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


                 FOODBRANDS AMERICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

               CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE - UNAUDITED
          (Dollar amounts in thousands, except per share figures)


<CAPTION>
                                                    Three Months Ended 
                                                   ____________________
                                                   March 29,  March 30,
                                                     1997       1996   
                                                   _________  _________
<S>                                                  <C>       <C>
Net income                                           $2,139    $2,122
                                                     ======    ======
Primary earnings per share:

   Weighted average number of common shares 
    outstanding                                      12,465    12,468
   Common stock equivalents:
     Dilutive options and warrants                      221      -    
                                                     ______    ______
   Weighted average number of common and common 
    equivalent shares outstanding                    12,686    12,468
                                                     ======    ======

     Net income per share                             $0.17     $0.17
                                                      =====     =====

Fully diluted earnings per share:

   Weighted average number of common shares 
     outstanding                                     12,465    12,468
   Common stock equivalents:
     Dilutive options and warrants                      423       152 

                                                     ______    ______
   Weighted average number of common and common 
    equivalent shares outstanding                    12,888    12,620
                                                     ======    ====== 

     Net income per share                             $0.17     $0.17
                                                      =====     =====
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Nos.  333-61231 and 333-60512) of PDI, Inc. of our report
dated  March  11,  2005  relating  to  the  financial  statements,  management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in
this Form 10-K. We also consent to the  incorporation by reference of our report
dated  March 11, 2005   relating  to the  financial  statement  schedule,  which
appears in this Form 10-K.  We also  consent  to the  reference  to us under the
heading "Selected Financial Data" in this Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Florham Park, NJ
March 14, 2005
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 10B
 
     Schedule identifying substantially identical agreements, between Cable &
Wireless Communications plc and each of the following subsidiaries of NYNEX
CableComms Group PLC and NYNEX CableComms Group Inc. (the "Companies") providing
for loans by Cable & Wireless Communications plc to each of the following
subsidiaries, to the Agreement constituting Exhibit 10a to the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of the Companies for the quarter ended March 31,1997:
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                  SUBSIDIARY                                     LOAN AMOUNT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------  -----------
<S>                                                                              <C>
NYNEX CableComs Bolton                                                           L35,100,000
NYNEX CableComs Wirral Telephone and Cable T.V. Company                          L42,600,000
NYNEX CableComs Bury and Rochdale                                                L19,000,000
NYNEX CableComs Cheshire                                                         L35,500,000
NYNEX CableComs Derby                                                            L25,800,000
NYNEX CableComs Greater Manchester                                               L70,900,000
NYNEX CableComs Macclesfield                                                     L14,000,000
NYNEX CableComs Staffordshire                                                    L35,600,000
NYNEX CableComs Stockport                                                        L28,000,000
NYNEX CableComs Wirral                                                           L31,300,000
NYNEX CableComs Bromley                                                          L12,800,000
NYNEX CableComs Solent                                                           L32,000,000
NYNEX CableComs Surrey                                                           L47,300,000
NYNEX CableComs Sussex                                                           L30,600,000
NYNEX CableComs Wessex                                                           L55,100,000
</TABLE>
 
                                       20
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 215 (Monday, November 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28359]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NUREG-1671]

Standard Review Plan for the Recertification of the Gaseous 
Diffusion Plants Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: Because of significant changes resulting from previous public 
comment, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is offering the 
opportunity for additional public review and comment on the revised 
Section 6.0, ``Technical Safety Requirements,'' and Section 8.0, 
``Nuclear Criticality Safety,'' of the draft report NUREG-1671 
entitled, ``Standard Review Plan for the Recertification of the Gaseous 
Diffusion Plants.'' (GDPs)

DATES: Submit comment to the address listed below by December 6, 2000. 
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical 
to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for 
comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives 
Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 
Hand deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm during Federal workdays.
    Draft NUREG-1671 is available for inspection and copying for a fee 
at the NRC public document room (PDR), located at the NRC's 
headquarters building, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852. A copy of the draft revised Sections 6.0 and 8.0 
may also be obtained from the NRC's website for the Division of Fuel 
Cycle Safety and Safeguards at: http://www.nrc.gov/NMSS/FCSS/fcssindex.html or from the Agency's document management system, called 
ADAMS, at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Tripp, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301) 415-7733.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of October, 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric J. Leeds,
Chief, Special Projects Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and 
Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 00-28359 Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                            ACT MANUFACTURING, INC.


               Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Common Share

                  Three Months Ended March 31, 1999 and 1998
                     (in thousands except per share data)
                                  (unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            1999         1998
                                                            ----         ----
BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:               
<S>                                                       <C>         <C>
  Net income (loss) as reported..........................  $1,866      $(1,126)
  Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:    
     Common Stock........................................   9,068        9,063
                                                           ------      -------
     Basic net income (loss) per common share............  $  .21      $  (.12)
                                                           ======      =======
                                                           
DILUTED NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:                
  Net income (loss) as reported..........................  $1,866      $(1,126)
  Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:    
     Common Stock........................................   9,068        9,063
     Effect of stock options.............................     443           --
                                                           ------      -------
        Total............................................   9,511        9,063
                                                           ------      -------
     Diluted net income (loss) per common share..........  $  .20      $  (.12)
                                                           ======      =======
</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3608 

To amend the Act of October 19, 1973, concerning taxable income to members 

of the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2013 

Mr. NOLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and 

Means and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Act of October 19, 1973, concerning taxable 

income to members of the Grand Portage Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa Indians. 

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 ‘‘Grand Portage Band 

5 Per Capita Adjustment Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3608 IH

1 SEC. 2. EQUAL TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PER CAPITA IN2 COME FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL ASSIST3 ANCE. 

4 Paragraph (4) of section 7 of the Act of October 19, 

5 1973 (25 U.S.C. 1407(4)) is amended by striking ‘‘pursu6 ant to the agreements of such Band’’ and inserting ‘‘or 

7 the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indi8 ans, or both, pursuant to the agreements of each Band’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>   5 
        
<S>                                                               <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              OCT-31-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                                                    JAN-31-1997 
<CASH>                                                            44,876 
<SECURITIES>                                                           0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     51,384 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0 
<INVENTORY>                                                       76,321
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 187,728 
<PP&E>                                                           127,818 
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    38,217 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   317,350 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            139,988 
<BONDS>                                                                0 
<COMMON>                                                           3,965 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0       
<PREFERRED>                                                            0 
<OTHER-SE>                                                       173,397 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     317,350 
<SALES>                                                           30,476 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  30,476 
<CGS>                                                             18,216 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    271,822 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 1,301 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (240,139) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (240,139) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0 
<CHANGES>                                                              0 
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (240,139) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       (.06) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       (.06) 
         






</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1348

ARETHA CHAPMAN; TERESA ELLIOT; HESTIA G.

PAPPAS; CAROLYN BOLLING; ZENA R. PARKER; JOYCE

SHELTON; LISA C. GREGORY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

RICHARD DANZIG, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-99-1494-A)

Submitted: September 29, 2000 Decided: October 11, 2000

Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Bell, C. Vaughn Adams, BELL & ADAMS, Washington, D.C.,

for Appellants. Arthur Erwin Peabody, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their suit alleging constitutional violations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Office

of the Naval Sea Systems Command. We have reviewed the record and

the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Chapman v.

Danzig, No. CA-99-1494-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 24, 2000). 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 3.7

                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                           ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                                  CORCOM, INC.


                                  ARTICLE ONE


The name of the corporation is Corcom, Inc., and the corporation's file number
is 3508-193-3.


                                  ARTICLE TWO


                  The registered agent is National Registered Agents, Inc. The
registered office is 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1855, Chicago, IL 60604.

                                 ARTICLE THREE


                  The purpose for which the corporation is organized: To engage
in any lawful act or activity for which corporations may be organized under the
Illinois Business Corporation Act of 1983, as amended.


                                  ARTICLE FOUR

                  The corporation shall have authority to issue 1,000 shares of
Common Stock, par value $.01 per share of which 1,000 shares are issued and
outstanding for an aggregate consideration of $1,000.00.

                                     - 1 -
#### KENTUCKY-VIRGINIA STAGES, Inc. v. SENTER.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 9, 1951.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 23, 1951.

Stoll, Keenon & Park, Lexington, Baird & Hays, Pikeville, for appellant.

J. E. Childers, Pikeville, for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellant appeals from a judgment awarding personal injury and property damages in a motor vehicle collision case. The controlling question is whether or not we may consider a so-called “Bystanders Bill of Exceptions” filed in this Court.

The action was tried on June 24, 1949. It resulted in a verdict for appellee. Appellant was given until-the last day of the September term within which to prepare and file its bill of exceptions. The last day of the term was October 1, 1949. On that day the official stenographer presented to the clerk “a few -sheets” of the purported bill of exceptions, and the clerk marked one of the pages thereof, “tendered and offered to be filed.” As a matter of fact, the bill of exceptions had not been completed, and was not filed at that time.

Subsequently, on October 24, appellee moved to set aside the order showing the bill of exceptions had been tendered. The Court took proof on this motion; later sustained the motion; and refused to sign the bill which had in the meantime been completed. Appellant has attempted to file in this Court what is designated as “Bystanders Bill of Exception,” and insists it must be considered in passing on the merits of this appeal.

Appellant’s contentions are in the alternative. It first says that the bill of exceptions was properly filed in the lower Court, and it was the duty of the Circuit Court to approve it. This is not true because the completed bill was not tendered in time. Appellant argues, however, that the Court had no jurisdiction to -set aside the order showing it had been tendered on October 1, 1949. Whether or not the Court had jurisdiction to correct this "entry as a clerical misprision under Section 519 of the 'Civil Code of Practice, see Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. McEuen, 281 Ky. 113, 134 S.W.2d 1012, it is unnecessary to- decide. Even if the Court did not have jurisdiction to enter this order, the bill of exceptions was never signed and approved, and consequently cannot be considered by this Court.

Appellant’s *contention that*we must treat the tendered document as a bystanders bill is equally without merit. Where the bill would have been signed by the Judge of the Circuit Court if it had been tendered in time, which is the case here, it may not be considered as a bystanders bill. Asher v. Asher, 203 Ky. 540, 262 S.W. 941.

*839Since we cannot consider the evidence in the case, the only remaining question is whether or not the pleadings support the judgment. Careful examination indicates clearly that allegations of the plaintiff’s petition justified the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### BRYANT v. STATE.

No. 25584.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 19, 1951.

*663Jack Ray, A. Foy Curry, Jr., Fort Worth, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 10 days in jail and a fine of $100.

Two members of the highway patrol testified that on the day in question, while on duty, they observed an automobile passing a group of automobiles without sufficient clearance, thus causing the automobiles which were meeting him to pull off on the shoulder of the highway to avoid being hit. They testified that they gave chase and were finally able to bring this automobile to a halt and observed that appellant was driving it and that he was intoxicated.

Appellant testified and admitted having drunk one bottle of beer, but denied that ,he was intoxicated. In this, he was supported by his witnesses. The jury accepted the State’s version thereof.

Appellant presents us three bills of exception, each one containing the entire testimony, both on direct and on cross-examination, of three different witnesses, with a general objection leveled at all of such testimony.

In Cagle v. State, 180 S.W.2d 928, we cited with approval Section 211, Branch’s Annotated Texas Penal Code, as follows: “A bill of exceptions is too general to be considered if it includes a number of statements some of which are clearly admissible, and there is nothing in the objections to directly challenge or single out the supposed objectional evidence.”

In Clifton v. State, Tex.Cr.R., 246 S.W.2d 201, we said: “However, for the purpose of clarification, it appears that appellant is laboring under the impression that no witness may be allowed to testify as to anything he observed subsequent to the moment of arrest. In this, he is mistaken. It has long been the holding of this Court that, ‘If such acts or declarations were part of the res gestae they are admissible notwithstanding the fact that they may not be admissible as confessions or as admissions, for the rule of res gestae is independent of, superior to and cannot be limited by the rules relating to confessions or admissions after arrest.’ 18 Tex.Juris., Sec. 193, p. 313.”

Bill of exception No. 3 seeks to complain about a question asked by the prosecutor, but the bill does not show what the question was.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 214 (Friday, November 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28282]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6612-3]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information, (202) 564-7167 or www.epa.gov/oeca/ofa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed October 23, 2000 through October 27, 2000
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 000369, Draft EIS, IBR, ID, Arrowrock Dam Outlet Works 
Rehabilitation, Construction and Operation, To Remove 10 Lower Level 
Ensign Valves and Replace with 10 Clamshell Gates, Boise River, City of 
Boise, ID, Due: January 05, 2001, Contact: John Tiedeman (208) 378-
5034.
EIS No. 000370, Draft EIS, BOP, ID, Terre Haute United States 
Penitentiary (USP), Proposal to Construct and Operate 960 Beds 
Facilities along with a Special Confinement Unit of 100-120 Beds to 
Alleviating Overcrowding, Vigo County, Terra Haute, ID, Due: December 
18, 2000, Contact: David J. Dorworth (202) 514-6470.
EIS No. 000371, Final EIS, COE, NJ, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, 
Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project, Flood Control and Storm 
Damage Protection, Port Monmouth, Middletown Township, Monmouth County, 
NJ, Due: December 04, 2000, Contact: Mark H. Burles (212) 264-4663.
EIS No. 000372, Final EIS, COE, CA, Lower Mission Creek Flood Control 
Project, Proposed Plan for Flood Control, City of Santa Barbara, Santa 
Barbara County, CA, Due: December 04, 2000, Contact: Joy Jaiswal (213) 
452-3871.
EIS No. 000373, Final EIS, AFS, ID, Brown Creek Timber Sale Project, 
Implementation, Payette National Forest, New Meadow Ranger District, 
Adam County, ID, Due: December 20, 2000, Contact: Jack Irish (208) 347-
0300.


    Dated: October 31, 2000.
Joseph C. Montgomery,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 00-28282 Filed 11-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U