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

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Everett L. Hodges, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial
Officer of Petrominerals Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Petrominerals
Corporation;

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 officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:          Everett L. Hodges
-----          -----------------
3/30/04        President, CEO &
               Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                 ALL AMERICAN FOOD GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                  SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

                                  Three Months              Three Months
                                     Ended                    Ended
                               January 31, 1998           January 31, 1997
                               ----------------           ----------------
  PRIMARY
  -------

Net Loss                          (1,324,109)                 (676,406)


Loss - increase in carrying
amount of redeemable
preferred stock                       (6,148)                  (12,909)
                                   1,330,257                  (689,315)


Weighted average number
of common shares 
outstanding                        5,924,357                 2,518,694

Primary net loss 
per common shares                      ($.22)                    ($.27)


                                      -14-

<PAGE>

                        ALL AMERICAN FOOD GROUP, INC. AND
           SUBSIDIARIES SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE


     FULLY DILUTED
     -------------

Net loss for primary loss per 
  common share                    
  for fully diluted per share amounts       (1,330,257)          (689,315)

Weighted average number of
shares used in calculating
primary loss per share                       5,924,357          2,518,694

Add incremental shares representing:

Shares issuable upon exercise
of stock options                               758,467             712,500

Shares issuable upon exercise
of stock options                               405,000             15,000

Weighted average number of shares
used in calculation
of fully diluted loss per share              7,287,824          3,246,194

Fully diluted net loss
per common share                                 ($.18)             ($.21)

(1) Additional shares represent the number of shares and options issued within
    the twelve months prior to the company filing a registration statement on
    May 3, 1996 for an initial public offering (IPO) that were issued for
    consideration per share or at an exercise price per share less than the IPO
    price of $3.50 per share.



                                      -15-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                             34,138
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      77,205
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                        40,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  157,822
<PP&E>                          4,563,409
<DEPRECIATION>                  4,504,275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    218,063
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,238,309
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                          159,720
<OTHER-SE>                     (1,179,966)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      218,063
<SALES>                           535,680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  535,680
<CGS>                             675,091
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     675,091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   11,084
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 37,995
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (185,131)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (185,131)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (185,131)
<EPS-BASIC>                        (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.12)


</TABLE>
# C_2023162EN.01000301.xml

| 5.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/3

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.103681

(2023/C 162/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 9.3.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.103681 |
| Member State | Belgium |
| Region | VLAAMS GEWEST |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Steun voor vrijwillige stopzetting van varkensstallen |
| Legal basis | Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering betreffende de vrijwillige stopzetting van varkensstallen |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Aid for closing of capacity for animal, plant or human health, sanitary, ethical or environmental reasons |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: 200 000 000 EUR |
| Intensity | 100,0  % |
| Duration | Until 30.6.2025 |
| Economic sectors | Raising of swine/pigs |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Vlaamse Landmaatschappij |
| Koning Albert II-laan 15, 1210 Brussel |

Date of adoption of the decision

9.3.2023

Aid number

SA.103681

Member State

Belgium

Region

VLAAMS GEWEST

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Steun voor vrijwillige stopzetting van varkensstallen

Legal basis

Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering betreffende de vrijwillige stopzetting van varkensstallen

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Aid for closing of capacity for animal, plant or human health, sanitary, ethical or environmental reasons

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 200 000 000 EUR

Intensity

100,0  %

Duration

Until 30.6.2025

Economic sectors

Raising of swine/pigs

Name and address of the granting authority

Vlaamse Landmaatschappij

Koning Albert II-laan 15, 1210 Brussel

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
ACCEPTED 01-15-00482-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/15/2015 4:51:05 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
| **Other Investments - Additional Information (Detail) - USD ($) $ in Thousands** | Sep. 30, 2015 | Dec. 31, 2014 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|
| **Other Investments Disclosure [Abstract]**                                      |          |          |
| Other investments                                                                | $ 53,976      | $ 44,545      |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Other Investments Disclosure [Abstract]
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**fcf_OtherInvestmentsDisclosureAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**fcf_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) stock represents an equity interest in a FHLB. It does not have a readily determinable fair value because its ownership is restricted and it lacks a market (liquidity).
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 942 -SubTopic 325 -Section 45 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6478792&loc=d3e63345-112809
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_FederalHomeLoanBankStock**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**instant |
# C_2023258EN.01000701.xml

| 21.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/7

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.105785

(2023/C 258/06)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 30.5.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.105785 |
| Member State | Poland |
| Region | |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Aid to pig producers to prevent the spread of the African swine fever |
| Legal basis | 1) | ustawa z dnia 9 maja 2008 r. o Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa (Dz.U. z 2022 r., poz. 2157); 2) rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 27 stycznia 2015 r. w sprawie szczegółowego zakresu i sposobów realizacji niektórych zadań Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa, zmienione rozporządzeniem Rady Ministrów z dnia 11 lipca 2018 r. (Dz.U. z 2015 r., poz. 187, z późn. zm.) — § 13p oraz 3) ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o ochronie zdrowia zwierząt oraz zwalczaniu chorób zakaźnych zwierząt (Dz. U. z 2020 r. poz. 1421, z 2022 r. poz. 1570). |

Date of adoption of the decision

30.5.2023

Aid number

SA.105785

Member State

Poland

Region

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Aid to pig producers to prevent the spread of the African swine fever

Legal basis

1)

ustawa z dnia 9 maja 2008 r. o Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa (Dz.U. z 2022 r., poz. 2157); 2) rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dnia 27 stycznia 2015 r. w sprawie szczegółowego zakresu i sposobów realizacji niektórych zadań Agencji Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa, zmienione rozporządzeniem Rady Ministrów z dnia 11 lipca 2018 r. (Dz.U. z 2015 r., poz. 187, z późn. zm.) — § 13p oraz 3) ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o ochronie zdrowia zwierząt oraz zwalczaniu chorób zakaźnych zwierząt (Dz. U. z 2020 r. poz. 1421, z 2022 r. poz. 1570).

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Animal diseases

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: 6 300 000 PLN

Intensity

100.0 %

Duration

Until 31.12.2023

Economic sectors

Raising of swine/pigs

Name and address of the granting authority

Agencja Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa

ul. Poleczki 33, 02-822 Warszawa

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press

. DIS TRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 2 2-BG- 81 0
IN R E NEMA SAYADIAN , DDN : 202 2-D 106 A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Ba r Reg istration No. 991138
BEF ORE: Beckwith, Easterly, and Deahl, Associate Judges

. O R D E R (FILED — January 5, 2023)
On cons ideration of the certified order from the state of Maryland suspending respondent from the practice of law by consent for 60 days , stayed in favor of two years of probation with terms ; this court’s October 28 , 2022, order directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed ; respondent’s response stating that he does not oppose identical discipline; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel , it is
ORDER ED that Nema Sayadian is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for 60 days, stayed in favor of two years of probation subject to compliance with all terms imposed by the state of Maryland

. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 48 3 , 487

- 88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare)

.

PER CURI AM
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00160-CV

CTL/Thompson Texas, LLC

v.

Starwood Homeowner’s Association, 

Inc.

§

§

§

§

§

From the 431st District Court

of Denton County (2010-60364-

393)

August 1, 2013

Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT ON REMAND

This appeal is on remand from the Texas Supreme Court. This court has 

again considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there was error 

in the trial court’s judgment. We reverse the trial court’s April 18, 2011 order 

denying CTL/Thompson Texas, LLC’s motion to dismiss and remand this case to 

the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Justice Sue Walker
EXHIBIT 11

                      SPARTECH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                  COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)


                                                        Fiscal Year Ended

                                                   Oct 28,     Oct 30,  Oct 31,
                                                    2000        1999     1998
NET EARNINGS

 Basic net earnings applicable to common shares    $ 49,907  $ 43,071 $ 33,720
Add:  Distributions on Preferred Securities, net
of tax                                                4,990     1,280        -
						   --------  -------- --------
 Diluted net earnings                              $ 54,897  $ 44,351 $ 33,720
                                                   ========  ======== ========
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING
    Weighted average common shares outstanding       27,322    27,038   26,807
    Add: Shares issuable from assumed exercise of
	Preferred Stock				      3,681     1,075        -
    Add: Shares issuable from assumed exercise of
	options and warrants                            871     1,869    1,802
						   --------  -------- --------
   Diluted weighted average common shares
	outstanding                                  31,874    29,982   28,609
						   ========  ======== ========
NET EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
   Basic                                             $ 1.83    $ 1.59   $ 1.26
                                                   ========  ======== =====+
   Diluted                                           $ 1.72    $ 1.48   $ 1.18
                                                   ========  ======== ======
#### LUCAS v. STATE.

No. 19457.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 3, 1938.

Penn J. Jackson, of Cleburne, for appellant.

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

*242CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is selling whisky in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100. •

Appellant operated a café in Cleburne, Tex. Porter L. Williams,'an inspector of the Texas litfuor control board, testified that he went to appellant’s café on the 27th of January, 1937, and purchased a. pint of whisky from appellant. H. D. Allen, who was also an inspector of the liquor control board, was outside the café when the purchase was made. He testified that he did not know the purpose of Williams in entering the café. However, he said that when Williams came out he brought a pint of whisky with him.

It is shown in bill of exception No. 1 that, on cross-examination, appellant’s counsel, in substance, asked Williams why he went to the café. His reply was he had information that whisky was being sold in said café. Appellant’s request that the answer of the witness be withdrawn from the consideration of the jury was granted. Under the circumstances, we are unable to reach the conclusion that reversible error is presented. It is the rule that the accused may not bring out objectionable testimony and then predicate error upon its reception. Crowley v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 372, 35 S.W.2d 437.

It is shown in bill of exception No. 2 that Porter L. Williams testified without objection that he carried the whis-ky he purchased from appellant to Fort Worth and had the bottle labeled showing the date the purchase was made. When H. 'D. Allen 'was testifying, he stated that before taking the stand he had tasted the whisky that Williams had purchased from the Lucas café. Further, he testified that he knew it was the same bottle because it had “Sam Lucas” on it. To the last statetnent of the witness the appellant objected on the ground that it was hearsay. The bill, as qualified, shows that the label was not introduced in evidence, and was merely referred to to identify the whisky that had been brought from Fort Worth. We think the bill, as qualified, fails to reflect reversible error.

There is no merit in appellant’s contention that it was incumbent upon the state to prove that no subsequent elections had been held in Johnson county legalizing the sale of intoxicating liquor. This was a defensive matter. Stevens v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 110 S.W.2d 906.

Stevens v. State, supra, is also authority supporting our conclusion that the inspectors were not accomplice witnesses.

Appellant’s motion for an instructed verdict was properly overruled. The jury were warranted in rejecting appellant’s testimony to the effect that -he had no whisky in his café and made no sale to Williams on the occasion in question.

The judgment is affirmed.

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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7446

JACKIE BROOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLIE CONDON, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-2494-2-17) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jackie Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Jackie Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). 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 the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Brooks v. South Carolina , No. CA-00-2494-2-17 (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED