alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION NET LOSS PER SHARE AND
                          PRO FORMA NET LOSS PER SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        THREE MONTHS                   SIX MONTHS
                                                                       ENDED JUNE 30,                ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                                 --------------------------    --------------------------
                                                                    1997           1996           1997           1996
                                                                 -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
<S>                                                              <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding.....................   10,478,043      2,588,654     10,455,377      1,531,385
Effect of convertible preferred stock converted at date of
  issuance.....................................................           --      5,875,958             --      6,703,557
Effect of common equivalent shares issued by the Company during
  the twelve month period immediately preceding the Company's
  initial public offering in June 1996, as if they were
  outstanding for all periods presented prior to June 30, 1996
  (using the treasury stock method)............................           --             --             --         95,166
                                                                 -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
Shares used in computing net loss per share and pro forma net
  loss per share...............................................   10,478,043      8,464,612     10,455,377      8,330,108
Net loss.......................................................  $(3,369,456)   $(3,089,933)   $(6,064,769)   $(5,451,193)
Net loss per share and pro forma net loss per share............  $     (0.32)   $     (0.37)   $     (0.58)   $     (0.65)
</TABLE>
 
                                       13
Date: January 12, 2015 

Meeting: Methane Discussion 

Rule(s) Discussed: 

Written Materials? Yes/No 

Name Organization Phone Number 

.'SJfb __ _
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00010

- CV

J.K., Appellant

V

.

A.K. , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 16th District

Court

of Denton County (16

- 04048

- 16)

November 7, 2019

Opinion by Justice Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant J.K. shall pay all of the cos ts of this appeal,

for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

Justice Dabney Bassel
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000943904
<NAME>                        WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND V, L.P., SERIES 3
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US CURRENCY
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                          3,492,424
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,492,424
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,965,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,146,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,965,874
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  139,604
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      60,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (107,500)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (28,480)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (28,480)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (28,480)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (2)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
        


</TABLE>
IN THE MATTER OF REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION FDMS No. FAA - 2013 - 0852

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND INITIAL DECISION

Filed by Respondent This document is located at the FAA Hearing Docket,

600 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 This document is not publicly available. See Protective Order issued by ALJ Goodwin, dated December 1, 2014
* 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. 01-20302 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANDRE DENNILE THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-712-1

-------------------- December 12, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Andre Dennile Thomas appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Thomas contends that the interstate commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him. Thomas’s challenge to the indictment as being defective for alleging merely that the firearm he possessed was possessed in and affected interstate commerce fails because the language of his indictment tracks the language of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) andNo. 01-20302 -2- alleges each of the elements of the offense. See United States v. Arlen , 947 F.2d 139, 145 (5th Cir. 1991). Thomas challenges this court’s jurisprudence regarding the constitutionality of § 922(g). However, as this court recently reaffirmed, “the constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to question.” See United States v. Daugherty , 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1857 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1857

    To establish a compliance deadline of May 15, 2023, for Step 2 
 emissions standards for new residential wood heaters, new residential 
               hydronic heaters, and forced-air furnaces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 26, 2017

Mrs. Capito (for herself, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Manchin, and Mr. Shelby) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To establish a compliance deadline of May 15, 2023, for Step 2 
 emissions standards for new residential wood heaters, new residential 
               hydronic heaters, and forced-air furnaces.

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

SECTION 1. STEP 2 COMPLIANCE DEADLINE FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL WOOD HEATERS, 
              NEW RESIDENTIAL HYDRONIC HEATERS, AND FORCED-AIR 
              FURNACES.

    (a) In General.--With respect to the final rule entitled 
``Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New 
Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces'' (80 Fed. Reg. 
13672 (March 16, 2015)), the compliance deadline for Step 2 emissions 
standards shall be May 15, 2023.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Changes.--Not later than 60 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency shall finalize such technical and 
conforming changes to rules and guidance documents as may be necessary 
to implement subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23

               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Burlington Industries, Inc. of our report dated October 28, 1998, included in
the 1998 Annual Report to Shareholders of Burlington Industries, Inc.

Our  audits  also  included  the  financial  statement  schedule  of  Burlington
Industries,  Inc.  listed  in the  accompanying  index  to  financial  statement
schedule.  This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.  Our
responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the
financial  statement  schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to
the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material
respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-3 No.  33-95350)  of  Burlington  Industries,  Inc.  and in the  related
Prospectus  of  our  report  dated  October  28,  1998,   with  respect  to  the
consolidated  financial  statements  incorporated  herein by  reference  and our
report included in the above  paragraph with respect to the financial  statement
schedule  included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of  Burlington  Industries,
Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No.  33-49894)  pertaining  to the  Burlington  Industries,  Inc. 1992
Equity Incentive Plan and the Burlington Industries,  Inc. Equity Incentive Plan
and (Form S-8 No. 333-09501) pertaining to the Burlington Industries,  Inc. 1995
Equity Incentive Plan of Burlington Industries, Inc. of our report dated October
28, 1998, with respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  incorporated
herein by reference and our report  included in the above paragraph with respect
to the financial  statement  schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Burlington Industries, Inc.

/s/Ernst & Young LLP

Greensboro, North Carolina
December 14, 1998
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

THE DELAWARE AUCTIONEERS §

ASSOCIATION, § No. 456, 2016

§

Plaintiff-Below, §

Appellant, §

§ Court Below:

v. §

§ Superior Court of the

DELAWARE REAL ESTATE § State of Delaware

COMMISSION, §

§ C.A. No. N15C-04-012

Defendant-Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: February 15, 2017

Decided: February 16, 2017

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices.

O R D E R

This 16th day of February 2017, the Court, having considered this matter on the 

briefs of the parties, has concluded that the same should be affirmed on the basis of and for 

the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its decision of August 10, 2016.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

 Justice
Order entered April 26, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01720-CR

STEPHEN MATTHEW POLITO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-80376-2012

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On April 19, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the 

appeal; (2) appellant is not indigent and is represented by retained counsel; (3) counsel has not 

abandoned the appeal; and (4) counsel indicated he would be “issuing a letter” to the court 

reporter designating certain dates for hearings to be transcribed. We note that the trial court 

made no finding regarding when appellant’s brief would be filed.

A three-volume reporter’s record was filed in this appeal on January 15, 2013. That 

record was from the December 13, 2012 plea hearing. The docket sheet reflects that a 
suppression hearing may have been held on or around August 10, 2012, but it is not clear from 

the order denying the motion to suppress that a hearing was actually held on the motion.

Accordingly, we ORDER Indu Baily, official court reporter of the 219th Judicial District 

Court to file, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, either: (1) the reporter’s record of 

the suppression hearing and any other hearings that may have been conducted; (2) written 

verification that no other hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant has not 

paid for the records of any other hearings. We notify appellant that if we receive verification of 

non-payment, we will order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 37.3(c).

We ORDER appellant to file his brief within SIXTY DAYS of the date of this order. If 

appellant’s brief is not filed within the time specified, we will, without further notice, submit the 

appeal without briefs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(4).

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Indu 

Baily, official court reporter, 219th Judicial District Court, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,966
<SECURITIES>                                    20,801
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,394
<PP&E>                                           2,229
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,390
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,034
<SALES>                                          5,127
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,651
<CGS>                                            2,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,515
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (246)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (246)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (246)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3124]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Southwest Research Institute (``SwRI'')--
Durability and Life Assessment of GTD-111 Buckets

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 5, 1999, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research Institute 
(``SwRI'')--Durability and Life Assessment of GTD-111 Buckets has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Aramco Services 
Company, Houston, TX has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Southwest Research Institute 
(``SwRI'')--Durability and Life Assessment of GTD-111 Buckets intends 
to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On October 31, 1995, Southwest Research Institute (``SwRI'')--
Durability and Life Assessment of GTD-111 Buckets filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on October 17, 1996 (61 FR 54222).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 21, 
1998. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on March 19, 1999 (64 FR 13606).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-3124 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7995
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERTRAM MCRAE, a/k/a Scott, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-91-162-A, CA-95-1122-AM) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 31, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bertram McRae, Appellant Pro Se. Quincy Leon Ollison, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. McRae , Nos. CR-91-162-A;CA-95-1122-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 26, 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23.2
   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-114600, 333-121681, 333-127629, 333-130872, 333-143280, 333-159857, 333-159913, 333-165677) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-119898,  333-160790 and 333-166956) of Delcath Systems, Inc. of our report dated February 24, 2010, relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
  /s/ CCR LLP
  Glastonbury, Connecticut
 March 8, 2011
Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, Washington 98057

- 3356

October 2 5 , 201 6

Mr. Douglas M. Lane Director, Commercial Airplanes The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 MC 03

- 56 Seattle, WA 98124

- 2207
Dear Mr. Lane: We have received your September 30, 2016 , petition for an extension of time

- limited partial gr ant of exemption number 10905. That exemption granted partial relief from the requirements of Title 14 , Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25

. 901(c) , Amendment 25

- 126 , and 25

. 981(a)(3) Amendment 25

- 1 02 or later, for planned changes to the fuel quantity i ndication system (FQIS) on the 737

- 600/

- 700/

- 700C/

- 800/

- 900/

- 900ER airplane s
. That exemption expires December 17, 2017. The current petition requests an extension of the time limit to December 17, 2025

. This request, which you submitted to the Department of Transportation’s Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), originally posted to docket no. FAA

- 2016

- 9259 but has been moved to d ocket n o. FAA

- 2012

- 1137

. We are in the process of reviewing your request and will contact you if we need additional informati on
. If you have any questions or c oncerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please contact Mike Collins by phone at 425

- 227

- 2 689 or by e
- mail at michael

. collins @faa .gov. Sincerely,

/s/
Theresa White Transport Airplane Directorate Aircra ft Certification Service
#### STEVENS v. STATE.

No. 20730.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1940.

Owen & Bohannon, of Brownwood, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is possession of alcohol in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $400.

Officers testified that they searched appellant’s residence and found therein approximately one and two-thirds pints of alcohol. There was no proof that appellant had sold or offered to sell any alcohol.

The court did not charge on the presumption arising from the possession of more than one quart of alcohol, there being no evidence authorizing the submission of such matter. Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. We feel constrained to sustain his contention. See Rhodes v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 348, 28 S.W.2d 548; Hinton v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 400, 120 S.W.2d 1053.

We quote the rule touching the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence found in Branch’s Ann.P.C., Sec. 1877, as follows: “To sustain a conviction it should appear not only that an offense as charged has been committed, but there should also be proof to a degree of certainty greater than a mere probability or strong suspicion tending to .establish that the party charged was the person who committed it or was a participant in its commission. There must be legal and competent evidence pertinently identifying the defendant with the transaction constituting the offense charged against him.”

It was incumbent upon the state to introduce proof “to a degree of certainty *488greater than a mere probability or strong suspicion” tending to establish that appellant possessed the alcohol for the purpose of sale.

Believing the evidence insufficient, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.