alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 11.01


                            PREMISYS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE - (UNAUDITED)
                ---------------------------------------------------
                        (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                 Three Months Ended September 30,
                                                               ------------------------------------
                                                                       1996            1997
                                                                       -----           ----
<S>                                                              <C>                 <C>     
Weighted average shares outstanding:   
    Common Stock                                                    24,432              25,308
    Common stock equivalents related to options using the 
     treasury stock method                                           2,047               2,129
                                                                 ----------          ----------
    Weighted-average common shares and equivalents                  26,479              27,437
                                                                 ----------          ----------
                                                                 ----------          ----------
    Net income                                                   $   5,723           $   2,677
                                                                 ----------          ----------
                                                                 ----------          ----------
    Net income per share                                         $    0.22           $    0.10
                                                                 ----------          ----------
                                                                 ----------          ----------

</TABLE>
 
                                          22
Exhibit 10.3



	





 




1 


Exhibit 10.3


 






 


 



	




 





2 


Exhibit 10.3


 






 


 



	




 





3 


Exhibit 10.3


 






 


 



	




 




4 


Exhibit 10.3
(logo)C-III | C-III Asset Management

 

 

**OFFICER’SCERTIFICATE**

**C-IIIAsset Management LLC**

 

 

Theundersigned, Barry Davis, President of C-III Asset Management LLC *(f/k/aCenterline Servicing LLC)*, the Special Servicer under that certain Pooling andServicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2015, relating to the **CSAIL 2015-C1Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,Series 2015-C1**(the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), hereby certifies asfollows:

 

1.             a review of the activities of the Special Servicer and of its performance underthe Pooling and Servicing

Agreement during the calendar year 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) hasbeen made under the undersigned’s supervision;

 

2.             tothe best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the SpecialServicer maintained an effective internal control system relating to itsservicing of the Mortgage Loans serviced by it and has fulfilled in allmaterial respects its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreementthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

Capitalizedterms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in thePooling and Servicing Agreement.

 

 

**INWITNESS WHEREOF,**as of the 1st day ofMarch, 2018, I have hereunto signed my name.

 

 

/s/Barry Davis

**BarryDavis**, President

       C-III Asset Management LLC, a 

       Delaware limited liability company

 

  

       CSAIL 2015-C1
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67414-67415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28782]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Astronomical Sciences; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meetings of the Special Emphasis Panel in Astronomical 
Sciences (1186):


[[Page 67415]]


    Date and Time: November 30-December 1, 2000, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.; 
December 7-8, 2000, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, 
VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. James Breckinridge, Program Manager, 
Advanced Technologies and Instrumentation, Division of Astronomical 
Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
1045, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-4892.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals submitted to the 
Advanced Technologies and Instrumentation Program as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 3 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: November 6, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Commiittee Management Office.
[FR Doc. 00-28782 Filed 11-8; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20

- 274 V

UNPUBLISHED

DONNA HOLCOMB

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: July 7, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;
Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)

Leigh Finfer

, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA , for petitioner.

Mollie Danielle Gorney , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On March 3, 202 0

, Donna Holcomb filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) resulting from the adverse e ffects of an influenza va ccination she

received on November 15, 2 018 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 11, 2021

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that

P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent determined that “ [P] etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation

. ” Id. at 4

- 5

.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

(2012 ).2

Respondent conclud ed that Petitioner satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation

under the Act. Respondent further agrees that t he scope of damages to be awarded is limited to petitioner’s left SIRVA and its related sequelae only

. Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50366 Summary Calendar

PRESTON LINWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DAN SMITH, Sheriff; BELL COUNTY MEDICAL STAFF, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-95-CV-143

- - - - - - - - - - September 25, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Preston Linwood, Texas state prisoner #661979, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the grant of summary judgment for the defendants on his civil rights claims. By moving for IFP, Linwood is challenging the district court’s certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Linwood has not demonstrated that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue onNo. 97-50366 -2- appeal, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
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 of Rodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the date hereof
(the Report), we, the undersigned, Edward Rubin, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, and David J. Horin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

|                       |                     |                               
|---------------------- | ------------------- | ------------------------------
|                       | /s/ Edward
 Rubin  
|                       |                    
|                       |                     | Edward Rubin                  
|                       |                     | Chief
 Executive Officer      
|                       |                     | (Principal
 Executive Officer)
|                       |                     |                               
|                       | /s/ David J.
 Horin
|                       |                    
|                       |                     | David J.
 Horin               
|                       |                     | Chief
 Financial Officer      
|                       |                     | (Principal
 Financial Officer)
|                       |                     |                               
|Dated: March
 16, 2010 |                     |                               

---
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000350 26-APR-2012 11:05 AM

NO. SCPW-12-0000350
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
RONALD HANSON and KATHY HANSON, Petitioners,

vs. THE HONORABLE GARY W.B. CHANG, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT; THE HONORABLE CRAIG H. NAKAMURA, CHIEF JUDGE OF THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS; and PALEHUA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 09-1-1935-08; ICA NO. CAAP-10-0000080)
ORDER (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.,

and Circuit Judge To ' oto ' o, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused) Upon consideration of petitioners Ronald Hanson and Kathy Hanson's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that, as to the actions of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in CAAP-10-0000080: (1) the January 12, 2011 order dismissing petitioners' appeal for lack of jurisdiction was reviewable by this court by application for a writ of certiorari filed pursuant to HRS § 602-59 (Supp. 2010) and HRAP 40.1, but no application was filed; (2) the April 6, 2011 award of attorney's fees and costs was authorized by HRS § 607-14, the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, Article III, Section7.02, and HRAP 39(a), and petitioners fail to demonstrate that the amount of fees and costs awarded was unreasonable; and (3) the August 4, 2011 order correctly struck petitioners' motions filed six months after the dismissal of petitioners' appeal. It further appears that, as to the actions of the respondent circuit judge in Civil No. 09-1-1935: (1) entry of final judgment pursuant to HRCP 54(b) on some of the parties' claims was within the respondent judge's discretion and the denial of HRCP 54(b) certification was not a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, and (2) all orders on all of the parties' motions will be appealable by petitioners upon entry of a final judgment. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis , 91 Hawai ' i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures. Where a court has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in

2IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. which it has a legal duty to act.). Accordingly,

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, April 26, 2012. /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Fa ' auuga To ' oto ' o

3
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 224

Requesting the President to designate Victoria Van Meter as an honorary

goodwill ambassador for the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1994

Mr. RIDGE (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. CLINGER, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr.

GREENWOOD, Mr. GALLO, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Ms. SCHENK, and Mr.

BORSKI) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Requesting the President to designate Victoria Van Meter

as an honorary goodwill ambassador for the United States.

Whereas Victoria Van Meter is the youngest female to fly

cross-country across the United States;

Whereas Victoria Van Meter will become the youngest female

pilot to make a transatlantic flight;

Whereas the flight of a 12-year-old girl across the ocean will

send a positive message to the world;

Whereas Victoria Van Meter exemplifies the positive spirit of

the United States;

Whereas Victoria Van Meter will represent the youth of the

United States in her world travels; and
2

•HCON 224 IH

Whereas Victoria Van Meter has already been an inspiration

to people both young and old: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring ), That the President is requested to issue a

3 proclamation designating Victoria Van Meter as an honor4 ary goodwill ambassador from the United States to the

5 countries that she visits in the course of her transatlantic

6 flight.

Æ
Case 4:22-cr-00077-O Document 25 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 67
Case 4:22-cr-00077-O Document 25 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 68
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO18 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 of Audax Credit
BDC Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard T. Joseph, as 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 to my knowledge:



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



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



|/s/ Richard T. Joseph |                         | 
|--------------------- | ----------------------- | 
|Name:                 | Richard T. Joseph       | 
|Title:                | Chief Financial Officer | 



Date: March 29, 2017
Order entered January 13, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01183-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.J., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-56625-2020

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief, 

which is currently due February 8, 2023. Appellant seeks a thirty-day extension 

and explains the extension is necessary “mainly” because the trial court has not 

filed findings of fact and conclusions of law as requested.

We note the appealed judgment was signed October 8, 2022, and the online 

docket sheet reflects the findings and conclusions were requested January 11,

2023. Under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 296 and 297, a trial court is not 

required to file findings of fact and conclusions of law unless the request is filed 

within twenty days of the date of judgment. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 296, 297. 
Accordingly, to the extent appellant seeks an extension to allow the trial court to 

file findings and conclusions, we DENY the motion. We GRANT the motion to 

the extent an extension is otherwise necessary and ORDER the brief be filed no 

later than March 10, 2023.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of

- )

)

Anthony and Gordon Construction Co. ) ASBCA Nos. 61916, 62812

)

Under Contract Nos. N69450

- 13

- C

- 0754 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Herman M. Braude, Esq.

Braude Law Group, P.C.

Rockville, MD

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Robyn L. Hamady, Esq.

Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The parties settled their dispute

. The appeal s are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: October 6 , 2022

DANIEL S. HERZFELD

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 61916, 62812

, Appeals of

Anthony and Gordon Construction Co., rende red in conformance with the Board’s

Charter.

Dated: October 7, 2022

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)







In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Hyperdynamics Corporation
(Hyperdynamics), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Steven M. Plumb,
Chief Financial Officer of Hyperdynamics, does hereby certify, pursuant to 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to his
knowledge:




(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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:
November 10, 2008





By:
                /s/
      Sarah Berel-HarropSarah
      Berel-HarropChief
      Financial OfficerPrincipal
      Accounting Officer
#### WHITEHEAD v. WATTS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 30, 1953.

*720E. C. Wooton, Hazard, for appellant.

Don A. Ward, Hazard, for appellees.

MILLIKEN, Justice.

This case is before us on motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Perry Circuit Court in the amount of $200, with interest from the date of the judgment. The litigation involves the amount due for services rendered and materials furnished by the Whitehead Heating & Plumbing Company to the appellees. The Whitehead Heating & Plumbing Company had filed a mechanic’s lien against the property of the appel-lees in the sum of $475.72, and the appellees contended that the charges for the services were excessive. The Citizens State Bank of Hazard and the Plome Lumber Company, also of Hazard, are parties to this action, but are not parties to this appeal.

The trial court appointed a special commissioner to hear the evidence, and he recommended that the appellant, Whitehead, be allowed $437.75 on his claim and be awarded a lien on the appellees’ property for that amount. In February, 1951, the appellant, Whitehead, moved the court to confirm the commissioner’s report and for judgment. No exceptions were filed by anyone to the commissioner’s report, but notwithstanding this fact the trial court, after deferring action until December 21, 1951, about ten days before the judge’s term of office expired, denied the commissioner’s report and recommendation, and entered a oersonal judgment in favor of Whitehead against the appellees for $200, with interest from the date thereof, and said nothing about the appellant’s claim of a lien on the property on which the work had been done.

We have read the testimony taken by the commissioner, and find that it fully supports his conclusion. The appellees apparently thought that it did, for they took no exceptions to the report during the ten months it awaited the action of the court. In the circumstances and under the evidence, we think the trial court’s action was arbitrary and unjust and, consequently, we sustain the motion for an appeal, reverse the judgment, and direct that a judgment be entered in conformity to the recommendation and report of the commissioner.