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

           SUNRISE INTERNATIONAL LEASING CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                         PER SHARE EARNINGS COMPUTATIONS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                               Three Months Ended                    Nine Months Ended
                                                   December 31,                          December 31,
                                       -----------------------------------   -----------------------------
                                              1997               1996               1997           1996
                                       -----------------   ---------------   ---------------    ----------

<S>                                    <C>                 <C>               <C>                 <C>
Basic Earnings Per Share:

   Weighted average number of
     common shares outstanding                 7,788,000         7,189,000          7,616,000    7,189,000
                                       =================   ===============   ================   ==========

       Net income                      $         835,000   $       851,000   $      2,669,000   $2,870,000
                                       =================   ===============   ================   ==========

       Net income per common
         share                         $            0.11   $          0.12   $           0.35   $     0.40
                                       =================   ===============   ================   ==========


Fully Dilutive Earnings Per Share:

   Weighted average number of
     common shares outstanding                 7,788,000         7,189,000          7,616,000    7,189,000
   Common stock equivalents
     from assumed exercise of
     options and warrants                          6,000            31,000             15,000        9,000
                                       -----------------   ---------------   ----------------   ----------

       Total shares                            7,794,000         7,220,000          7,631,000    7,198,000
                                       =================   ===============   ================   ==========

       Net income                      $         835,000   $       851,000   $      2,669,000   $2,870,000
                                       =================   ===============   ================   ==========

       Net income per common
         and common equivalent share   $            0.11   $          0.12   $           0.35   $     0.40
                                       =================   ===============   ================   ==========



</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 128535 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128535 

 COA: 253403 

Saginaw CC: 02-021182-FC 

DAVID BARKER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 10, 2005 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
Second, Regan argues that the district court abused its

discretion by denying his motion to disqualify the Clark County District Attorney's Office because attorney Steven Wolfson, who represented him when he pleaded guilty, was subsequently appointed District Attorney of Clark County. On appeal, Regan does not dispute the adequacy of the screening procedures in place and instead contends that screening itself is inappropriate because Wolfson's title as District Attorney, as well as his personal participation in this case, creates a per se appearance of impropriety. We disagree. While it is true that the district attorney is responsible for deciding the overall policy of the office, consistent with NRS 252.070(1), the deputies appointed by the district attorney handle the day-to-day operations of the divisions of the office and make decisions regarding specific cases. Further, even though the district attorney's name appears on every document filed with the court, it is clear that the district attorney is not personally handling all of the cases filed by the district attorney's office, and that these cases are instead being handled by the deputy who is also listed on every document. Having carefully considered Regan's contention, we conclude that he fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by declining to disqualify the entire district attorney's office. See Collier v. Legakes, 98 Nev. 307, 310, 646 P.2d 1219, 1221 (1982) (noting that disqualification of an entire public office is only warranted in "extreme cases" where "public trust and

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A < 2

%, . • 'confidence in our criminal justice system could not be maintained without

such action"). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 1



## c-g-tt-N Hardesty J.

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge McDonald Adras LLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

1 We note that the fast track statement contains no citation to the appendix. See NRAP 3C(e)(1)(C). We caution appellant's counsel, Patrick McDonald, that future failure to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure when filing briefs with this court may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 3
PTA,
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2092
JOHN A. LANE, MD, FACOG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHEN J. WILSON, MD; JOCK R. WHEELER, MD; KRIS LEE SPERRY, MD; STEVEN F. GORDON, MD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-04-1255-2) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: February 28, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John A. Lane, Appellant Pro Se. Ancil Glenn Ramey, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: John A. Lane, appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant the Appellants’ motion to dismiss in this civil case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lane v. Wilson , No. CA-04- 1255-2 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 26, 2005); see also Wilson v. Bernet , ___ S.E.2d ___, 2005 WL 3092265 (W. Va. 2005) (holding that adverse expert witnesses are entitled to immunity for their testimony and participation in civil proceedings). 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 99.2





---



##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IEA Income Fund XII, L.P. on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John
Kallas, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Cronos Capital Corp. (CCC) and Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer of the CCC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
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                              
| | ----- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (iii) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operation of the Company.
|
| |       |  | August 13, 2002                                                                                                                                    

| |                                                                                                                                    |                
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------
| |                                                                                                                                    | /s/ John Kallas
| |                                                                                                                                   
| | John Kallas
Chief Financial Officer and Director of Cronos Capital Corp.
(CCC)
Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer of CCC
U. S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICE OF SALE OF COTTON

FOR RELEASE AT 12:00 P.M. CT January 29, 2021

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service today announced the sale of Cotton. The cotton bales were sold under 

the SEAM dated January 28, 2021.

The following cotton offers were 

sold using the SEAM:

Offer No. Catalog Location Pounds 

Sold Bales Sold

Price Sold 

(per 

Pound)

CCC Revenue 

TS1100741 Winnsboro, LA 29,058 57 0.5750 $16,708.35

29,058 57 $16,708.35
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■

■

■ ■

★

●

●

●

●

★

● ●

● ●
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Simpkins, Appellant.

—Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered December 13, 1989, which convicted defendant, after jury trial, of bail jumping in the second degree, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for a new trial.

The minutes of defendant’s arraignment hearing indicate that the case was adjourned to July 8, 1989. However, records maintained by both the court clerk and defense counsel reflect that the matter was adjourned to July 17, 1989.

At trial, Supreme Court instructed the jury that the People must demonstrate that defendant was released on his own recognizance, that the defendant was aware that his release was conditioned upon his subsequent appearance on July 8, 1989, and that defendant did not appear on that date or within 30 days thereafter. In response to the jurors’ request for further instruction on the elements of the crime, the court delivered a supplemental charge which omitted the element of awareness. Defense counsel promptly moved for a mistrial. The motion was denied and counsel’s exception noted.

Defendant’s awareness of the conditions of his release must be demonstrated in order to establish scienter *(see,.*3 CJI[NY] PL 215.56, at 1625). The People’s argument that the court’s main charge clearly included this element is unavailing because the court’s erroneous instruction constitutes "the last *342words heard by the jury from the court before the jury reached its verdict” *(People v Carnegie,*74 AD2d 651; *see also, People v Hetenyi,*304 NY 80, 86).

Defendant’s other contentions have been examined and found to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 911 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue 

an order with respect to secondary cockpit barriers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2015 

Mr. FITZPATRICK (for himself, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. MARINO, Mr. 

SWALWELL of California, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. NADLER, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. JOHNSON

of Georgia, Mr. SIRES, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. CAPUANO, Ms. KUSTER, Mr. 

LANCE, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. KING of New 

York, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. MEEKS, and Mr. PERLMUTTER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue an order with respect to secondary cockpit barriers, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Saracini Aviation Safe5 ty Act of 2015’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 911 IH

1 SEC. 2. SECONDARY COCKPIT BARRIERS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

3 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 

4 Federal Aviation Administration shall issue an order that 

5 requires— 

6 (1) on each covered aircraft the installation of 

7 a barrier, other than the cockpit door, that prevents 

8 access to the flight deck of the aircraft; and 

9 (2) for a covered aircraft— 

10 (A) that is equipped with a cockpit door, 

11 that the barrier required under paragraph (1) 

12 remain locked while— 

13 (i) the aircraft is in flight; and 

14 (ii) the cockpit door separating the 

15 flight deck and the passenger area is open; 

16 and 

17 (B) that is not equipped with a cockpit 

18 door, that the barrier required under paragraph 

19 (1) remain locked as determined appropriate by 

20 the pilot in command. 

21 (b) COVERED AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, 

22 the term ‘‘covered aircraft’’ means a commercial air23 craft— 

24 (1) operating under part 121 of title 14, Code 

25 of Federal Regulations; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 911 IH

1 (2) equipped with more than 75 passenger 

2 seats; and 

3 (3) with a maximum gross takeoff weight that 

4 exceeds 75,000 pounds. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply12800Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Micah Brown (not verified)PermalinkJanuary 2, 2024 - 9:51pmI would love to get an opportunity to participate in your summer internship program even though I'm still taking my high school classes online. This program would give me a chance to do as well as learn a new trade in life and be able to help do something to better our city and communities. It's programs like this help me and other people a chance to better ourselves and love we do and hope to obtain a position in the field we're doing to be the best at what we do.I would really appreciate this opportunity of interest that I've been reading about.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
Order entered November 24, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 00782
- CV EBAY INC., Appellant
V. MARY KAY INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No . DC
- 1403318 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s November 20, 2014 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief. Appellant shall file its reply brief by December 8, 2014

.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Raj Das, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of *info*USA Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 9, 2005 /s/ *Raj Das*   Raj Das   Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                  ------------

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Marvin F. Romanow,  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Nexen Inc., a Canadian  Corporation (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:

(1)   the  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of the  Company  for the  year  ended
      December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission
      on the date hereof (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements
      of Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 (15
      U.S.C. 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.



Date:    February 23, 2006              /s/ Marvin F. Romanow
                                        ---------------------
                                        Marvin F. Romanow
                                        Executive Vice President,
                                        and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nexen Inc.  and shall be retained by Nexen Inc.  and  furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff on request.
# C_2016202EN.01012901.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/129 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/129

---

Article 181

(ex Article 165 TEC)

(ex Article 165 TEC)

1.   The Union and the Member States shall coordinate their research and technological development activities so as to ensure that national policies and Union policy are mutually consistent.

2.   In close cooperation with the Member State, the Commission may take any useful initiative to promote the coordination referred to in paragraph 1, in particular initiatives aiming at the establishment of guidelines and indicators, the organisation of exchange of best practice, and the preparation of the necessary elements for periodic monitoring and evaluation. The European Parliament shall be kept fully informed.

---
EXHIBIT 99.1


          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
              Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



     I, Dorrit J. Bern, the Chief Executive Officer of Charming Shoppes, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge:

     (1)  the Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended February 1, 2003 (the
          "Form 10-K"), fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
          78o(d)); and

     (2)  the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.





Dated: April 15, 2003                             /S/ DORRIT J. BERN
                                                  ------------------
                                                  Dorrit J. Bern
                                                  Chief Executive Officer


[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Charming Shoppes, Inc. and will be retained by Charming Shoppes,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]