA Yes, model rule methodology for utility units

IA Yes, model rule-like (including the fuel adjustment factors), but permanent

TX Yes (coal 0.9; nat. gas 0.5; non-coal non-nat.gas 0.3)

SC Yes (coal 1.0; non-coal 0.6)

MI Yes, for units with permit limits 0.10 #/MMBtu; others: No, heat input

IL Yes, output

NY No, heat input

VA No, heat input

AL No, heat input

MA No, output

WI No, output

AR No, output

NJ No, output, includes rewards for lower emitting units

CT No, output, weighted 120% to pre-1990 units in 2009-2011

PA No, output, with extra for ARP-exempt units (waste coal)

MO No, table in rule, no formula

NC No, table in rule, no formula

The model rule methodology included fuel adjustment factors for determining allocations (1.0 for coal, 

0.60 for oil, and 0.40 for gas or other fuels). This methodology was also used for allocating under CAIR 

FIPs.

Seventeen states adjusted allocations based on fuel type (13 of those were either FIP allocations or SIPbased allocations that used the model allocation methodology or a close variation).

Eleven states based allocations on other factors and did not adjust for fuel-type.