alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                          YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        BASIC          DILUTED
                                                    ------------    ------------
<S>                                                 <C>             <C>
A Average Common Shares Outstanding                    5,806,607       5,806,607

  Common Share Equivalents:
  -------------------------
B Average Stock Options Outstanding                                      420,124
C Average Option Exercise Price                                     $      12.03
                                                                    ------------
D Exercise Proceeds [B * C]                                         $  5,052,480
E Average Market Price                                              $      33.18
                                                                    ------------
F Shares Repurchased at Market Price [D / E]                             152,257
                                                                    ------------
G Net Increase from Equivalents [B - F]                                  267,867

H Shares Outstanding and Equivalents [A + G]           5,806,607       6,074,474
                                                    ============    ============
I Net Income                                        $ 13,790,000    $ 13,790,000
                                                    ============    ============
  Earnings Per Share [I / H]                        $       2.37    $       2.27
                                                    ============    ============
  Market Price, at December 31, 1997                                $      45.00
                                                                    ============
</TABLE>
**UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENTA**  **L PROTECTION A GENCY**  NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION August 18 , 2015 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Files on DVD for EPA - HQ - OAR - 2014 - 0827 - DRAFT - 0836 for GEM

– Greenhouse Gas

Emission Model Executable File FROM: Christine Brunner

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Qualit y TO: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium - and Heav y - Duty

Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 201 4 - 0827 The enclosed DVD contains the follow ing file associated with docket item EPA - HQ - OAR - 201 - 0827 - DRAFT - 0836 . 1) GEM_P2v1.1 _setup_x64.exe There is no restriction on this file.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)

I,
John J. Arlotta, Chief Executive Officer of NeighborCare, Inc., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of NeighborCare, Inc. and subsidiaries;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|      |                   |  |                                  
|----- | ----------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|Date: | December 10, 2004 |  | /s/JOHN J. ARLOTTAJohn J. Arlotta

---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Robert Snukal, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006of National Quality Care, Inc. (the “Small Business Issuer”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The Small Business Issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Small Business Issuer and we have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Small Business Issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Small Business Issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Small Business Issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the Small Business Issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Small Business Issuer ‘s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the Small Business Issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The Small Business Issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Small BusinessIssuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the Small Business Issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Small Business Issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Small Business Issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.        *Dated: April 17, 2007* By:  */s/ ROBERT SNUKAL*    *ROBERT SNUKAL*    *CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER*
**Exhibit 10.20**

 

 

**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 Quarterly Report ofOn-Site Sourcing Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the Report), I, Jason Parikh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Jason Parikh        |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
| Jason Parikh            |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| August 14, 2002         |

 

----
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before 

any court except for the purpose of 

establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

DANIELLE L. GREGORY GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana

JODI KATHRYN STEIN

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

BILLY ADAMS, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A02-1205-CR-422

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Mark D. Stoner, Judge

Cause No. 49G06-0904-FC-38406

December 26, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

SHARPNACK, Senior Judge
2

In this belated appeal, Billy Adams challenges his convictions for Class C felony 

criminal confinement and Class D felony domestic battery on grounds that his right to a 

speedy trial pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B) was violated. Finding the issue 

waived for review, we affirm.

The State charged Adams with multiple offenses arising from an incident 

involving his girlfriend Heather Lemen and her three children. At an initial hearing, 

Adams requested a speedy trial, which set the seventy-day deadline for trial at June 22, 

2009. His jury trial was scheduled for June 17, 2009.

On June 11, 2009, the State filed a motion requesting a thirty-day continuance. In 

the motion, the State asserted that Lemen and two of her children were primary 

witnesses in the case, that Lemen’s father was found murdered in Lemen’s home the day 

before, and that the family needed time to grieve. At a hearing on June 16, 2009, the 

trial court granted the continuance over Adams’s objection and released him on his own 

recognizance with restrictions.

After a bifurcated trial in November and December 2009, Adams was convicted, 

adjudicated a habitual offender, and sentenced to an aggregate term of fifteen years with 

nine years suspended.

Adams now contends that his right to a speedy trial was violated because he was 

not brought to trial within the seventy-day period. However, a defendant waives review 

of this issue on appeal if he does not make a timely motion for discharge or dismissal 

before trial. Lloyd v. State, 448 N.E.2d 1062, 1066 (Ind. 1983). Adams failed to move 

for discharge or dismissal before trial. His claim is therefore waived. See Parker v. 
3

State, 965 N.E.2d 50, 52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (waiving speedy trial issue where record 

did not show that defendant moved for discharge or dismissal before trial), trans. denied.

Affirmed.

FRIEDLANDER, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
#### WILLITS v. STATE.

No. 14837.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 10, 1932.

Lamar Bethea, of Bryan, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for unlawfully - carrying a pistol ; punishment, a fine of $100.

The prosecution is upon complaint and information. The complaint has no jurat of any officer'certifying that same was subscribed and sworn to before him. The complaint is fatally defective. The jurat of some officer authorized by law to administer oaths is necessary to verify the fact that the complaint was properly *sworn to.*Scott v. *State,*9 Tex. App. 434; Robertson v. State, 25 Tex. App. 529, 8 S. W. 659; Stalcup v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 415, 269 S. W. 1044.

. The judgment will be reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 51389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20525]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 8853]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Small Treasures: Rembrandt, Vermeer, Hals, and Their 
Contemporaries''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Small Treasures: Rembrandt, Vermeer, Hals, 
and Their Contemporaries,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign 
owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of 
the exhibit objects at the North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh, North 
Carolina, from on or about October 12, 2014, until on or about January 
4, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Evan Ryan,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-20525 Filed 8-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 18 - 0305

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RANDEL J. WOODY,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Luke Berger , District Jud ge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 12 2020

08/12/2020
Case Number: DA 18-0305
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000874017
<NAME> CRESCENT CAPITAL, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,575,876
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,050,094
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,015,651
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,103,371
<PP&E>                                       7,132,961
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,697,143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,027,248
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,966,518
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           546
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,027,268
<SALES>                                      3,297,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,360,981
<CGS>                                       20,766,007
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,766,007
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,444,421
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (108,977)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,187,281
<INCOME-TAX>                                   656,362
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,795,381
<DISCONTINUED>                                (162,599)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,632,782
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.64
        

</TABLE>
#### FARM & HOME SAVINGS & LOAN ASS’N OF MISSOURI v. ROBERTSON et al.

No. 8098.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

April 10, 1935.

Woodruff & Holloway, of Brownwood, for appellant.

*156BLAIR, Justice.

Appellant sued appellees, alleging that on December 20, 1927, appellees executed and delivered to appellant an installment note for $2,500, secured by a deed of trust on certain real estate; that after default, on May 3, 1932, the deed of trust was foreclosed and the property sold at trustee’s sale for $1,000; and that after crediting this amount and all other credits on the note, there remained due $1,319.94, for which deficiency this suit was brought. Ap-pellees pleaded, and the court held, that the cause of action was barred by limitation under the Anti-Deficiency Judgment Law, approved April 21, 1933, now chapter 92, General Laws, Regular Session of the 43d Legislature (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. arts. 2218 and 2218a), which provides that actions of this character must be brought within six months after the date of any sale of the real estate security.

As reflected by its petition, on May 3, 1932, appellant caused the deed of trust to be foreclosed and the property' sold at trustee’s sale. Under the limitation statute then in force with regard to a recovery of the difference between the amount the property sold for and the debt secured by the deed of trust, appellant had four years from the date of the trustee’s sale within which to bring this suit. The Deficiency Judgment Actf-'of 1933 changed the period of limitation, to six, months, after the date of the sale by the trustee for any deficiency arising from failure of the property to sell for enough to pay the debt secured by the deed .of. trust.

Appellant contends ■ that if the Legislature intended that article 2218a should be given retroactive effect, then it is unconstitutional as to appellant’s cause of action, which had accrued approximately eleven months prior to the effective date of said article.

Since the filing of this appeal the Supreme Court has held the Anti-Deficiency Judgment Act of 1933 unconstitutional in its entirety, because retroactive in purpose, and as being violative of the Constitution as legislative exercise of judicial power and impairing the obligation of contracts. Langever v. Miller (Tex. Sup.) 76 S.W.(2d) 1025, 96 A. L. R. 836. Upon this authority, the judgment of the trial court will be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8) pertaining to the 1981 Stock Option Plan, the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the
1997 Equity Incentive Plan, the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Warrants to
purchase common stock, and the Options to purchase common stock of Laser Power
Corporation of our report dated December 4, 1999 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Laser Power Corporation included in its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 1999.

                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Diego, California
December 21, 1999
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I,Stephen G. Marble, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Rag Shops, Inc.;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of suchevaluation; and

 

(c) disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thatmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| **SIGNATURE**          | ** ** | **TITLE(S)**            | ** ** | **DATE**         |
|------------------------|------------|-------------------------|------------|------------------|
|                   |       |                    |       |             |
| /s/  Stephen G. Marble |       | Acting  Chief Executive |       | February 8, 2005 |
| Stephen  G. Marble     |       | Officer                 |       |             |

 

E-3

----