alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1




                                 EXHIBIT 11.1
                             EASTON BANCORP, INC.
                      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                         QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997




<TABLE>
<S>                                                                   <C>
Net income                                                            $   63,756
                                                                      ==========

Average shares outstanding                                               559,328

Dilutive average shares outstanding under
 warrants and options                                                    216,191

Exercise price                                                        $    10.00

Assumed proceeds on exercise                                          $2,161,910

Average market value                                                  $    12.44

Less: Treasury stock purchased with assumed proceeds
      from exercise  of warrants and options                             173,787

Adjusted average shares-Primary                                          601,732

Primary earnings per share                                            $     0.11
                                                                      ==========

Average shares outstanding                                               559,328

Dilutive average shares outstanding under
 warrants and options                                                    216,191

Exercise price                                                        $    10.00

Assumed proceeds on exercise                                          $2,161,910

Ending market value                                                   $    12.50

Less: Treasury stock purchased with assumed proceeds
      from exercise of warrants and options                              172,953

Adjusted average shares-Fully diluted                                    602,566

Fully diluted earnings per share                                      $     0.11
                                                                      ==========
</TABLE>

     The stock of the Company is not traded on any public exchange.  The
average and ending market values are derived from trades known to management.
Private sales may occur where management of the Company is unaware of the sales
price.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a

collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.  The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0579‐

0377.  The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average .16 hours per response, including the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of

information.

OMB

Approved

0579‐0377

Please complete this brief survey to help us better meet the needs of accredited veterinarians.

1. Do you know where to find the National Veterinary Accreditation Program Reference Guide?

__ Yes __ No 

2. How often do you use the National Veterinary Accreditation Program Reference Guide?

__ Never __ Annually __ Monthly __ Weekly __ Daily 

 

3. What is the most common reason you use the NVAP Reference Guide?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Do you like the organizational layout of the National Veterinary Accreditation Program Reference Guide?  

__ Yes __ No 

5. If not, how can we improve the layout?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

6. If yes, what specifically do you like about the layout?

________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________

7. What is the best way to get National Veterinary Accreditation Program information to you?

__ Email __ Fax __ Mail __ Other, please describe

_________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Which of the following formats would you like for the new National Veterinary Accreditation Program

Reference Guide (select one):

__ PDF Pages with Link Tool for scrolling (current format) 

 

__ Other, please describe __________________________________________________________________

__  Interactive Web site, Select Species (Dog, Horse, etc.), Select Function (Import, Regulatory Test, etc.)  

Your comments are very important to us.  Please describe in detail what the National Veterinary Accreditation Team

can do to make the NVAP Reference Guide better for your use.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      13,309,823
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,064,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,550
<INVENTORY>                                    487,031
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,216,662
<PP&E>                                      17,695,312
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,250,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,918,240
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,359,368
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        53,030
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,757,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,918,240
<SALES>                                      3,389,128
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,673,823
<CGS>                                        4,826,794
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,281,178
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,328,845
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             176,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,936,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,256
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,937,456)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,937,456)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.69)


</TABLE>
#### Kaaihue v. Schlichtmann

20467

08/16/1999

Reversed and Remanded
# C_2018392EN.01003201.xml

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/32

---

Action brought on 24 August 2018 — France v Commission

(Case T-507/18)

(2018/C 392/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, A.-L. Desjonquères, S. Horrenberger and A. Alidière, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it applies a lump-sum correction of 5 %, equal to EUR 945 435,39, concerning ‘Other Direct Aid — POSEI’, on the basis of ‘Inaccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas’ for the financial years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it applies a lump-sum correction of 5 %, equal to EUR 945 435,39, concerning ‘Other Direct Aid — POSEI’, on the basis of ‘Inaccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas’ for the financial years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging an error of law committed by the Commission in the conformity clearance procedure concerning support for bananas, in that it misinterpreted the notion of ‘marketing’ of green bananas eligible for support from the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI) applicable to Guadeloupe and Martinique.

First, the applicant claims that the Commission’s interpretation of that notion misconstrued the scope of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1333/2011 of 19 December 2011 laying down marketing standards for bananas, rules on the verification of compliance with those marketing standards and requirements for notifications in the banana sector (OJ 2011, L 336, p. 23).

Secondly, it submits that the Commission’s interpretation of that notion is based on a misapplication of Article 76 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 671).

---
Exhibit 10.4


 


Fourth AMENDMENT
TO Promissory note


 


THIS
Fourth Amendment (THE “FOURTH AMENDMENT”) DATED July 27, 2018,
shall amend the Promissory note (THE “NOTE”) dated AS OF may 30, 2012
AND AS amended on july 31, 2013 (the “first amendment”), july 27, 2015 (The “Second amendment”), And July
20, 2017 (The “THIRD amendment”) AMONG NON-INVASIVE MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC. (THE “MAKER”) AND Hsu
Gamma Investments Trust, L.P. (THE “PAYEE”) AS NOTED BELOW. THE NOTE, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT,
THE THIRD AMENDMENT, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SHALL BE REFERRED TO AS THE AMENDED NOTE.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, Maker and
Payee (collectively, the “Parties”) are parties to the Note which became effective on May 30, 2012;


 


WHEREAS, on July
20, 2017, the Parties amended the Note to extend the Maturity Date from July 31, 2017 until July 31, 2018; and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
wish to extend the Maturity Date from July 31, 2018 to July 31, 2020.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in the Note and this Fourth Amendment and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


AMENDMENT


 


1. Section
1 of the Note is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


 


The principal amount of the loan evidenced
hereby, together with any accrued and unpaid interest, and any and all unpaid costs, fees and expenses accrued, shall be due and
payable on July 31, 2020 (the “Maturity Date”).


 


2. Governing Law.
This Fourth Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida without regard to its conflict of laws rules or principles.


 


3. Amendments. Except
as expressly amended hereby, the Note shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.


 


4. Entire Agreement.
This Fourth Amendment and the Note constitute the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and
supersede all prior understandings and writings between the Parties relating thereto.


 



    	 



    	 



     


5. Interpretation.
Any capitalized terms used in this Fourth Amendment but not otherwise defined shall have the meaning provided in the Note.


 


6. Counterparts.
This Fourth Amendment may be executed manually, electronically in Adobe® PDF file format, or by facsimile by the Parties, in
any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered one and the same amendment and shall become effective when a counterpart
hereof shall have been signed by each of the Parties and delivered to the other Party.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
Borrower has duly executed this Fourth Amendment to the Note and Security Note as of the 27th day of July, 2018.


 


	 	 	 	NON-INVASIVE MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC. 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	
        /s/ James J. Martin

        

	 	 	 	Name:	
        James J. Martin

        

	 	 	 	Title:	Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 	 	 
	Agreed and Accepted:	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	HSU GAMMA INVESTMENTS, L.P.	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Jane H. Hsiao, Ph.D.	 	 	 
	Name:	
        Jane H. Hsiao, Ph.D.

        
	 	 	 
	Title:	
        General Partner
#### Dudley H. PONDER, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12363.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 12, 1956.

Alvin C. Bruce, Ardmore, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

JONES, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal by Dudley II. Ponder from a conviction in the County Court of Carter County for unlawful possession of whiskey, a misdemeanor.

The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in which it is alleged that the defendant was sentenced on February 7, 1.956; that no notice of appeal was given until March 13, 1956; that time to make and serve casemade expired on February 22, 1956, and there was no order ex*1004tending such time until an attempted order was made on March 13, 1956, which order was void. That the time to lodge the appeal in the Criminal Court of Appeals expired on April 7, 1956, and the appeal was not lodged until May 12, 1956.

The record discloses that the judgment and sentence was pronounced on February 7, 1956, as alleged in the motion filed by the Attorney General. The confusion evidently arose by reason of the fact that on February 10, 1956, counsel for the accused filed a motion for a new trial. This motion for a new trial was overruled on March 13, 1956, at which time the defendant gave notice in open court of his intention to appeal and was at that time granted an extension of time to make and serve cascmade.

In criminal cases the appeal is taken from the judgment and sentence and not from the order overruling the motion for new trial. In misdemeanor cases the appeal must be taken within 60 days after the judgment is rendered provided, however, that the trial court may extend the time in which such appeal may be taken for nof exceeding 60 days. 22 O.S.1951 § 1054; Lewis v. State, 90 Okl.Cr. 137, 211 P.2d 295; Brown v. State, 89 Okl.Cr. 389, 208 P.2d 1143.

An appeal may only be taken from a judgment of conviction in the manner prescribed by law. Gibson v. State, 87 Okl.Cr. 260, 197 P.2d 310. By statute it is provided that a person desiring to appeal shall give notice in open court either at the time.the judgment is rendered or within 10 days thereafter of his intention to appeal to the Criminal Court of Appeals. 22 O.S.1951 § 1055. No notice of intention to appeal was given in the instant case until more than a month had elapsed from the date the judgment was rendered.

The plaintiff in error not having proceeded in the manner prescribed by law for perfecting an appeal to the Criminal Court of Appeals, this court did not acquire jurisdiction to hear the purported appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.
### ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS James E. McMahon (JEMcMahon@LBL.gov) Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory U.S. DOE Workshop on Standards for Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps September 12, 2001Environmental Impact Analysis: 

### PURPOSE and METHOD PURPOSE

- Estimate impacts from new energy efficiency standards 

### METHOD

- NEMS-BRS model III.K. 1Environmental Impact Analysis: 

### OUTPUT Impacts from new energy efficiency standards on

- Quantities ofU.S. emissions ofcarbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from energy supply systems
- Trading price of SO 2 III.K.2Environmental Impact Analysis: 

### DOE Requests Input from Stakeholders Are there any otherenvironmentalfactors

theDepartment shouldconsider? If so, what additional analyticalmethods areappropriate for addressingthem? III.K.3
[Cite as State v. Lynch, 134 Ohio St.3d 561, 2012-Ohio-5730.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . L YNCH , A PPELLANT . [Cite as State v. Lynch, 134 Ohio St.3d 561, 2012-Ohio-5730.] Court of appeals’ judgment r eversed on the authority of State v. Billiter.

(No. 2012-1361—Submitted December 4, 2012—Decided December 6, 2012.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 11CA010031, 2012-Ohio-2975.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of
State v. Billiter , 134 Ohio St.3d 103, 2012-Ohio-5144, 980 N.E.2d 960, and the
cause is remanded to the cour t of appeals for further pr oceedings consistent with this court’s opinion in State v. Billiter

. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , O’D ONNELL , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.
L UNDBERG S TRATTON and L ANZINGER , JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in their separate opinions in State v. Billiter

.

__________________ Dennis P. Will, Lorain County Pros ecuting Attorney, and Billie Jo Belcher, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defend er, and E. Kelly Mihocik, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

______________________
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1004 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to encourage the nationwide 

observance of two minutes of silence each Veterans Day. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 16, 2015 

Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. MARKEY, and Ms. WARREN) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to encourage the 

nationwide observance of two minutes of silence each 

Veterans Day. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Day Moment 

5 of Silence Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OBSERVANCE OF VETERANS DAY. 

7 (a) TWO MINUTES OF SILENCE.—Chapter 1 of title 

8 36, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

9 the following new section: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1004 IS

1 ‘‘§ 145. Veterans Day 

2 ‘‘The President shall issue each year a proclamation 

3 calling on the people of the United States to observe two 

4 minutes of silence on Veterans Day in honor of the service 

5 and sacrifice of veterans throughout the history of the Na6 tion, beginning at— 

7 ‘‘(1) 3:11 p.m. Atlantic standard time; 

8 ‘‘(2) 2:11 p.m. eastern standard time; 

9 ‘‘(3) 1:11 p.m. central standard time; 

10 ‘‘(4) 12:11 p.m. mountain standard time; 

11 ‘‘(5) 11:11 a.m. Pacific standard time; 

12 ‘‘(6) 10:11 a.m. Alaska standard time; and 

13 ‘‘(7) 9:11 a.m. Hawaii-Aleutian standard 

14 time.’’. 

15 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

16 for chapter 1 of title 36, United States Code, is amended 

17 by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘145. Veterans Day.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

Ogulei, David

From: David Moore <DavidM@cooperenvironmental.com>

Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:48 PM

To: Ogulei, David

Subject: RE: Cooper Environmental

Hello David, 

We are still trying to get permission to share the document that Krag had mentioned, but thus far have not had 

success. I will keep pushing to get approval, and will keep you in the loop. 

Best regards, 

David 

From: Ogulei, David [mailto:Ogulei.David@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:32 PM 

To: David Moore 

Subject: RE: Cooper Environmental 

David, 

I have not talked to Dr. Fine yet but I expect to talk to him within the next few days. Are you able to share a 

publicly-releasable copy of the quote you recently prepared for the Nigeria stack installation? Mr. Krag Petterson 

previously offered to share one with me but I haven’t received it yet. 

Thanks, 

-David 

David Ogulei, Ph.D., P.E. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 | Air & Radiation Division | AR-18J 

77 West Jackson Blvd. | Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Phone: (312) 353-0987 | Fax: (312) 692-2080 

Ogulei.David@epa.gov

From: David Moore [mailto:DavidM@cooperenvironmental.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 2:13 PM 

To: Ogulei, David 

Subject: Cooper Environmental 

Hello David, 

I just wanted to follow up to see if you were able to communicate with Dr. Fine at South Coast AQMD regarding our Xact 

systems in stack applications. Do you require any additional information from us? 

Best regards, 
2

David Moore 

Director of Sales and Marketing 

Cooper Environmental Services LLC 

10180 SW Nimbus Ave. Suite J6 

Portland, OR 97223 

Phone #: 503-608-4444 

Mobile #: 503-970-8190 

Fax #: 503-624-2120 

Email: DavidM@cooperenvironmental.com

Website: www.cooperenvironmental.com
.-··, .. 

Legendary Aircraft., ~E:xtr~Qn;lin,~ryr .. Service. 

F 0. ih< 61 bfJO Fairh:ln!:s, Ai\ 09706'1 552.'5 't:olr,l7dl !ndil.~!li:lf'l"<d .. ~fDirLan!(s AK 9.9709 

Mr. Kevin Adams 

and Staff for EAS 

Depmtment of Transportation 

400 7'h Street, SW Room 6401 

Washington, DC 20590 

<160-2300 Fax (907) 4.50-2306 

Re: Request for Proposals ~Provide Essential Air Service at Adak, 

Docket 2000-8556 v . · -

Dear Mr. Adams, 

June 19, 2012 

.0 

Everts Air Cargo requests an extension of the deadline for submission of proposals for EAS at Adak, 

Alask~, from June 261'\201? t~ July p 1\2012: . . .. . . . .· 

With there-solicitation of the request for proposal for EAS at Adak, Everts Air Cargo became aware 

that Alaska Airlines was not pursuing continued EAS service to Adalc I understand that the DOT 

received a response from only one carrier and the community has expressed concern with that 

carrier's ability to provide freight & mail service. Because of these new developments, Everts Air 

Cargo is researching data and contacting interested parties, in order to prepare a service proposal for 

the r~solicitation. . · "" ...... -· · ·.,... · ., · 

By allowing this extension, it will afford Everts Air Cargo, as well as, other caniers the time needed 

to provide a more accurate proposal based on the needs and expectations of both the community and 

the D.O.T. It does not appear that this extension will adversely impact the community, noting 

Alaska Airlines willingness to hold in, tmtil such time that an EAS replacement is identified. 

Everts Air Cargo's involvement in this re-solicitation may provide a suitable alternative for the Adak 

Community and D.O.T. to consider as an Adak EAS replacement. 

Your consideration for this request is appreciated, 

i~,-'l 'd /I / t ~#-; ·~.-w~~rt-----­ ./,L /~-· 

Robert Ragar · 

Manager Contracts & Hazardous Materials
#### Fancy v. Fancy

18637

2/17/98

Affirmed