alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                                                                            YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                              ---------------------------------------------- 
                                                                                     1996            1995            1994
                                                                              ----------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                              <C>             <C>             <C>
Net loss......................................................................   $(17,501,000)   $(11,403,000)   $(6,502,000)
                                                                              ==============================================
Weighted average shares of Common Stock outstanding...........................      2,641,194         701,662        687,474
Shares related to staff accounting bulletin topic 4D:
  Stock options and warrants..................................................        202,763         270,351        270,351
  Common Stock................................................................         42,185         399,429        403,803
  Convertible Preferred Stock (Series C)......................................      2,426,684       3,235,579      3,235,579
                                                                              ----------------------------------------------
Shares used in computing net loss per share...................................      5,312,826       4,607,021      4,597,207
Net loss per share............................................................   $      (3.29)   $      (2.48)        $(1.41)
                                                                              ==============================================
Calculation of shares outstanding for computing pro forma net loss per
 share:
  Shares used in computing net loss per share.................................      5,312,826       4,607,021
Adjusted to reflect the effect of the assumed conversion of
 Preferred Stock from the date of issuance....................................      4,214,895       4,557,921
                                                                              -------------------------------
Shares used in computing pro forma net loss per share.........................      9,527,721       9,164,942
Pro forma net loss per share..................................................   $      (1.84)   $      (1.24)
                                                                              ===============================
</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2020

a0323 

# Order

Clerk March 27, 2020

160009

FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY,

Subrogee of JEFF FURNESS, FREDRIC

WILSON, KENNY MALBURG’S

LANDSCAPING, INC., and TIMOTHY

DEMARAY, and PIONEER MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY, Subrogee of JAY D.

FERGUSON, AMANDA FERGUSON, D & R

HENNE FARMS, INC., and DOROTHY

WALTON and LYNN WALTON, d/b /a

WALTON FARMS, and HASTINGS MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY, Subrogee of JAMES

T. YOUNG, SHELLY YOUNG, MARVIN HILL,

LOIS HILL, CLIFFORD C. KESSLER, and

SHIRLEY KESSLER,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 160009

COA: 343307

Sanilac CC: 16

- 0 36858

- NZ

TNT EQUIPMENT, INC.,

Defendant,

and

EMPLOYERS MUTUAL CASUALTY

COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2019

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>



                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                     TO THE
                              ARMOR HOLDINGS, INC.
                            2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


         The following amendment is hereby made to the Armor Holdings, Inc. 2002
Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan"):

         Section 5.8 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety and replaced
by the following new Section 5.8:

                  "5.8 Modification, Extension or Renewal. The Committee may
         modify, extend or renew outstanding Options and authorize the grant of
         new Options in substitution therefor, provided that (i) except as
         expressly provided for in the Plan or an Award Agreement, any such
         action may not, without the written consent of a Participant, impair
         any of such Participant's rights under any Option previously granted
         and (ii) except as provided for in Section 18 of the Plan, Options
         issued hereunder will not be repriced, replaced or regranted through
         cancellation or by lowering the Exercise Price of a previously granted
         Award without prior approval of the Company's Stockholders. Any
         outstanding ISO that is modified, extended, renewed or otherwise
         altered will be treated in accordance with Section 424(h) of the Code."

         The Plan was amended by the Board of Directors of Armor Holdings, Inc.
as of June 18, 2002.

                                  CERTIFICATION

         The undersigned, being the Secretary of Armor Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, hereby certifies that the foregoing is a true and complete
copy of Amendment No. 1 to the Armor Holdings, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan,
as duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on June 18, 2002, and
that said Amendment No. 1 to Armor Holdings, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan is
in full force and effect on the date hereof, without further amendment or
modification.


                                          --------------------------------
                                          Robert R. Schiller, Secretary of
                                          Armor Holdings, Inc.
List of Subsidiaries
                              --------------------


1. Subsidiaries of New World Coffee-Manhattan, Inc.

     a. Manhattan Bagel Company, Inc. (New Jersey)

     b. Chesapeake  Bagel Franchise  Corp.  (f/k/a CBB Acquisition  Corp.)
         (New Jersey)

     c. Willoughby's, Inc. (Connecticut)

     d. Paragon Bakeries, Inc. (New Jersey)

     e. MBC Tonawanda, LLC (New York)

     f. MBC North Buffalo, LLC (New York)

     g. MBC Northtown, LLC (New York)

     h. MBC Genessee, LLC (New York)

     i. MBC Cheektowaga, LLC (New York)

     j. MBC Elmwood, LLC (New York)

     k. MBC Main Place, LLC (New York)

     l. MBC Maple, LLC (New York)

     m. MBC Orchard Park, LLC (New York)

     n. MBC Amherst, LLC (New York)

     o. MBC Snyder, LLC (New York)

     p. MBC Transit, LLC (New York)

     q. MBC East Aurora, LLC (New York)

2. Subsidiaries of Manhattan Bagel Company, Inc.

     a. I & J Bagel, Inc. (California)

     b. Manhattan Bagel Construction Corp. (New Jersey)

     c. Bay Area Bagel, Inc. (California)

     d. DAB Industries, Inc. (California)

     e. CR Bagel Leases, Inc. (New Jersey)
#### STATE ex rel. Archie Joseph HAWKINS v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS, Hon. Leon A. Cannizzaro, Judge.

No. 89-KH-0067.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1989.

In re Hawkins, Archie Joseph;—Plaintiffs); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “J”, No. 247-365.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 BigString  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2006  (the
"Report"),  I, Darin M.  Myman,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company, do hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)   the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of ss.13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. ss.78m or 78o(d), 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: November 14, 2006                 /s/ Darin M. Myman
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Darin M. Myman
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. MARCUS ROSS, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 50 EAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 3rd day of June, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Charys Holding
      Company, Inc. for the fiscal year ending April 30, 2007, I, Billy V. Ray, Jr.,
      Chief Executive Officer of Charys Holding Company, Inc., hereby certify pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
      that:





1.           Such
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending April 30, 2007, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
      ending April 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of Charys Holding Company, Inc.





Dated:
      November 2, 2007.





/s/  Billy
                V. Ray, Jr.Billy V. Ray,
                Jr., Chief Executive Officer ofCharys
                Holding Company, Inc.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Brooklyn Cheesecake
& Desserts Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Anthony J. Merante, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that





(i)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(ii)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
April 15, 2010





/s/
      Anthony J.  MeranteAnthony
      J. MerantePresident,
      Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
  Officer





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2276 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2276

        To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on BEPD70L.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Voinovich) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on BEPD70L.

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

SECTION 1. BEPD70L.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.93 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to BEPD70L) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective column period and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS
 OF
 PHARMACYCLICS, INC.
  The undersigned, being the duly acting and appointed Secretary of Pharmacyclics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the board of directors of the Company amended and restated the first sentence of Article III, Section 1 of the bylaws of the Company to read as follows, effective as of the date set forth below:
  “The authorized number of directors shall be set at seven (7).”
   Dated as of:  December 17, 2009
  /s/ Rainer M. ErdtmannName:
Rainer M. ErdtmannTitle:
Vice President, Finance & Administration and Secretary
#### Pamela G. Razza, Respondent, v Daniele Sanchez-Roda et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated October 7, 1988, which granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) and, in effect, set aside a jury verdict which was in her favor and against the defendants in the principal sum of $10,000, and directed a new trial.

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

The record reveals that, during the trial of this action by the plaintiff to recover for injuries which she allegedly suffered in a 1984 automobile accident, the court ruled that a proposed defense exhibit was inadmissible because it was irrelevant to the issues in the case. This proposed exhibit consisted of a claim for employee disability benefits prepared by the plaintiff for apparently sitnilar injuries which she *595purportedly suffered in another accident in 1982. After the jury commenced deliberations, the proposed exhibit inadvertently was sent into the deliberations room. Subsequent to rendering a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $10,000, all of the jurors indicated, that despite the trial court’s instructions, they had considered the document in determining their award to the plaintiff. The court then granted the plaintiff’s motion for an order setting aside the verdict and for a new trial. We affirm.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in setting aside the verdict under the unusual circumstances of this case *(see generally, Micallef v Miehl Co.,*39 NY2d 376), inasmuch as the record demonstrates that the submission of the document previously held inadmissible substantially affected the verdict *(see, e.g., Stanton v City of New York,*74 AD2d 623). The defendants claim that the document was in fact relevant and admissible and that the verdict therefore should remain undisturbed. However, while we agree that the document appears relevant on its face, the court’s ruling that it was inadmissible prevented the plaintiff from adducing any further evidence to rebut or explain its contents. Accordingly, a new trial is necessary.

We have considered the defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2430 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2430

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain children's 
                               footwear.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

 Mr. Brownback introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain children's 
                               footwear.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN CHILDREN'S FOOTWEAR.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.13.92 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain children's footwear) 
is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Verlon DOHERTY and Garnell Doherty v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT, et al.

No. 89-C-0073.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1989.

In re Transportation & Dev. Dept.;—Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA87-0963; Parish of Grant, 35th Judicial District Court, No. 656.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  EXHIBIT  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
THIS  EXHIBIT  SHALL  NOT BE DEEMED  FILED FOR  PURPOSES  OF  SECTION  11 OF THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, OR
OTHERWISE  SUBJECT TO THE  LIABILITY OF SUCH  SECTION,  NOR SHALL IT BE DEEMED A
PART OF ANY OTHER FILING WHICH  INCORPORATES  THIS REPORT BY  REFERENCE,  UNLESS
SUCH OTHER FILING EXPRESSLY INCORPORATES THIS EXHIBIT BY REFERENCE.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 949491
<NAME> VODAVI TECHNOLOGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,769
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,239
<INVENTORY>                                      6,550
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,645
<PP&E>                                           4,489
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,133
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,208
<BONDS>                                            186
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,816
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,214
<SALES>                                         49,662
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,662
<CGS>                                           31,707
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,707
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,321
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 676
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,958
<INCOME-TAX>                                       718
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,240
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,240
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Marshall Deshun Parker, Appellant

No. 06-14-00237-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 71st District Court of 

Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 13-

0334X). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no reversible error in the judgment 

of the court below. However, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below. 

Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the assessment of attorney fees. As 

modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Marshall Deshun Parker, has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 4, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned, Frank J. Cinatl, IV, Chief Financial Officer of Abatix Corp. (the “Company”), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”).  

The undersigned certifies 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 operation of the Company.  

|   |   | /s/ Frank J. Cinatl                        |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                            |
|   |   | Frank J. Cinatl, IV                        |
|   |   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | March 26, 2007                             |

----
#### JOSEPH R. KEENAN COMPANY, Joseph R. Keenan, and William T. Brookman v. WHITE HOUSE APARTMENTS-DONALD S. MOFFATT, Donald S. Moffatt.

No. 87-CC-0381.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 13, 1987.

In re White House Apts.; Moffatt, Donald S.; applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 333-203; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86-C-773.

Denied.