alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11
                      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              1997        1996        1995
                                                            ---------   ---------   ---------
<S>                                                         <C>         <C>         <C>
Primary
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding                         1,313,520   1,299,446   1,252,983
Dilutive Effect of Stock Options                                   --     220,539     105,116
                                                            ---------------------------------
Weighted Average Common and Equivalent Shares Outstanding   1,313,520   1,519,985   1,358,099
                                                            =================================

Fully Diluted
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding                         1,313,520   1,299,446   1,252,983
Dilutive Effect of Stock Options                                   --     226,144     105,116
                                                            ---------------------------------
Weighted Average Common and Equivalent Shares Outstanding   1,313,520   1,525,590   1,358,099
                                                            =================================
</TABLE>
#### Ecologics Management, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v Daniel Mallaber et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs to defendants, cross motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff agreed to purchase defendants’ property on or before February 28, 1988. The contract required a mortgage financing contingency to be satisfied by January 25, 1988, and a permit approval contingency to be satisfied prior to the date of closing. Neither contingency was satisfied by the date of closing or by an adjourned date for closing that was scheduled by the sellers. The sellers thereafter gave the buyer written notice of cancellation. This appeal is from an order wherein the court, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination denying summary judgment. The court concluded that the sellers, by failing to appear at the closing on the adjourned date to accept tender of payment in cash, waived the mortgage financing contingency, but concluded that a factual issue existed whether the permit approval contingency clause of the contract was for the sole benefit of the buyer or the mutual benefit of both parties. Because resolution of that issue would be determinative of the sellers’ right to cancel, the court directed an immediate trial of that issue.

Supreme Court erred in concluding that there was a factual issue regarding benefit. The contract unambiguously empowers either party to cancel the contract upon nonperformance of any of the stated contingencies. The sellers, as a matter of law, had the right to cancel the contract, and the court’s consideration of extrinsic evidence was improper *(W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri,*77 NY2d 157). Accordingly, defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment should have been granted. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Livingston County, Houston, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, J. P., Green, Balio, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
Board of Directors Meeting

Thursday, September 8, 2022

This event is closed to the public

Information summaries for the below listed projects can be found on dfc.gov

Meeting Agenda

 

I. CHAIRMAN OPENS MEETING

II. PROJECT APPROVALS

a. Citibank Global Social Finance Framework

b. Banco Pichincha DPR 2022 / Ecuador DPR Funding

c. Finanzauto S.A. BIC

d. Water Access Acceleration Fund

e. GEF LatAm Climate Solutions Fund III-A, L.P.

f. Ashmore Avenida LatAm Energy Efficient Affordable Housing Fund III

g. Quadria Capital Fund III L.P.

h. Aqua Capital Fund III L.P.

i. TechMet

j. CECA SL Generation Limited

III. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS 

a. Board’s Delegation to Management

b. Minutes – March 9, 2022, DFC Board of Directors Meeting 

c. Minutes – September 9, 2021, DFC Board of Directors Meeting 

IV. FY24 BUDGET REVIEW

V. CLIMATE UPDATE: Solar Supply Chain Policy

Location: Meeting will be held via videoconference
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Jason Boatwright v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-21-00571-CR

Trial court case number: 1667445

Trial court: 178th District Court of Harris County

The unopposed motion to reset oral argument is granted. Oral argument in this case will 

be reset from February 14, 2023 to February 28, 2023. Please refer to the court’s amended notice 

of submission for further details. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Peter Kelly______

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___January 19, 2023_____
#### In the Matter of George W. Conaty, Jr., Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

November 15, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Geiger & Rothenberg (David Rothenberg*of counsel), for respondent.

*Daniel Drake*for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice as an attorney-at-law by this court on December 6, 1967, and maintains an office for the practice of law in the Fourth Judicial Department.

By order entered November 29, 1990, this court suspended respondent from the practice of law based upon his conviction *140in the City Court of the City of Albany, New York, on November 20, 1990, in violation of Tax Law § 1801 for failing to file New York State income tax returns for the years 1986 and 1987, with intent to evade the payment of taxes. By further order of this court, entered January 25, 1991, the Honorable Peter E. Corning was appointed Referee to take such proof as respondent might offer in mitigation of his conduct and to report his findings to this court.

The Referee filed his report, dated July 30, 1991, and based upon the findings in the report we determine that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year commencing on November 29, 1990 and until further order of this court. In determining the appropriate measure of discipline, we have considered respondent’s previous conviction for failure to file income taxes *(see, Matter of Conaty,*71 AD2d 365) as well as his excellent reputation for dedicated service to the community and to his clients.

Callahan, A. P. J., Doerr, Denman, Green and Balio, JJ., concur.

Final order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (h).
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Denali Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov","author_name":"denaliadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/author\/denaliadmin\/","title":"No Fear Data Act","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TYUFpLOABh\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/no-fear-data-act\/\">No Fear Data Act<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/no-fear-data-act\/embed\/#?secret=TYUFpLOABh\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“No Fear Data Act” — Denali Commission\" data-secret=\"TYUFpLOABh\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

REGULATION II

PERMITS

12/13/2000 Rule 208

1

RULE 208. STANDARDS FOR GRANTING PERMITS TO OPERATE 

(Adopted 9-1-74; and Repealed 12-13-2000)
----

|   | (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 the company. |

| April 7, 2014 | /s/ Paul Laird                       |   |
|---------------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|          | Paul Laird                                |   |
|          | Principal Executive and Financial Officer |   |

----
| (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Biologix Hair Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2013 (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 operations of Biologix Hair Inc. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           |   | /s/ Greg Wilson                                                                       |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:  May 20, 2013 |   | Greg Wilson                                                                           |
|                           |   | Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
|                           |   | Biologix Hair Inc.                                                                    |
sgwo_ex106.htm


Exhibit 10.6


 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


SGWONE Inc.







This EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (this Amendment) is entered into as of December 31, 2013 (the Effective Date) by and between SGWONE Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), and Mark V. Noffke (the Chief Financial Officer) under the following terms and conditions:


 


RECITALS:







WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the initial Employment Agreement dated August 1, 2013.







WHEREAS, in connection with the employment of Executive by the Company, the Company desires to delete in its entirety section (3.4) Anti Dilution rights:







3.4           Anti Dilution rights. The Employee will have anti-dilution rights of 4.0%. The Employee's shares of stock in the Company will at all times represent at least 4.0% ownership position of the Company's total outstanding shares on an "as if converted" basis, and the aggregate number of shares of Stock that Employee owns shall be adjusted proportionately by the Board of Directors of the Company for any increase in the number of outstanding shares of Stock resulting from the issuance of any additional equity securities by the Company.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree to delete Anti Dilution rights section 3.4 in its entirety. This Amendment, including the considerations, is an integral part of the Employment Agreement and vice versa. As far as items not expressly addressed in this Amendment the original Employment Agreement will continue in force.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date above written.







THE COMPANY:                                SGWONE Inc. 












By:            Robert J. McNulty                                           


Name:       Robert J. McNulty


Its:            Chief Executive Officer







By:             Robert J. McNulty                                           


Name:       Robert J. McNulty


Its:            Chairman of the Board







By:                 Mark Noffke


Name:            Mark Noffke


Its:                 Chief Financial Officer
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 20 January 2005

in Case C-464/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Johann Gruber v Bay Wa AG (1)

(Brussels Convention - Article 13, first paragraph - Conditions for application - Definition of ‘consumer contract’ - Purchase of tiles by a farmer for roofing a farm building used partly for private and partly for business purposes)

(2005/C 57/02)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-464/01: reference for a preliminary ruling under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 8 November 2001, received at the Court on 4 December 2001, in the proceedings between Johann Gruber and Bay Wa AG – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it has ruled:

The rules of jurisdiction laid down by the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.

----
Exhibit 23





               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-57067 and Form S-8 No. 333-50797) of Technical Chemicals and
Products, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our report dated March 3, 2000
(except for the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Note 9 as to which the date is
March 29, 2000), with respect to the consolidated statements and schedule of
Technical Chemicals and Products, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                                         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Miami, Florida
March 29, 2000
### Continuation Sheet for Part II, Section B

The new substance is incorporated at approximately { } w/w of an { } coating. T he { } coating will then have its viscosity adjusted in preparation (W orker Activity A) for spray application. Wo rkers may

b e exposed to the new substance at { } w/w in solution during this operation. W orkers are provided with personal protective equipment as appropriate. Application of the coating can vary by c ustomer and site. Application typically occurs via robotic or other automated spray

e quipment without the presence of any workers. H owever, workers may b e exposed to the new substance in the form of an aerosol during spraying of hard -to - reach areas and touch - up applications (W orker Activity B). E nginee ring controls are used to reduce exposure, and workers are provided with personal protective equipment as appropriate, which may i nclude respirators, gloves, protective clothing and eye protection. Allowing for break relief or job rotation, the number of workers may double for those involved in some part of this worker activity. T he { } ma nufacturers usually em ploy a certified industrial hygienist in their product safety d epartment to assist in hazard assessment as needed. During robotic or au tomated spray o perations, approximately 70 % transfer efficiency is attained. T he method is horizontal reciprocal spray with reclaim device. T he application of the coating occurs in large water-washed down - draft booths designed to pull overspray away from workers. All overspray is accumulated in the form of sludge, which will either be incinerated or landfilled in RCRA approved landfills (Release Point 4). T he wash -water in these down - draft booths is treated on site prior to release to POTW , therefore it is expected that no discharge of the new substance will occur to any local POTW

.
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ Taylor Edgerton                                            |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Taylor Edgerton                                                      |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  July 14, 2011                                                        |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5070

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus TIMOTHY SPRATLEY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-04-168) Submitted: June 24, 2005 Decided: July 11, 2005 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Amy L. Austin, Meghan S. Skelton, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J. Elston, N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Timothy Spratley pled guilty to being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000), and was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment. He appeals his conviction, arguing the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm. Spratley alleges that the evidence obtained pursuant to his stop and arrest should have beensuppressed. We review the district court’s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. Ornelas v. United States , 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Rusher , 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). When a suppression motion has been denied, this court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Seidman , 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). The initial contact between police officers and Spratley was consensual. See United States v. Weaver , 282 F.3d 302, 309 (4th Cir. 2002). The officers had reasonable suspicion to seize Spratley and conduct a pat-down search based on the totality of the circumstances, including the unusual manner in which he parked his car, his nervous behavior, the bulge in his pocket, and the gun in plain view in his car. See, e.g. , United States v. Sokolow , 490 U.S. 1, 8 (1989); Weaver , 282 F.3d at 309-10. Moreover, to the extent Spratley’s claim regarding the seizure of the gun from his- 3 - car is properly before the court, the gun was properly seized because part of the gun was concealed, making its incriminating character apparent. See United States v. Jackson , 131 F.3d 1105, 1109 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, our review of the record reveals no reversible error. We affirm Spratley’s conviction. 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
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020 (the "Report") of Garrison Capital Inc. (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Tansey, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 the Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ Joseph Tansey       |
|-------------------------|
| Joseph Tansey           |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| May 11, 2020            |