alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GORAN CAPITAL INC. - Consolidated                      Exhibit 11.01
Analysis of Earnings Per Share
As At:

                                                  June 30,             June 30,
TSE Trading                                           1997                 1996
Activity
                   Volume            Value               Average Price
Period Covered       #              (US $)        (US $)                 (US $)
January to         911,654        $21,942,539     $24.07      (A)        $11.78
June, 1997



                                                  June 30,             June 30,
                                                      1997                 1996

Proceeds from Exercise of Warrants            $3,562,823      (B)      $957,948
and Options (US $)                            ----------               --------

Shares Repurchased - Treasury                    148,026    (B)/(A)      81,304
                                                 -------                 ------
Method
Shares Outstanding - Weighted                  5,552,097              5,172,105
Average
Add: Options and Warrants                        544,692                502,202
Outstanding
Less: Treasury Method - Shares                 (148,026)               (81,304)
                                               ---------               --------
Repurchased
Shares Outstanding for US GAAP                 5,948,763      (C)     5,593,003
                                               ---------              ---------
Purposes
Net Earnings in Accordance with US            $7,380,404      (D)    $4,745,872
                                              ==========             ==========
GAAP
Earnings Per Share - US GAAP                       $1.24    (D)/(C)       $0.85
                                                   =====                  =====
(Primary and Fully Diluted)




                                      -23-

<PAGE>
* 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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. JODY DEMAR FONTENOT, Defendant - Appellant. No. 11-10368 D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00778-RS-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 13, 2012 **

San Francisco, California Before: GOULD, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Jody Fontenot appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for suppression of evidence and his subsequent conviction, following a bench trial, for having violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons’ possession of 

# FILED
JUN 15 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 firearms. The parties are familiar with the facts underlying the appeal and thus we do not include them save as necessary. We affirm. A police officer may detain an individual to conduct an investigatory frisk consistent with the Fourth Amendment if the officer has “a reasonable articulable suspicion that [the individual] pose[s] a threat to his safety or the safety of others . . . .” United States v. Terry-Crespo , 356 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Sokolow , 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)); see also Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Here, the police had a reasonable articulable suspicion that Fontenot posed a threat to the safety of others. The police had received a high priority 9-1-1 dispatch that, in the parking lot of a liquor store on the corner of Geneva Avenue and Santos Street in Sa n Francisco, there was a group of “guys” in front of the store and one of them was pulling out a gun. On arrival four minutes after the 9-1-1 call was made, the police saw only one group in the parking lot, a group of three males, one of whom was Fontenot. This met the requirement of “‘some minimal level of objective justification’ for making the stop.” United States v. Sokolow , 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989) (quoting INS v. Delgado , 466 U.S. 210, 217 (1984)). Further, as discussed by the district court in its opinion below, the 9- 1-1 dispatch and the police had received an emergency call from a cell phone with the phone number identified; this “provided the police with sufficient indicia of3 reliability prior to the Terry stop to justify reliance on [the call.]” Terry-Crespo , 356 F.3d at 1174 (referring to Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1), because it removed a good deal of the anonymity of the call. AFFIRMED.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01180**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** 

### 01180\01180_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook 

### 01180\01180_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### x 01180\01180_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01180\Certification Statement _01180.pdf Plant certification statement

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 460

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located at 401

South Michigan Street in South Bend, Indiana, as the

‘‘Robert K. Rodibaugh United States Bankruptcy Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 460 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT K. RODIBAUGH

2 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTHOUSE.

3 The United States courthouse located at 401 South

4 Michigan Street in South Bend, Indiana, shall be known

5 and designated as the ‘‘Robert K. Rodibaugh United

6 States Bankruptcy Courthouse’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

10 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

11 to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert K. Rodibaugh United

12 States Bankruptcy Courthouse’’.

Passed the Senate March 23, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 460

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located

States Bankruptcy Courthouse’’.diana, as the ‘‘Robert K. Rodibaugh Unitedat 401 South Michigan Street in South Bend, In-
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, theundersigned officer of ING Insurance Company of America (the “Company”) herebycertifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| August 11, 2005 |   | By        | /s/  Brian D. Comer |
|-----------------|--------|-----------|---------------------|
| (Date)          |   |      | Brian  D. Comer     |
|            |   | President |

 

----
EXHIBIT 10.7.3
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED  EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
     Paragraph 3 of the Existing Agreement
 Term of Employment




---



##### 



Paragraph 4.8 of the Existing Agreement
 Paragraph 5 of the Existing Agreement
 Termination For Death
 Termination For Disability
 Termination for Cause
 Termination Other Than for Cause or Resignation by EXECUTIVE
  2




---



##### 



-
   Definition of Cause
  3




---



##### 



Definition of Good Reason
  4




---



##### 



Notice of Termination
 Definition of Date of Termination
 Delivery of Release
 5




---



##### 



Further Agreements
 Confidentiality
 Non-Solicitation rd provided, however,
 Breach of Covenants
 6




---



##### 



Timing of Payments
 Paragraph 6 of the Existing Agreement
    7




---



##### 



Paragraph 9.1 of the Existing Agreement
  Paragraph 19 of the Existing Agreement
 Arbitration et seq th
 8




---



##### 



Addition of New Paragraph 20 to the Existing Agreement.
 Section 409A of the Code
 Short-Term Deferral Exemption
 Delayed Distribution under Section 409A of the Code
 Transition Relief
 Definition of Separation from Service
 9




---



##### 



Definition of Service Provider
 Definition of Service Recipient
 Definition of Specified Employee
 Definition of Specified Employee Effective Date
 Definition of Specified Employee Identification Date
 Definition of Testing Year
 Amendment of Agreement to Comply with Section 409A of the Code
 10




---



##### 



Exhibit B to the Existing Agreement Exhibit B Exhibit B
 Miscellaneous
 [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
 11




---



##### 



LEAP WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Leonard C. StephensName:
    
    Leonard C. StephensTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President, Human ResourcesCRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Leonard C. StephensName:
    
    Leonard C. StephensTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President, Human ResourcesEXECUTIVE/s/ S. Douglas HutchesonS. Douglas Hutcheson
 12




---



##### 



EXHIBIT B
 GENERAL RELEASE
 General Release of Claims .
          B-1




---



##### 



RELEASE OF UNKNOWN CLAIMS .
 A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH A CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR
SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF
KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE
DEBTOR.
 OLDER WORKERS BENEFIT PROTECTION ACT . ET SEQ
         B-2




---



##### 



th
 No Assignment of Claims .
 No Suits or Actions .
 No Admission .
 EXECUTIVES. Douglas HutchesonDate:
 B-3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>        0001064435
<NAME>       Cluett American Corp
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          1,268
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  38,388
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (4,946)
<INVENTORY>                                    30,434
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               88,181
<PP&E>                                         69,702
<DEPRECIATION>                               (42,772)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                153,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          35,651
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                    66,214
<COMMON>                                            1
<OTHER-SE>                                  (177,006)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  153,568
<SALES>                                       177,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              177,886
<CGS>                                         113,375
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  34,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  442
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             27,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,251
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,094
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               157
<DISCONTINUED>                               (21,147)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (20,990)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
#### HARVEY TERRY AND TIMOTHY ELY v. JOHN F. DAVIS et al.

*Action for J)amages*— Malicious *Prosecution, what constitutes.*

An action will not lie for malicious prosecution, in a civil suit, unless there was an arrest of the person or seizure of property, as in attachment proceedings at law or their equivalent in equity, or other circumstances of special damage.

Civil action, heard, on demurrer to the complaint, before *Brown, J.,*at January, 1894, Special Term of Pas-ouotaNK Superior Court.

*32'The facts are substantially the same as reported in the case of *Ely*v. *Davis,*111 N. C., 24. Tlie defendants demurred to the complaint as follows :

“ That the compláint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, for the reason that, it does not allege that there was an arrest of the *person*of either of the plaintiffs or seizure of their property in any proceeding at law, or their equivalent in equity, or that there was any .special damage resulting from the action, and which would not necessarily result in all cases of the like kind.”

His Honor sustained the demurrer, and plaintiffs appealed.

*Mr. Harvey Terry,*for. plaintiffs (appellants).

*Mr. W. J. Griffin,*for defendants.

MagNais, J.:

This is substantially the same action which is reported under the caption of *Timothy Ely*v. *John F. Davis, in*111 N. C., 24, being an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Wo then sustained the demurrer upon the ground that there was no allegation in the complaint of want of probable cause, nor statement of facts which, if proved, would establish the want of probable cause in the alleged malicious charge of fraud and false representation.

AYe proceeded further to intimate, in order that the plaintiffs might understand that this litigation ought to cease, our opinion that an action will not lie for malicious prosecution in a civil suit, unless there was an arrest of the person or seizure of property, as in attachment proceedings at law, or their equivalent in equity, or in proceedings in bankruptcy or like cases where there was some special damage resulting from the action and which would not necessarily result in all cases of the like kind. We affirmed *33tlie judgment below dismissing tlie action. Tlie plaintiffs seem to have immediately begun an action against the same defendants or their personal representatives. It is here again upon substantially tlie same complaint, with the addition of the allegation of want of probable cause. We have listened with attention to the argument of counsel and have examined the authorities presented by him, and are still of the opinion that the action will not lie, for the reasons fully stated in the opinion above referred to and which we deem unnecessary to repeat. We need not, therefore, examine the other grounds of demurrer. The judgment of his Honor below sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action is Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSEPH JACKSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 113 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of August, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>             
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS            
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                JUN-30-1998       
<CASH>                        4,939,000           
<SECURITIES>                          0             
<RECEIVABLES>                13,211,000                                    
<ALLOWANCES>                   (370,000)                                   
<INVENTORY>                   3,803,000                                    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             28,375,000                                    
<PP&E>                       14,402,000                                    
<DEPRECIATION>               (1,318,000)                                  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               69,045,000                                    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        30,927,000                                    
<BONDS>                       9,463,000                                    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0                                    
<PREFERRED>                           0                                    
<COMMON>                          5,000                                   
<OTHER-SE>                   28,587,000  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 69,045,000                                    
<SALES>                      65,777,000                                    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             65,777,000                                    
<CGS>                       (57,056,000)                                   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                (6,963,000)                                   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               (342,000)                                     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0                                    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             (342,000)                                   
<INCOME-PRETAX>               1,416,000                                    
<INCOME-TAX>                   (895,000)          
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             492,000        
<DISCONTINUED>                        0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0  
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                    492,000        
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       .11            
<EPS-DILUTED>                       .06              
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Samuel Friedman, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County,

September 30, 1937.

*Louis Scadron,*for the petitioner.

*Meyer Halpem,*for the respondent.

Henderson, S.

The decedent’s widow has petitioned for letters of administration, and has also filed a paper purporting to be the decedent’s last will in which she is named as executrix. She alleges *441on information and belief that it is not his valid will. All the persons named in such paper, except the petitioner, have been duly cited in this proceeding. No respondent has appeared or pleaded herein, except the executor named in said paper. He is not named as a beneficiary therein and is not a distributee of the decedent. He has duly appeared herein by attorney, but has not filed any answer or objection to the petition. He has been afforded an opportunity to apply for the probate of the filed paper, but has failed to do so.

Letters of administration may not be granted where there is a will (Suit. Ct. Act, § 119, subd. 1). The statute refers to a *valid*will. The existence, or the filing in the Surrogate’s Court, of a paper purporting to be a will does not import validity to the paper. It becomes a valid will only after it has been duly admitted to probate. (Surr. Ct. Act, § 314, subd. 1; *Matter of Billet,*187 App. Div. 309, 311; *Matter of Cameron,*47 id. 120, 123; affd., 166 N. Y. 610; *Matter of Dressel,*102 Misc. 648; *Matter of Carter,*74 id. 1.) The presumption in favor of intestacy continues until overcome by evidence. *(Matter of Cameron, supra.)*In the absence of any evidence of testacy, the application for administration must be granted.

Settle decree awarding letters of administration to the petitioner upon her filing a bond in the sum of $1,000 and otherwise qualifying as prescribed by statute.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 85577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24944]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12571]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Qi Baishi: Inspiration in 
Ink'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Qi Baishi: Inspiration in Ink'' 
at the Asian Art Museum, San Francisco, California; the Museum of Fine 
Arts, Boston, in Boston, Massachusetts; and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural 
significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display 
within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. 
I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published 
in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d4e585e495452530f0908047d4e495c4958135a524b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d4e585e495452530f0908047d4e495c4958135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
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, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 
2021.

Nicole L. Elkon,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2024-24944 Filed 10-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1018
ROBERT L. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LONG BROTHERS, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1628-A) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his civil complaint alleging assault. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Saunders v. Long Brothers , No. CA-95-1628-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 19, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED