alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11.1


                    TEL-SAVE HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      Year ended December 31,
                                                            ------------------------------------------
                                                                1996         1995(A)          1994(A)
                                                            ------------------------------------------
<S>                                                         <C>              <C>             <C>    
Net income                                                  $ 20,168          $10,819         $ 5,613
                                                            ========          =======         =======

PRIMARY

Weighted average common and common equivalent 
 shares outstanding - Primary:

     Weighted average shares                                  52,650           31,422         28,650
     Weighted average equivalent shares                        4,352            2,183          2,013
                                                            --------         ---------       -------
     Weighted average common and common
     equivalent shares - Primary                              57,002           33,605         30,663
                                                            ========         ========        =======

Net income per share - Primary                              $    .35         $    .32         $  .18
                                                            ========         =========       =======

FULLY DILUTED

Weighted average common and common equivalent
  shares  outstanding  - Fully
     Diluted:

     Weighted average shares                                  52,650           31,422          28,650
     Weighted average equivalent shares                        5,377            2,183           2,013
                                                            ---------         -------        --------
     Weighted average common and common
     equivalent shares - Fully Diluted                        58,027           33,605          30,663
                                                            ========          =======         =======

Net income per share - Fully Diluted                        $    .35         $    .32        $    .18
                                                            =========        ========        ========
</TABLE>


(A) Pro forma tax provisions have been calculated as if the Company's results of
operations  were taxable as a C corporation  (the Company's  current tax status)
for the years ended  December 1995 and 1994.  Prior to September  20, 1995,  the
Company  was  an  S  corporation   with  all  earnings  taxed  directly  to  its
shareholders.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
            MULTIMEDIA CONCEPTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                     EXHIBIT
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X


The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements  for the  year  ended  September  30,  1997 and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such statements.

</LEGEND>
       


<S>                                                    <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           oct-01-1996
<CASH>                                                 13,189
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          723,112
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            66,662
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       2,267,374
<PP&E>                                                 29,361
<DEPRECIATION>                                         29,361
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         7,905,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  482,809
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               3,005
<OTHER-SE>                                             7,419,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           7,905,149
<SALES>                                                2,054,792
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       2,236,953
<CGS>                                                  1,647,563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          1,647,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       621,724
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (214,495)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (214,495)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (214,495)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (32,334)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.01)
        



</TABLE>
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AmREIT Monthly Income &
Growth Fund III, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Chad C. Braun, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, in the capacity as an officer of the General Partner of the company,
that, to my knowledge:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 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: | August 14,
 2009 |  | By:   | /s/ Chad C.
 Braun                                                                                                                                                                                   
|      |                  |  | Name: | Chad C.
 Braun                                                                                                                                                                                       
|      |                  |  | Title | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
 and Secretary of AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth III
 Corporation, the General Partner of AmREIT Monthly
 Income & Growth Fund III, Ltd.



---
Exhibit 32.1  Certification  Pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Michael Jordan Friedman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Fresh Harvest Products, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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. /s/ Michael Jordan Friedman   _________________________________________ Michael Jordan Friedman, Chief Executive Officer And Chief Financial Officer  Date: June 14, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5164]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Waste Regulation

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permit modification request received under the 
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities 
regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541; 
Code of Federal Regulations Title 45, Part 670). This is the required 
notice.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, 
or views with respect to the modification request on or before April 4, 
2012. The permit modification request may be inspected by interested 
parties at the Permit Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the Permit Office, Room 755, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Polly A. Penhale, Environmental 
Officer, at the above address or (703) 292-8030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Lockheed Martin Corporation is in the phase-
in period for assuming responsibility for the contract to provide 
operations support to the United States Antarctic Program. As part of 
that support, Lockheed Martin personnel will be assuming responsibility 
for waste management activities. Those activities are currently 
regulated under the terms of a permit held by the incumbent contractor, 
Raytheon Polar Services Company, Permit Number 2010 WM-004. Lockheed 
Martin has requested that the permit be transferred to them. The 
transfer would be effective on or about 1 April 2012, the date the new 
contract is anticipated to take effect. The transfer would modify the 
permit to change the permit holder from Raytheon Polar Services Company 
to Lockheed Martin Corporation, Information Systems & Global Solutions 
(I&GS) Engineering Services Segment, 700 N. Frederick Avenue, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20879-3328. All other permit conditions would remain 
the same.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-5164 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
| (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated:                  August 13, 2008 | /s/                  Tai-ming Ou               |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                                          | Tai-ming                  Ou,                  |
|                                          | Chief                  Executive Officer       |
|                                          | (Principal                  Executive Officer) |
|                                          |                                           |
|  Dated:                  August 13, 2008 | /s/                  Ri-wen Xue                |
|                                          | Ri-wen                  Xue,                   |
|                                          | Chief                  Operating Officer       |
|                                          | (Principal                  Financial Officer) |

----
#### WILLIAM EVANS *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

*James A. Shanley, Jr.,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Lawrence J. Tytla,*senior assistant state’s attorney in opposition.

Decided April 8, 1998

The petitioner William Evans’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 773 (AC 16778), is denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

YAN HUA WANG AND HONG WEI

WANG, MOTHER AND FATHER OF BO WANG (DECEDENT),

Petitioners

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (NEW LI NAIL SPA, INC.),

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 545 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of April, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 99


                  906 CERTIFICATION


The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, that:

         (1) The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
         August 31, 2002, 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 accompanying Report fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
         of operations of the Company.




Date:  November 27, 2002                   /s/ David H. Roche
     ----------------------------          -------------------------------------
                                         President and
                                         Chief Executive Officer
#### Eric Levine et al., Respondents, v David Goldstein et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered on or about March 5, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs’ cross-motion for an order striking defendants’ answer to the extent of directing defendants’ counsel to pay $500 in sanctions and directing defendants to appear for depositions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ counsel, in ordering his clients not to respond during depositions to questioning in areas which counsel unilaterally deemed to be irrelevant, and in continually objecting to matters other than form, contrary to the stipulation of the parties, effectively thwarted plaintiffs’ efforts to depose defendants. Further, defendants have not advanced any legitimate basis for their failure to turn over documents requested during such depositions. Defendants have not established that the documents are unavailable or otherwise beyond their possession or control.

*347Defendants’ remaining arguments are equally devoid of merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
#### In the Matter of New York City Transit Authority, Appellant, v Subway-Surface Supervisors Association et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate an arbitration award, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), entered January 11, 1990, which denied the petition to vacate the arbitration award and granted the cross motion to confirm the award.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The sole issue before the arbitrator was whether the petitioner New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the Authority) could preclude the members of the unit of Maintenance Supervisors I and Line Supervisors represented by the respondent Subway-Surface Supervisors Association (hereinafter the Association) from filing preferences for work assignments in the Queens Division. The arbitrator found that the Authority’s action was in violation of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and directed the Authority to permit the filing of the work assignment preferences by the members of the Association.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by making a new contract. "Parties who agree to refer contract disputes to arbitration must recognize that ' "[arbitrators may do justice” and the award may well reflect the spirit rather than the letter of the agreement’ ” *(Matter of Local Div. 1179 [Green Bus Lines],*50 NY2d 1007, 1009, quoting *Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn.,*41 NY2d 578, 582; *see, Matter of County of Suffolk v Suffolk County Local 852,*125 AD2d 395, 396). It also cannot be said that the arbitrator gave a completely irrational construction to the parties’ contract *(see, e.g., Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson],*8 NY2d 377, 383).

We need not address the applicability of that provision in the parties’ Memorandum of Understanding, executed on February 6, 1985, which amended the parties’ collective bargaining agreement by providing that the "expressed preferences [for work assignments by the employees represented by *708the Association] shall not be binding upon the Authority in any way”, as this issue was not before the arbitrator. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_______________ __ __ NO. 09

- 12

- 002 50

- CR

________________ __ _ MARCUS EUGENE MORGAN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________________ __________________________ On Appeal from the 128th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. A

- 040080

- R

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Marcus Eugene Morgan pled
guilty to burglary of a habitation. See Tex. P enal C ode Ann. § 30.02(a)(3) (West

2011). Under the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred the
adjudicati on of Morgan’s guilt, placed Morgan on community supervision for ten
years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. Subsequently, t he State filed a motion asking

the trial court to find Morgan guilty of burglarizing a habitation. After a hearing,2 the trial court found Morgan guilty
, entered a judgment assessing a ten

- year

sentence , and imposed a $1,000 fine. However, the trial court then suspended
Morgan’s sentence and placed him on probation for ten years.
Subsequently, the State filed a motion asking the trial court to revoke

Mor gan’s probation

. After a hearing on the motion to revoke, the trial court

revoked Morgan ’s probation. After Morgan’s sentencing hearing
, the trial court
entered a judgment requiring Morgan to serve seven years in prison and to pay a
fine of $1
, 000.
On appeal, Morgan’s counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s
professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v.

State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On September 6, 2012, we granted
an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se response. Morgan has not
filed a response.
We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s
conclusion that no arguable issues su pport an appeal. Therefore, we find it
unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re

- brief the appeal. Cf.3 Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial
court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

_______________ _______________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on December 28 , 2012 Opinion Delivered February 13, 2013 Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.

1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
# L_2006195EN.01002401.xml

| 15.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 195/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 195/24

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 4 July 2006

appointing a Finnish member of the European Economic and Social Committee

(2006/494/EC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 259 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 167 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2002/758/EC, Euratom of 17 September 2002 appointing the members of the Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2002 to 20 September 2006 (1),

Having regard to the nomination submitted by the Finnish Government,

Having consulted the European Commission,

Whereas a Finnish member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has fallen vacant following the resignation of Mr Peter BOLDT,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Mr Janne METSÄMÄKI is hereby appointed a member of the European Economic and Social Committee in place of Mr Peter BOLDT for the remainder of his term of office, which runs until 20 September 2006.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 4 July 2006.

For the Council

The President

P. LEHTOMÄKI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 253, 21.9.2002, p. 9.

1

---
ACCEPTED

04-15-00164-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

11/9/2015 4:13:59 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 11/9/2015 4:13:59 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk