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

                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

                          FUSION MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                         (A COMPANY IN THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE)
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE (1)


 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                       CUMULATIVE PERIOD
                                                                                                        FROM OCTOBER 14,
                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED           NINE MONTHS ENDED         1992 (DATE OF
                                                    SEPTEMBER 30,                 SEPTEMBER 30,          INCEPTION) TO
                                                1996           1995           1996           1995      SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
                                              ------------------------      ------------------------   ------------------
                                                    (UNAUDITED)                   (UNAUDITED)             (UNAUDITED)
<S>                                           <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>             <C>
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES                6,936,647      1,942,637      4,058,047      1,942,637        1,178,000
OUTSTANDING FOR THE PERIOD          
                                    
COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES PURSUANT                     -        423,061        423,061        423,061          423,061
TO STAFF ACCOUNTING BULLETIN NO. 83 
                                    
SHARES USED IN COMPUTING PER SHARE            6,936,647      2,365,698      4,481,108      2,365,698        1,601,061
AMOUNTS                             
                                    
NET LOSS                                     (1,818,228)      (793,000)    (3,297,400)    (1,151,800)      (9,752,828)
                                    
NET LOSS PER SHARE                             $  (0.26)      $  (0.34)      $  (0.74)      $  (0.49)        $  (6.09)

</TABLE>

 
(1) There is no difference between primary and fully diluted loss per share.
THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 E0 04 6 . MATTHEW S v . BUTLER.

Up o n co n si d erat i o n , ap p l i can t’ s em erg en cy m o t i o n fo r an ex t en s i o n o f t i m e in
wh i ch t o fi l e a d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i o n i s GRANTED. Ap p l i can t s h al l h av e u n t i l
J u n e 1 1, 2 0 2 1
, t o fi le t h e ap p li cat io n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## May 24, 2021

05/24/2021
|Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


In
connection  with the quarterly  report of New Century Equity  Holdings Corp.  (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended  September  30, 2003, as
filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  I, David P.
Tusa,  Executive Vice President,  Chief Financial  Officer and Corporate  Secretary of
the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (1) | The
Form 10-Q report for the three and nine months  ended  September  30,  2003,  filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange          Commission  on November 11, 2003,  fully
 complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The
information  contained in the Form 10-Q report for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2003 fairly  presents,          in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of New Century Equity Holdings Corp.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|By: /s/ DAVID P. TUSA 
       
David P. Tusa Executive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer andCorporate Secretary |  | Date: November 11, 2003
          
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1719

BINIAM OKBATSEN HABTEMICHAEL,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: January 28, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Michael G. Andegeorgis, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL G. 

ANDEGEORGIS, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Assistant 

Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Deputy Director, Nancy N. Safavi, Summer G. 

Zofrea, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Biniam Okbatsen Habtemichael, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review 

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of 

removal. We deny the petition for review. 

We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Diaz de Gomez v. 

Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 2021). Factual findings are “conclusive unless any 

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B). Legal issues are reviewed de novo. Diaz de Gomez, 987 F.3d at 363. 

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Habtemichael was 

not persecuted on account of an imputed political opinion. We further conclude that the 

Board did not legally err in its analysis of whether an imputed political opinion was one 

central reason for Habtemichael’s past persecution and fear of future persecution.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANICAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                          14,403
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,353
<INVENTORY>                                    103,089
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               185,231
<PP&E>                                         120,930
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,846
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 345,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,733
<BONDS>                                         86,660
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,324
<OTHER-SE>                                     157,312      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   345,569
<SALES>                                        808,874
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               808,874
<CGS>                                          653,270
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   874
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,949)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (3,418)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,531)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,531)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.62)
        



</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3072 

To remove the authority of the Secretary of Energy to amend or issue 

new energy efficiency standards for ceiling fans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2015 

Mr. DENT (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. ROKITA, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. 

FLEISCHMANN, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. JOYCE, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. MURPHY

of Pennsylvania, and Mr. POMPEO) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To remove the authority of the Secretary of Energy to amend 

or issue new energy efficiency standards for ceiling fans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CEILING FAN STANDARDS. 

4 Section 325(ff) of the Energy Policy and Conserva5 tion Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6); and 

7 (2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as para8 graph (5). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ValCom, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vincent Vellardita,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




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




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




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
ValCom, Inc. and will be retained by ValCom, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






February
      23, 2009
            By:
      /s/ Vince VellarditaVince
      Vellardita
              Chief
      Executive Officer,
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
  Officer)
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     Exhibit 23



The Board of Directors
PCA International, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
S-8 for the PCA International, Inc. 1990 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan,
registration statement on Form S-8 for the PCA International, Inc. 1992
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan and registration statement on Form S-8 for the
PCA International, Inc. 1996 Omnibus Long-Term Compensation Plan of our report
dated April 27, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of PCA
International, Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 31, 1999 and February 1,
1998, the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in
shareholders' (deficit) equity and cash flows and related schedule for each of
the years in the three-year period ended January 31, 1999 which report appears
in the January 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of PCA International, Inc.



                                                              /s/KPMG LLP
                                                              KPMG LLP


Charlotte, North Carolina
April 27, 1999
#### COOPER v. STATE.

No. 19575.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 3, 1938.

A. L. Lowery, of Nacogdoches, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Assault to murder is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of three years.

The indictment appears regular and properly presented. The evidence heard upon the trial is not brought forward for review. No complaint of the procedure has been presented by bills of exception.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6994

RICKY LEE MILLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate

Judge. (3:09-cv-00665-MHL)

Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Lee Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Theresa Armstrong, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Lee Miller seeks to appeal the magistrate 

judge’s*

 * This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the 

parties’ consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).

order denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Miller has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
ex_97455.htm


Exhibit 4.15


 


HOVERINK BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC. 


 


EIN# 46-3590875


 


 


 


BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION TO GRANT RESTRICTED STOCK GRANT 


AWARDS TO EXECUTIVES, BOARD MEMBERS AND CONSULTANTS


 


Upon a duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted consent, the Board of Directors of HOVERINK BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC adopted the following resolution it is hereby:


 


RESOLVED that, WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of HOVERINK BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”), has determined that the grant of Restricted shares of the Company’s Common Stock to DAVIDRA N. SAJNA. as an effective means to align management interest with stockholder interests;


 


IT IS RESOLVED that, the following restricted shares are hereby granted


                 


	
			Name of Grantee

				Class of Stock	Number of Shares Granted	Amount Vested	
			Par Value

			
	
			 DAVIDRA N. SAJNA

				
			Common

				
			6,900,000

				
			6,900,000

				
			$.0001

			
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
			 Total Shares Granted

				 	
			 6,900,000

				
			 

				 



 


 


The undersigned, Debbie Carter, certifies that I am the duly appointed Chief Executive Officer of HOVERINK BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC and that the above is a true and correct copy of resolutions duly adopted at a meeting of the directors thereof, convened and held in accordance with law and the Bylaws of HOVERINK BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC and that such resolution is now in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have affixed my name as Secretary of HOVERINK BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC and have attached the seal of HOVERINK BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC to this resolution.


 


Dated The     Day Of


 


 


                                                       


Debbie Carter,


Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2022385EN.01002801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 385/28 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10857 – CINVEN / ZURICH SANDER VERMÖGENSVERWALTUNG)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 385/09)

1.

On 30 September 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2022385EN.01002801-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Viridium Holding AG (‘Viridium’ Germany), controlled by Cinven Partnership LLP (‘Cinven’, United Kingdom), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Zurich Sander Vermögensverwaltungs AG (Germany), belonging to the group Zurich Insurance Group Ltd. (Switzerland). |

Cinven will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Zurich Sander Vermögensverwaltungs AG.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Cinven is a private equity business. Viridium is a provider of life insurance products, specialised in the management of closed life insurance portfolios in Germany, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Zurich Sander Vermögensverwaltungs AG holds a closed portfolio of life insurance policies held almost exclusively by German customers. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2022385EN.01002801-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10857 – CINVEN / ZURICH SANDER VERMÖGENSVERWALTUNG

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2022385EN.01002801-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2022385EN.01002801-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ALBERTO HERNANDEZ-OREGEL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10055

D.C. No. 5:08-CR-00166-JF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Alberto Hernandez-Oregel appeals from the 90-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United

States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 04 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-10055

Hernandez-Oregel contends, for the first time on appeal, that the district

court erred by enhancing his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 1326(b) because the

government never provided the court with the statute of his prior conviction. We

take judicial notice of the abstract of judgment for Hernandez-Oregel’s 1981

conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, in violation of California Penal Code

§ 245(a), a categorical felony crime of violence that qualified Hernandez-Oregel

for a sentencing enhancement under section 1326(b). See United States v. HeronSalinas, 566 F.3d 898, 899 (9th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Black, 482

F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007).

Hernandez-Oregel also contends that Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224 (1998), should be overruled. As he concedes, this contention fails. 

See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997).

Finally, Hernandez-Oregel contends that the sentence is substantively

unreasonable. The record reflects that there was no procedural error and that, in

light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence within the Guidelines range

is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th

Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

The government’s request for judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED.