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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                       CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                   FOR THE THREE MONTHS AND NINE MONTHS ENDED
                   SEPTEMBER 27, 1997 AND SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        THREE MONTHS      THREE MONTHS       NINE MONTHS     NINE MONTHS
                                                            ENDED             ENDED             ENDED           ENDED
                                                       SEPT. 27, 1997    SEPT. 28, 1996    SEPT. 27, 1997  SEPT. 28, 1996    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>              <C>               <C>           <C>
Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     $1,606,923       $1,395,676        $4,819,677    $3,965,342
                                                           ==========       ==========        ==========    ==========
Common and common equivalent shares:
      Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding
      during the period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      5,708,583        5,504,280         5,672,689     5,463,983

      Common shares issuable upon exercise
          of outstanding stock options
               Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        246,521          435,786           284,232       437,592
               Fully diluted . . . . . . . . . . . . .        246,521          438,985           284,232       455,596

      Common and common equivalent shares
          outstanding during the period
               Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      5,955,104        5,940,066         5,956,921     5,901,575
                                                            =========        =========         =========     =========
               Fully diluted . . . . . . . . . . . . .      5,955,104        5,943,265         5,956,921     5,919,579
                                                            =========        =========         =========     =========
Earnings per share data
      Net income per common and common
          equivalent shares
               Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       $   0.27         $   0.23          $   0.81     $   0.67
               Fully diluted . . . . . . . . . . . . .       $   0.27         $   0.23          $   0.81     $   0.67
</TABLE>



                                       37
hvtex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 




EQUITY AWARD NOTICE













«FIRST_NAME» «MI» «LAST_NAME»


«HOME_SUITE»


«HOME_STREET»


«HOME_CITY», «HOME_PROVINCE» «HOME_POSTAL_CODE»







Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc. 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), on January 27, 2011, you were granted a restricted stock unit award (“RSU”) in the amount of _______________ units.  Each RSU is equivalent to one share of common stock upon vesting.







Subject to your continued employment with the Company, your award will vest over four years in accordance with the following schedule:







25% vest on May 8, 2012


25% vest on May 8, 2013


25% vest on May 8, 2014


25% vest on May 8, 2015







Until vested, the units represented by this award are not entitled to receive cash dividends and do not have the right to vote. The restrictions governing this award will lapse immediately upon a change in control, death or permanent and total disability as defined in Section 2 of the Plan. Units not vested at retirement will be forfeited.  Please consult the 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan Prospectus for a complete understanding of Havertys’ equity award program.







This is a summary of the award.  The grant agreement and Plan Prospectus are the authorative source for all questions on awards made under the Plan.  You should log in to your account with the Plan Administrator, Solium Shareworks, to review and accept the grant agreement.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Criticality Benchmark Guide for Light-Water-Reactor Fuel in Transportation and Storage Packages (NUREG/CR-6361, ORNL/TM-13211)  

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6361 (PDF – 79.08 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 1996**Date Published:** March 1997

**Prepared by:**J. J. Lichtenwalter*, S. M. Bowman, M. D. DeHart, C. M. Hopper

Oak Ridge National LaboratoryManaged by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corp.Oak Ridge, TN 37831–6370

*Appointee of U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory Cooperative Postgraduate Research Training Program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.

**Prepared for:**Spent Fuel Project OfficeOffice of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001NRC Job Code B0009

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report is designed as a guide for performing criticality benchmark calculations for light-water-reactor (LWR) fuel applications. The guide provides documentation of 180 criticality experiments with geometries, materials, and neutron interaction characteristics representative of transportation packages containing LWR fuel or uranium oxide pellets or powder. These experiments should benefit the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and licensees in validation of computational methods used in LWR fuel storage and transportation concerns. The experiments are classified by key parameters such as enrichment, water/fuel volume, hydrogen-to-fissile ratio (H/X), and lattice pitch. Groups of experiments with common features such as separator plates, shielding walls, and soluble boron are also identified. In addition, a sample validation using these experiments and a statistical analysis of the results are provided. Recommendations for selecting suitable experiments and determination of calculational bias and uncertainty are presented as part of this benchmark guide.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
# L_2016131DE.01009101.xml

| 20.5.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 131/91 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2016

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 131/91

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU, Euratom) Nr. 1141/2014 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 22. Oktober 2014 über das Statut und die Finanzierung europäischer politischer Parteien und europäischer politischer Stiftungen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 317 vom 22. Oktober 2014
  )

Seite 12, Artikel 10 Absatz 3 Unterabsatz 2:

Anstatt:

„Werden dem Ausschuss Tatsachen bekannt, die Zweifel daran aufkommen lassen, [...]“

muss es heißen:

„Werden der Behörde Tatsachen bekannt, die Zweifel daran aufkommen lassen, [...]“.

---
Devany , Denni s (OST ) :orJh!ll!li!Ji ^ From : djzook@aol.co m Sent : Monday , Apri l 19 , 201 0 8:4 8 P M To : EAS(OST ) - , ., . Subject : Altoon a Blai rCount yAirport Jus twante d t o giv e m ytw o cent s wort h o n th e subjec t o fcarrier s fo rth e loca l airport . I fl yinfrequentl y bu tmus tsa ytha t bein g abl e t o onl yg o t o Dulles fo rfligh tconnection s i s problemati ca t best.Th e connectin g flight s ar e no t nearl ya s goo d a s th e connection s i n Pittsburgh . I als o thin k

tha t rate s tha t ar e charge d a s exorbitant . I fth e airlin e carrie ri s governmen t subsidize d wh yno t reduc e th e fare s t o Dulle s o rPittsburg h t o encourag e flyer s t o us e th e loca l airport instea d of drivin g t o Stat e Colleg e o rPittsburg h o rBaltimor e t o catc h flights . Ther e wa s a tim e whe n yo u coul d fl yfro m her e t o Pittsburg h fo r$8 0 o n USAi ri fyo u wer e usin g anothe rUSAi rfligh t fro m tha t point . I thin k tha tma yhav e eve n bee n th e roun d tri p fare . W e reall ynee d t o d o somethin g t o kee p ou rairportope n an d utilized . Cuttin g th e numbe rofflights , whic h ar e on e poin t was abou t 7 pe rda yan d i s no w3 , doesn' texactl yhel p matter s either . Mak e th e commute rfare s basicall ychea p an d encourag e loca l peopl e t o us e thi s airport an d fl yColga n o r whateve rcarrie rserve s u s an d t o connec t t o Unite d flight s a t othe rairports . It' s a win-win ! W e shoul d b e havin g t o ad d flight s no t cancelin g an ymore . I' m jus tno t sur e wh o i s a t fault . I t i s th e carrie rwh o doesn' t provid e mor e o rth e governmen tfo r cuttin g fund s o rth e airport fo rno t encouragin g peopl e t o fl you to fher e instea d o fdrivin g greate r distance s t o catc h thei rcommuter s t o hu b cities . I was als o curiou s abou t th e reaso n fo rno t considerin g th e Gulfstrea m ( I think ) carrie rwhic h want s t o provid e flight s t o bot h D C an d Pitt s bu t we'r e n o considerin g them becaus e o fbaggag e issues . Don' t ge t tha t a tall ? Chea p flight s bot h direction s coul d brin g i n mor e rider s whic h mean s mor e peopl e goin g o n t o catc h mor e flight s a t othe rairports , mor e busines s fo rth e airport restaurant , etc . A s I said , don' t hav e th e answer s bu t kin d o fwonderin g i fth e authoritie s ar e askin g th e righ t questions ? Wha t i s th e goal ? Mor e riders . Bette rservice . Mor e flights . Mor e incom e generated . Jus t wondering . Debbi e Zoo k Martinsbur g P A
Exhibit 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

	In connection with the Quarterly Report of **First American Scientific Corp.**(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Calvin L. Kantonen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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; and

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

Dated this 27th day of January, 2006.

 
/s/ Calvin Kantonen 
Calvin L. Kantonen 
Chief Financial Officer
#### State ex rel. Field, Respondent, vs. Widule, Clerk, etc., Appellant.

*October 6*

October *26, 1915.*

*State ex ret Kempsmith v. Widule, ante,*p. 389, followed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Oeeeut T. Williams, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

For the appellant there was a brief signed by the *Attorney General, E. E. Brossard,*.assistant attorney general, *Winfred 0. Zabel,*district attorney of Milwaukee county, *W. L. Tibbs*and *Daniel W. Sullivan,*assistant district attorneys, *Daniel W. Doan,*city attorney of Milwaukee, and *Max Schoets, Jr.,*assistant city attorney; and the cause wa,s argued orally by *Mr. Brossard, Mr. Sullivan,*and *Mr. Sehoets.*

*Ghas. T. Sichox,*for the respondent.

Marshall, J.

This action involves the question in respect to a life annuity of $5,000 per year, decided herewith in *State ex rel. Kempsmith v. Widule, ante,*p. 389, 154 N. W. 695, and is ruled thereby.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
No. 91-625.

#### E-V Co. et al. *v.*Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh.

Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
44 F. (2d) 426

#### In re Gerhart S. Suppiger

(No. 2324)

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,

December 1, 1930

*Hugh K. Wagner*and *Gladys Walton*for appellant.

*T. A. Hostetler*for tbe Commissioner of Patents.

[Oral argument November 10, 1930, by Mr. Wagner and Mr. Hostetler]

Before Graham, Presiding Judge, and Bland, Hatfield, Garbett, and Lenkoot, Associate Judges

BlaND, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals, affirming the action of the examiner, rejecting claims 5, 9, and 10 in an application for a patent where invention is claimed in a process of using flavoring materials in canning and other like operations.

The claims read as follows:

> 5. As an improved article of manufacture, flavoring material of a single species formed into tablets each containing an equal amount of material.

> *7169. As an improved article of manufacture, a tablet of material adapted to convey a definite quantity thereof to, and to produce a uniform effect onf.a substance to be treated, said tablet being composed of a single material.

> 10. As an improved article of manufacture, a tablet composed of a single material of definite quantity and having an uniform effect.

The references cited by the Patent Office against the application are as follows :

> Liebert, 215944, May 27, 1879.

> Pryor, 1193423, August 1, 1916.

> Cramer, 1298670, April 1, 1919.

> Beyea, 1372590, March 22, 1921.

> Oser, 1520366, December 23, 1924.

Applicant claims invention in the process of using flavoring materials, such as sugar or salt, in exact predetermined quantities, contained in small solid masses, like pellets, which are added to a certain predetermined quantity of food or other substance. It is pointed out that in the prior art in the canning industry, salt, sugar, etc., were inserted in the can, by hand, by means of a spoon, with an extremely uneven result, and that this process was slow, uncertain, and unreliable.

The Board of Appeals affirmed the action of the examiner in rejecting the claims upon the above-cited references. Both the examiner and the Board of Appeals also called attention to the fact that appellant’s method was no improvement over the ordinary use of cube or lump sugar which was acknowledged to be old. The Board of Appeals used the following language:

> The same reasoning applies to the ordinary cube or lump sugar which applicant acknowledges to be old. The lumps made by some companies are of very accurate predetermined size and dimensions, and they are of one ingredient only, namely, sugar.

> It is held therefore that the rejection on lump sugar and salt is warranted.

Regardless of what may be said of the applicability of all the inferences, we agree with the quoted language of the Board of Appeals, and its decision is *affirmed'.*
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-77,175-05

EX PARTE RANDY ETHAN HALPRIN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN

CAUSE NO. W01-00327-T(B) IN THE 283 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

RD

DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

In June 2003, a jury found Applicant guilty of the offense of capital murder. See

TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.03(a). Based on the jury’s answers to the statutory punishment

questions set out in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, the trial court

sentenced Applicant to death. This Court affirmed Applicant’s conviction and sentence

1

on direct appeal. Halprin v. State, 170 S.W.3d 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We denied

relief on Applicant’s initial post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus and

 Unless otherwise indicated, all references in this order to Articles refer to the Texas 1

Code of Criminal Procedure.
Halprin - 2

dismissed his first, second, and third subsequent writ applications in the same order. Ex

parte Halprin, Nos. WR-77,175-01 thru WR-77,175-04 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 20, 2013)

(not designated for publication).

On July 16, 2019, Applicant filed in the trial court his fourth subsequent

application for a writ of habeas corpus (our -05). After reviewing the application, this

Court determined that his first claim met the dictates of Article 11.071 § 5, and we

remanded the claim to the trial court for a review on the merits. Ex parte Halprin, No.

WR-77,175-05 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 4, 2019) (not designated for publication).

It has been more than a year since we remanded the application to the trial court.

Accordingly, we order the trial court to resolve any remaining issues in the case within

180 days from the date of this order. The clerk shall then immediately transmit the

complete writ record to this Court. Any extensions of time shall be requested by the trial

judge, or on his or her behalf, and obtained from this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 13 DAY OF JANUARY, 2021.

TH

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: (1) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-75378) pertaining to the 2001 StockOption Plan for Directors and 2001 Stock Purchase Plan for Officers and Employees  (2) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-132175) pertaining to the 2005 StockIncentive Plan of Calavo Growers, Inc.of our reports dated January 15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of Calavo Growers, Inc., Calavo Growers, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting of Calavo Growers, Inc., included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended October 31, 2006./s/ Ernst & Young LLPWoodland Hills, California
No. 82-5739.

#### Day *v.*Franzen et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Age-Specific Inhalation Radiation Dose Commitment Factors for Selected Radionuclides (NUREG/CR-2384, PNL-3912)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-2384 (PDF - 887 KB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**July 1982**Date Published:**August 1982

**Prepared by:** D. L. Strenge, R. A. Peloquin, D. A. Baker

Pacific Northwest Laboratory Richland, WA 99352

**Prepared for:** Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

 NRC FIN 82218

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Inhalation dose commitment factors are presented for selected radionuclides for exposure of individuals in four age groups: infant, child, teen and adult. Radionuclides considered are 35S, 36Cl, 45Ca, 67Ga, 75Se, 85Sr, 109Cd, 113Sn, 125I, 133Ba, 170Tm, 169Yb, 182Ta, 192Ir, 198Au, 201Tl, 204Tl, and 236Pu. The calculational method is based on the human metabolic model of ICRP as defined in Publication 2 (ICRP 1959) and as used in previous age-specific dose factor calculations by Hoenes and Soldat (1977). Dose commitment factors are presented for the following organs of reference: total body, bone, liver, kidney, thyroid, lung and lower large intestine.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

                   MATZEL & MUMFORD AT WHITE OAK ESTATES, LLC

</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                          211,253
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    79,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                   7,030,642
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              7,321,095
<PP&E>                                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                7,321,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         7,287,951
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                                       33,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  7,321,095
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      0
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                          0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0
        


</TABLE>
##### 



TOLLGRADE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
2006 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN
 EMPLOYEE NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 
   1. Grant of Option .
  
 
 
 
 2. Acceptance of Grant of Option .




---



##### 



3. Non-Transferability .
 4. Procedure for Exercise of Option .
    5. Issuance of Certificates .
 2




---



##### 



6. Withholding of Taxes .
 7. Interpretation of Plan and Agreement .
 8. Effect of Agreement on Rights of Company and Holder .
 9. Indemnification .
 3




---



##### 



10. Binding Effect .
 11. Entire Agreement
 12. Amendment .
 13. Governing Law .
  TOLLGRADE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
 By:Name:Title:
 WITNESS:[Name of Employee]
 4