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


                           CLAREMONT TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.
                                   AND SUBSIDIARIES
                         CALCULATIONS OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                       (In thousands, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                Three Months Ended September 30,
                                -----------------------------------------------
                                1997                     1996
                                ----------------------   ----------------------
                                Primary  Fully Diluted   Primary  Fully Diluted
                                ----------------------   ----------------------
<S>                             <C>        <C>           <C>          <C>
Weighted Average Shares
Outstanding for the Period         8,401       8,401        6,623        6,623

Dilutive Warrants Using
the Treasury Stock Method              -           -          220          285

Dilutive Common Stock
Options Using the Treasury
Stock Method                       1,587       1,650        2,437        2,516
                                ----------------------   ----------------------
Total Shares Used for Per
Share Calculations                 9,988      10,051        9,280        9,424
                                ----------------------   ----------------------
                                ----------------------   ----------------------
Net Income                       $   635      $  635     $  1,067     $  1,067
                                ----------------------   ----------------------
                                ----------------------   ----------------------
Net Income Per Share             $  0.06     $  0.06      $  0.12      $  0.11
                                ----------------------   ----------------------
                                ----------------------   ----------------------
</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          20,511
<SECURITIES>                                     5,863
<RECEIVABLES>                                  325,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,191
<INVENTORY>                                    144,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               554,694
<PP&E>                                       8,451,424
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,155,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,654,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          701,841
<BONDS>                                      2,193,153
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    170,086
<COMMON>                                       153,045
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,103,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,654,091
<SALES>                                      2,369,491
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,369,491
<CGS>                                        1,296,453
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,749,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,280
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             184,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                449,369
<INCOME-TAX>                                   168,073
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            281,296
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   281,296
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.30
        

</TABLE>
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

MISAK TERYAN; MARI TERYAN,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-75183

Agency Nos. A095-191-276

 A095-191-277

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Misak Teryan and Mari Teryan, natives of Greece and citizens of Armenia,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. Gonzales, 491

FILED

MAY 05 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-75183

F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny in part and grant in part the petition

for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than four years after the

BIA’s February 24, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final

administrative order), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable

tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2003).

Petitioners’ contention that an immigration consultant they knew was not a

lawyer provided them with ineffective assistance of counsel is foreclosed. See

Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that knowing

reliance upon the advice of a non-attorney cannot support a claim for ineffective

assistance of counsel in a removal proceeding). 

Because the BIA failed to address petitioners’ request that it exercise its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings, we remand for the BIA to consider

petitioners’ request in the first instance. See Montes–Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d

1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #20666 and #20667; LOUISIANA Disaster Number LA-20007]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4817-DR), dated September 23, 2024.
 DATES: Issued on September 23, 2024. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         November 22, 2024. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         June 23, 2025.
 ADDRESSES: *Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov*
                         to apply for a disaster assistance loan.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on September 23, 2024, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal 
                    *https://lending.sba.gov*
                     or other locally announced locations. Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at 
                    *disastercustomerservice@sba.gov*
                     or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 for further assistance. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Incident:*
                     Hurricane Francine. *Incident Period:*
                     September 9, 2024 through September 12, 2024. *Primary Parishes:* Ascension, Assumption, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Lafourche, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Charles, St. Helena, St. Martin, St. Mary, St. Tammany, Terrebonne, Washington, West Feliciana. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 206668 and for economic injury is 206670. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Francisco Sánchez, Jr., Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.


[FR Doc. 2024-22211 Filed 9-26-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3112 

To repeal a requirement that new employees of certain employers be 

automatically enrolled in the employer’s health benefits plan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 16, 2015 

Ms. STEFANIK (for herself, Mr. HUDSON, and Mr. WALBERG) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To repeal a requirement that new employees of certain employers be automatically enrolled in the employer’s health 

benefits plan. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Enrollment Op5 tions Protect Employee Needs Act’’ or the ‘‘Be Open Act’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3112 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

2 Section 18A of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 

3 U.S.C. 218a), as added by section 1511 of the Patient 

4 Protection and Affordable Care Act, is repealed. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

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 of Disaboom, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Walpuck,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

| |                                                                  | 
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ John
  Walpuck                                               | 
| |                                                                  | 
| | Principal
  Executive Officer 
  and Principal Financial Officer | 

Dated: August 14, 2009

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         561,017
<SECURITIES>                                   273,343
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,096,717
<ALLOWANCES>                                   777,546
<INVENTORY>                                  3,287,957
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,528,077
<PP&E>                                      10,119,100
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,609,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,120,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,589,492
<BONDS>                                      1,406,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,467,992
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,281,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,120,953
<SALES>                                     58,561,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            58,561,396
<CGS>                                       42,903,407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               42,903,407
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,035,579
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               167,814
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             180,128
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,578,363
<INCOME-TAX>                                   647,586
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            930,777
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   930,777
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 of Las Rocas Mining Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christopher Greenwood, Chief Financial Officer 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, that:

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
10th day of September, 2007.


/s/ Christopher Greenwood
------------------------------
Christopher Greenwood
Chief Financial Officer
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: 

### 2013 -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include

access, testing,

and close-up) Labor

cost (@$85/h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Visual inspection

for Free Turbine

Bearing Plug 1.0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 

### 5 $ 425.00



### Rework for Free

Turbine Bearing

Plug 3.0 $ 255.00 $13 $ 268.00 

### 5 $1,340.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,765



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work-hours

(include access,

testing, and closeup) Labor cost
(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO

*Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES* NO

*Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a s ubstantial number of small entities? Explain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO



### * Explanation 

### :
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6760

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DUANE HINTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Richard C. Erwin, Senior

District Judge. (CR-91-136-G, CA-96-12-2)

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 7, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Duane Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Hinton, Nos. CR-91-136-G, CA-96-12-2 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 20,

1997). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June

23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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.

AFFIRMED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00361-CV

EID Corporation, a Texas Corporation, and 

Mohammed S. Alhajeid, Individually, Appellants

v.

The State of Texas; The City of Fort Worth, Texas;

The Transit Authority of Fort Worth, MTA Texas, et al., Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GV-13-000169, HONORABLE ORLINDA NARANJO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

We will dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. Appellants EID Corporation, 1

a Texas Corporation, and Mohammed S. Alhajeid, Individually, have not paid or made arrangements

to pay for the clerk’srecord in this appeal. By letter dated August 9, 2013, this Court’s clerk informed

appellants that the clerk’s record was overdue. The clerk requested that appellants’ attorney make

arrangements for the record and submit a status report on or before August 19, 2013. The clerk

warned that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution

under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.3(b).

We have received no clerks record, no response from the appellants, and no other

indication that the record is being prepared. We dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

Appellants previously attempted to file a motion to dismiss that was rejected because it 1

did not comply with the rules of procedure.
 

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose, and Goodwin

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: August 30, 2013

2
# Official Journal C 228/10 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 228 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6310 July 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 228

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6310 July 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 228/01 | 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 (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 228/01

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 (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 228/02 | State aid — Netherlands — State aid SA.46470 (2017/C) — Possible State aid in favour of Inter IKEA — Extension of the formal investigation — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  ) | 9 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2020/C 228/02

State aid — Netherlands — State aid SA.46470 (2017/C) — Possible State aid in favour of Inter IKEA — Extension of the formal investigation — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  )

1

9

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50928 Summary Calendar

__________________ RANDY LORINE CARROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus VICTOR RODRIGUEZ; TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES; JUDITH D. MILLER, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-95-CV-106
- - - - - - - - - - May 21, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Randy Lorine Carroll appeals the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus claims for failure to exhaust state remedies and the court's dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights claims. Carroll's petition is more properly construed as a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See United States v. Tubwell , 37 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust. SeeNo. 95-50928 -2-
Fuller v. Rich , 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Carroll's civil rights claim as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Carroll's motion to stay the appeal pending his exhaustion of state remedies is DENIED. AFFIRMED.