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



                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
                                   PSINET INC.

CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES USED
                         IN CALCULATION (UNAUDITED) (1)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                        SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
                                                                                        ------------------
<S>                                                                                     <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
         Shares outstanding at beginning of period                                           64,677,539
         Weighted average shares issued during the three months ended September 30, 1999
         (296,376 shares)                                                                       166,586
                                                                                           ------------


                                                                                             64,844,125
                                                                                           ============

Net loss available to common shareholders                                                  $(87,689,000)
                                                                                           ============

Basic and diluted loss per share                                                           $      (1.35)
                                                                                           ============
</TABLE>


(1)For a description of basic and diluted loss per share, see Note 1 of the
   Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual
   Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 as filed with the
   Securities and Exchange Commission.
U.S. Money Laundering Threat Assessment 

Fact Sheet 

• The U.S. Money Laundering Threat Assessment (MLTA) is the first government-wide 

analysis of money laundering trends and vulnerabilities in the United States. Its purpose is 

to inform the law enforcement community, policy makers, and regulators in their efforts to 

combat money laundering strategically. 

• The MLTA investigates nine money laundering methods, presenting, as to each, 

vulnerabilities and challenges, geographic or other noted concentrations, and the relevant 

legal and regulatory landscape. Topics range from established money laundering methods 

(banks, money transmitters, and bulk cash smuggling) to alternative methods (casinos, 

trade-based money laundering, shell companies and trusts), to emerging industries (online 

payment systems and stored value cards). 

• The interagency working group drew on law enforcement findings and analyses from 

headquarters and the field, regulatory filings, asset forfeiture statistics, and case studies. 

The group also probed vulnerabilities by assuming the hypothetical vantage point of a 

money launderer. 

• A full spectrum of U.S. bureaus, offices, and agencies collaborated on the MLTA: 

o Department of the Treasury

 Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI)

• Office of Terrorist Financing & Financial Crime (TFFC) 

• Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) 

• Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA) 

• Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) 

• Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) 

 Internal Revenue Service 

• Criminal Investigation (CI) 

• Small Business/Self Employed Division (SB/SE) 

o Department of Justice

 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)

 Criminal Division

 National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC)

 Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF)

o Department of Homeland Security

 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

 Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

o Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

o United States Postal Service (USPS)

 United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KHALIL MARSHALL,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 275 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Order entered January 1 3 , 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

O RDER 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 neces sary “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 Rule s of Civil Procedure 29 6 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 T EX
. R. C IV
. 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 brie f be filed no later than March 10, 2023.
/s/ K EN MOLBERG JUSTICE
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 125

Designating May 1993 as ‘‘National Community Residential Care Month’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 2, 1993

Mr. DOOLITTLE introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating May 1993 as ‘‘National Community Residential

Care Month’’.

Whereas the need for quality, dependable health care for the

elderly, disabled, and mentally ill increases each year;

Whereas community residential care fulfills medical, social,

and nutritional assistance to those in need and who cannot care for themselves;

Whereas the community residential care industry is both national and international, and it is deserving of recognition

and appreciation;

Whereas the community residential care industry is staffed

by committed, hardworking professionals who dedicate
2

•HJ 125 IH

their working lives to the care of the elderly, the disabled,

and the mentally ill;

Whereas those providing community residential care must

meet stringent licensing requirements; and

Whereas the community residential care industry provides a

uniquely workable and homelike environment for those

unable to care for themselves at home in a manner which

promotes confidence, support, and self-esteem: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That May 1993 is designated as ‘‘National Community

4 Residential Care Month’’. The President is authorized and

5 requested to issue a proclamation calling on the people of

6 the United States to observe such month with appropriate

7 ceremonies and activities.

Æ
FEB 17 2011 

Ref: 8EPR-SA 

Jim Gray, Director 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGIONS 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

DENVER, CO 80202-1129 

Phone 800-227-8917 

http://www.epa.gov/region08 

Pesticide, Feed and Fertilizer Division 

North Dakota Department of Agriculture 

600 E. Boulevard Ave., Dept. 602 

Bismarck, ND 58505-0020 

Re: RMP Program Assumption 

Dear Mr. Gray: 

I understand that you would like to have a letter stating that the EPA is willing to 

delegate to North Dakota the authority for implementing the Risk Management Plan (RMP) 

Program under section ll2(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). I cannot assure you in advance that 

EPA will approve the State's request, but we do appreciate the State's interest in assuming 

responsibility for this program. 

EPA reviews requests for delegation or approval of state programs according to 

applicable statutory and regulatory criteria. For States seeking delegation ofthe section ll2(r) 

program, these criteria appear at CAA section ll2(l) and 40 C.F.R. part 63, subpart E. lfNorth 

Dakota submjts an application for delegation of the section ll2(r) program, EPA will review the 

application to determine whether it is consistent with these requirements. 

To ensure that the State's program satisfies federal requirements, we would like to work 

with you as you develop your application for delegation of the RMP program. At the outset, we 

can discuss with you the specific submissions and requirements for State assumption. To some 

extent these requirements are dependent on the State's approach to adopting an RMP program. 

That is, as stated in the "Risk Management Programs under Clean Air Act Section ll2(r) 

Guidance for Implementing Agencies" document, a State can adopt rules to implement section 

ll2(r) in three ways: 

• adopt the Federal rule, 

adopt the Federal rule and make adjustments, or 

• adopt a program that differs from the Federal rule. 

Because regulatory criteria differ for each method, it would assist us if you could identify the 

State's anticipated method of adopting an RMP program. 
If you have any additional questions about applying for delegation of the RMP program 

or other matters related to implementation of the RMP program, please contact me at 720-320-

6251(cell). 

/lw:t~~~ Bradley Miller r 

RMP Program Coordinator 

EPA Region 8 

2 

®Printed on Recycled Paper
#### PANELL v. STATE.

No. 26198.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 11, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

The offense is rape; the punishment, five year’s confinement in the penitentiary.

The record contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund, Plaintiffs, *v.*Shirley Herman Co., Inc., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Erie County,

March 14, 1958.

*68
      *Harry J. Kelly*for defendants.

*Charles Tierney*and *Thomas McMahon*for plaintiffs.

Matthew J. Jasen, J.

This is a motion pursuant to rule 121-a of the Rules of Civil Practice for an order for a physical examination of certain named individuals, whose claims for damages for personal injuries, medical and hospital expenses and loss of wages against the defendants herein have become subrogated by reason of the operation of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of the State of New York, and specifically, section 29 thereof.

The plaintiffs oppose the motion on the grounds that the persons whom defendants seek to examine are not parties to this action and therefore the defendants are not entitled to same. They further oppose said motion, maintaining that if an order were to be granted that same would be futile and unenforcible.

Section 288 of the Civil Practice Act in part provides: “A party to such an action also may cause to be so taken the testimony, which is material and necessary, *of the original owner of a claim*which constitutes, or from which arose, a cause of action acquired by the adverse party” (emphasis supplied).

Section 289 of the Civil Practice Act provides in part: “When an adverse party, *or an original owner of a claim*whose testimony may be taken by deposition” (emphasis supplied).

In *Manufacturers Trust Co.*v. *American Nat. Fire Ins. Co.*(232 App. Div. 536) the court said: “The persons whom plaintiff sought to examine, although not parties to the action, were so related to the acts which plaintiff must prove and the circumstances of their connection with the alleged wrongful conduct of defendants were such that we conclude that an examination ought to have been allowed.”

In *Fulton*v. *National Aniline & Chem. Co.*(214 App. Div. 846) the court held that the defendant was entitled to examine an employee of plaintiff’s assignor. The court said (p. 847): “According to the moving papers he was not an ordinary employee, who in no way represented his corporate employer, but he was an employee * * * This court has consistently held that a liberal construction should be placed on the provisions of the Civil Practice Act permitting the examination of an adverse party *or his assignor.”*(Emphasis supplied.)

The court finds that the defendants are entitled to have the injured assignors, by virtue of statute, examined as requested in said motion.

*69The question of whether the instant plaintiffs do possess such control of their assignors, should not be determined at this time, but upon a motion to stay the plaintiffs in the event the assignors fail to appear at the physical examination on the date to be mutually agreed upon by the parties thereto.

Submit order.
<PAGE>   1
                                  UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                   FORM 10-Q/A

              QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


                  For the quarterly period ended March 31, 1998


             Securities and Exchange Commission File Number 0-25722



                                HF BANCORP, INC.

             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

DELAWARE                                             33-0576146
(State or other jurisdiction                         (I.R.S. Employer I.D. No.)
Of incorporation or organization)


                 445 E. Florida Avenue, Hemet, California 92543
                    (Address of principal executive offices)


       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (909) 658-4411




         Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days.
         Yes  x   No
             ---     ---

                      APPLICABLE ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS:


         Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's
classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

         There were 6,331,206 shares of the Registrant's common stock
outstanding as of May 12, 1998.
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

**Servicer Compliance Statement of John Deere Capital Corporation**

 

I, Andrew C. Traeger, Senior Vice President and Controller of John Deere Capital Corporation, certify:

 

A review of John Deere Capital Corporation’s activities for the period from November 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) and of John Deere Capital Corporation’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 11, 2015 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables, Inc. and John Deere Owner Trust 2015 has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, John Deere Capital Corporation has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 
| Date: January 12,   2017 | John Deere Capital   Corporation |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                          |                             |
|                          |                             |
|                          |                             |
|                          | By                               | /s/*Andrew C.   Traeger* |   |
|                          |                             | Andrew C. Traeger |
|                          |                             | Senior Vice President   and Controller |
|                               |                                  |  |  |  |

 

----
#### ARBUCKLE v. STATE.

No. 21802.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1941.

W. W. Ballard, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a life sentence imposed by reason of a conviction for the offense of theft with allegations of three former convictions.

The statement of facts apparently prepared and filed in the case has not been approved by the county attorney nor by the district judge before whom the case was tried. Consequently, we are unable to consider same.

There is found in the record what is probably intended to be a bill of exception. It is sufficient now to say that it cannot be considered in the absence of statement of facts.

No error in the procedure appears from the record. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 273

Expressing the sense of the Congress that any comprehensive health care

reform measure should ensure that extemporaneous compounding is made

available to provide allergen-free medications for persons who suffer

from severe food allergies or other medical conditions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 26, 1994

Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin submitted the following concurrent resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that any comprehensive

health care reform measure should ensure that extemporaneous compounding is made available to provide allergen-free medications for persons who suffer from severe

food allergies or other medical conditions.

Whereas studies published in the New England Journal of

Medicine indicate that an estimated 8 percent of all children in the United States and as many as 2 percent of

all adults in the United States suffer from food allergies;

Whereas the severity of allergic reactions associated with food

allergies ranges from minor skin rashes and low-grade fevers to respiratory failure, brain damage, and death;
2

•HCON 273 IH

Whereas common allergens such as corn, peanuts, soybeans,

gum, and dyes are frequently used in most versions of

pharmaceutical products in the United States;

Whereas pharmaceutical products have yielded great benefits

in the treatment and prevention of illness and other medical conditions;

Whereas persons with severe food allergies are often unable

to locate prescription medication that does not contain

ingredients to which they are allergic;

Whereas pharmacists may use the process of extemporaneous

compounding to custom formulate medications for persons with specific medical needs, if the pharmacists obtain the active ingredients for the medications from a

pharmaceutical company; and

Whereas persons who are allergic to ingredients in prescription medication often find it difficult to locate a pharmacist to provide the service of extemporaneous

compounding: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that any

3 comprehensive health care reform measure enacted by the

4 Congress should include provisions to ensure that extem5 poraneous compounding is made available to provide aller6 gen-free medications for persons who suffer from severe

7 food allergies, or other medical conditions, that make them

8 unable to utilize other, commercially available, medica9 tions.

Æ
|                                                                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                                                 
|View History:                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                     
|U.S. Refinery Catalytic Hydrocracking, Distillate Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                                                     
|                                                                                                                     
|U.S. Refinery Catalytic Hydrocracking, Distillate Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         | 537,300 | 518,800 | 516,600 | 602,800 | 556,900 | 593,100
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 595,200 | 540,100 | 596,500 | 621,300 | 686,131 | 687,000 | 687,400 | 682,500 | 708,700 | 733,450
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 735,700 | 736,700 | 743,200 | 746,000 | 749,000 |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025