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

                    ACCUSTAFF INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 EXHIBIT 11--COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      SUMMARY CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 FISCAL
                                                          ---------------------
                                                           1996    1995   1994
                                                          ------- ------ ------
<S>                                                       <C>     <C>    <C>
Weighted average number of common shares and common
 share equivalents outstanding..........................   87,610 59,580 45,629
Additional shares deemed outstanding for:
 Stock options..........................................    4,437  2,513  1,412
 Convertible debt.......................................    8,363  4,286  2,030
                                                          ------- ------ ------
Primary and fully diluted weighted average number of
 common shar and common share equivalents...............  100,410 66,379 49,071
                                                          ======= ====== ======
Net Income..............................................   27,942 26,069 12,078
Preferred stock dividend requirement....................      --     --    (175)
Add back of interest expense attributable to convertible
 debentures deemed converted............................    3,680    885     62
                                                          ------- ------ ------
Net Income attributable to common shares................   31,622 26,954 11,965
                                                          ------- ------ ------
Earnings per share of common shares and common share
equivalents.............................................  $  0.31 $ 0.41 $ 0.24
                                                                  ====== ======
</TABLE>
#### Izar LAWSON and Reto Lawson, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Elizabeth SWIRN, Appellee.

No. O-374.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 24, 1972.

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1972.

*459Robert D. Bell, of Fisher, Hertz & Bell, Pensacola, for appellants.

Lefferts L. Mabie, Jr., of Levin, War-field, Graff, Mabie & Rosenbloum, Pensacola, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendants in an action for damages resulting from a rear-end automobile collision have appealed from a judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered by the Circuit Court for Escambia County, setting aside the jury verdict for the defendant, directing a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability, but granting a new trial on the issue of damages only.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed so far as it orders a new trial. See Pensacola Transit Co. v. Denton, 119 So.2d 296 (Fla.App.1960). In the said order, however, the trial court restricts the new trial to the issue of damages only, in accordance with the plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but our examination of the trial record convinces us that justice to all parties concerned requires that both issues — liability and damages — be submitted to the jury at the new trial, primarily because the evidence as to both issues is so inextricably interlaced that the new jury should be allowed to consider and determine both issues. Therefore, the order appealed from is reversed as to its provision that the new trial be restricted to the issue of damages, and the order is otherwise affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *699Abdul Quyyam, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered December 14, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the police lacked probable cause for his arrest. The defendant negotiated the terms of a drug sale with an undercover police officer in a bar and they counted out the money to be exchanged. Thereafter, the undercover officer and the defendant entered a double parked car outside the bar. A back-up team that was aware a sale was imminent was monitoring an audio transmitter the undercover officer was wearing and heard the word "package” whereupon they approached the car, opened the doors and apprehended the defendant. While the transmitter was functioning poorly, and the back-up team could not see into the car, we nevertheless find that they had probable cause to believe that the drug sale was occurring (see, CPL 140.10 [1] [b]; *Gerstein v Pugh,*420 US 103).

In addition, we find that the court properly declined to charge the jury on agency or entrapment as no reasonable view of the evidence supported those theories. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was no evidence suggesting that the defendant was acting solely as an agent of the buyer with no independent desire to promote the transaction *(see, People v Argibay,*45 NY2d 45, 50, 53-55, *cert denied sub nom. HahnDiGuiseppe v New York,*439 US 930). Likewise, the evidence could permit no other realistic conclusion than that the defendant freely and actively promoted and participated in the drug transaction so as to make an entrapment charge inappropriate *(see, People v Alwadish,*67 NY2d 973, 974; *People v Acosta,*166 AD2d 452; *People v Ventura,*108 AD2d 65, *affd*66 NY2d 693). The defendant’s preference for a Pakistani or other Moslem buyer was based upon his desire to avoid apprehension rather than the lack of a predisposition to sell the drugs. The use of an Arab undercover officer, after the defendant’s preference became clear, merely afforded the defendant the opportunity to commit the offense *(see, People v Bradley,*112 AD2d 441).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his *pro se*supplemental brief, are unpreserved for *700appellate review or without merit *(see, People v Mathis,*150 AD2d 613; *People v Lugo,*150 AD2d 502). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan and Eiber, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-18-038]

# TIME AND DATE:

 August 31, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

 Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# STATUS:

 Open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        1.                         *Agendas for future meetings:*                         None.                    

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Vote on Inv. No. 731-TA-1396 (Final) (Forged Steel Fittings from Taiwan). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission by September 14, 2018.

                        5.                         *Outstanding action jackets:*                         None.                    

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: August 21, 2018.

William Bishop,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-18429 Filed 8-22-18; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
{"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":"ANTHC chosen as project manager for Newtok village move, next phase of project advances quickly","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Td3CDg3GpZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/anthc-chosen-as-project-manager-for-newtok-village-move-next-phase-of-project-advances-quickly\/\">ANTHC chosen as project manager for Newtok village move, next phase of project advances quickly<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/anthc-chosen-as-project-manager-for-newtok-village-move-next-phase-of-project-advances-quickly\/embed\/#?secret=Td3CDg3GpZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“ANTHC chosen as project manager for Newtok village move, next phase of project advances quickly” — Denali Commission\" data-secret=\"Td3CDg3GpZ\" 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","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/06\/Mertarvik.jpg","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
----

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
I, Frank A. Dottori, certify that: 

1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F  of Tembec Industries Inc.; 

2) Based on my knowledge, this  annual report does not contain any untrue statement 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 annual report; 

3) Based on my knowledge, the  financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual  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 annual report; 

4) The registrant's other  certifying officers and I are responsible 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 designed under 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 annual report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness    of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the    period covered by this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); 

c) presented in this annual    report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls    and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; and 

d) disclosed in this annual    report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial    reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that    has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the    registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5) The registrant's other  certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation  of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and  audit committee of registrant's board of directors (and persons performing the  equivalent function); 

a) all significant deficiencies    and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over    financial reporting 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 internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: December 22, 2005 

*/s/Frank A. Dottori                                               *Frank A. Dottori President and Chief Executive Officer
Appendex A: ACADEMY OF MODEL AERONAUTICS SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/540-D.pdf

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/560.pdf

Appendix B 

DJI Pilot Training Program

Appendix C

Dji Phantom 2 vision Plus Manual
Appendix D

Map Area of operation
EXHIBIT
32.1

CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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 Report of Pacific Quest Ventures Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William
Tay, 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) 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.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:
/s/ William Tay

William
Tay, President, Secretary and

Principal
Financial Officer

Dated:
August 12, 2013
**MP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0 369 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MALCOLM JOSEPH NEWROBE, SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee ’ s motion for a 6 0 -day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including Novem

ber 2 7 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 21 2020

09/21/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0369
CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER (CPC)

DIRECT DEPOSIT FORM

Use: For processing allotments and other agency-approved payments associated with Invitational Travel 

(i.e. travel reimbursement).

CANDIDATE INFORMATION

CANDIDATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (9 digit SSN) _______________________

CANDIDATE NAME ________________________________________________

(Last, First, Initial)

TELEPHONE NUMBER (W) ________________ (H) ______________________

DIRECT DEPOSIT ACCOUNT INFORMATION 

(Attach a signed voided check in lieu of completing this section)

TYPE OF ACCOUNT Checking Savings 

BANK ROUTING/ABA NUMBER (9 digit #) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

ACCOUNT NUMBER _______________________________________________

ACCOUNT TITLE __________________________________________________

(Account Holder’s name)

FINANCIAL INSTITUTION NAME ______________________________________

AUTHORIZATION

___________________________ _____________

 CANDIDATE’S SIGNATURE DATE

TRAVEL INFORMATION

Departure Location

(City, State, Country)

(If different from home address)

Mode of Transportation AIR DRIVING Other (Specify)

Closest Airport (Name/Code)

Continue below only if you have/had any affiliation with the Defense Travel System (DTS)

Updated as of 10/17

Do you have a profile in DTS? Do you hold an active GTCC?

(Government Travel Credit Card)

 YES NO YES NO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000756

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

DK, Petitioner-Appellee, v.

DL and Child Support Enforcement Agency, State of Hawai#i,

Respondents-Appellants.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 1PA221000044)

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Chan, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Stipulation to Dismiss Appeal

Pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure [(HRAP)]

Rule 42(a), filed February 1, 2023, by Petitioner-Appellee DK,

the papers in support, and the record, it appears that the appeal

has been docketed and the filing fees have been paid or waived,

the parties stipulate to dismiss the appeal, the stipulation is

dated and signed by counsel for all parties appearing in the

appeal, and dismissal is authorized by HRAP Rule 42(b).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation is

approved and the appeal is dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 24, 2023.

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Presiding Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan

Associate Judge

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-22-0000756

24-FEB-2023

10:08 AM

Dkt. 15 OAWST
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary  financial data extracted from the consolidated
balance sheet and the  consolidated  statement of operations and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000924396
<NAME>                        IMSCO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                  0
<SECURITIES>                                       22,992
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   23,992
<PP&E>                                            128,911
<DEPRECIATION>                                     98,918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    140,061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             911,405
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             5
<COMMON>                                              769
<OTHER-SE>                                        772,118
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      140,061
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        0
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,656,431
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                224,731
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,881,162
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             2,881,162
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,881,162
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            .39



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Magda Torres, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered on or about August 3, 1989, unanimously affirmed.

*466Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.