alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
                                                     EXHIBIT 11.2

                           BAIRNCO CORPORATION
           CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
         FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JULY 4, 1998 AND JUNE 28, 1997
                               (Unaudited)
<CAPTION>

                                            1998          1997
<S>                                         <C>           <C>
BASIC EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:

Net income                                  $ 3,784,000   $ 4,520,000

Average common shares outstanding             8,825,000     9,295,000

Basic Earnings Per Common Share             $      0.43   $      0.49


DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:

Net income                                  $ 3,784,000   $ 4,520,000

Average common shares outstanding             8,825,000     9,295,000
Common shares issuable in respect to 
  options issued to employees with a
  dilutive effect                               260,000       136,000
Total diluted common shares outstanding       9,085,000     9,431,000

Diluted Earnings Per Common Share           $      0.42   $      0.48


Basic earnings per common share were computed by dividing net
income by the weighted average number of common shares
outstanding during the quarter.  Diluted earnings per common
share include the effect of all dilutive stock options.
</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAMIRO PAZ-PULUC and LETICIA

PAZ,

 Petitioners,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-73126

Agency Nos. A071-585-393

A097-854-044

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 26, 2016** 

Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Ramiro Paz-Puluc, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and Leticia Paz, a

native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s

decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is

FILED

MAY 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s

factual determination regarding continuous physical presence. Ibarra-Flores v.

Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part

the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners did

not demonstrate the ten years of continuous physical presence required for

cancellation of removal, where petitioners provided insufficient documentary

evidence. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(A), 1229a(c)(4)(B)-(C).

To the extent petitioners raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,

we lack jurisdiction to review that unexhausted claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see

also Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[Section] 1252(d)(1)

mandates exhaustion and therefore generally bars us, for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction, from reaching the merits of a legal claim not presented in

administrative proceedings below.”)

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the BIA did not err in declining to

address non-dispositive issues. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th

Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make

findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”

(citation and quotation marks omitted)).

2 14-73126
In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining

contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

3 14-73126
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 61125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24143]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8910]

Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Delacroix's Greece on the Ruins of Missolonghi''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
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, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``Delacroix's Greece on the Ruins of 
Missolonghi,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported 
pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at 
the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, CA, from on or about 
November 16, 2014, until on or about February 15, 2015, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit object, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: October 3, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-24143 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
REF ID:A517315-0 

1

TOP SECRET :5J:!i>E 

18 Januar.v 19S2 

'

0

EO 3.3(h) (2) 

PL86-36/50 USG 3605 

MEM>RANDUM FOR 'llIE CHAmu, 1 .... ------------

StmJF.CT1 ~c~ationa Seour:l.v 

Letter or 10 December 19Sl from the Qha.1.rmn, IBIB 

to the Chaiman, USC.IB (tsm/224/Sl). 

l• On 11 Januar.v 19.$2 the President approved the report \.ot the 

us-me Conference on the Sacuri:tar otl .... ___ lc~catiCXl•• 

2. tJSCIB baa considered the retol'91'lc$ letter and makes ti. 

following observationa1 

a. It was agreed at the US-tJl[ Coni'el'Ellce that an 

improvement in the_. general a~tf' ot •th& 

.__ _ __.I Oovemment must/ bo prerequ1a1 te. to attectiva 

correction ot th&· :lnsecurit)" ot _I ___ Iammm:toatiana. 

b.IL----___ I 

security. '!hat :report is an examination ot present 

aeourity conditions and a catalog of standards and 

procedttr8$i which, it approved and inplamentecl, 

might produce the neoaaaary improvement 1n general 

___ __.I securitJ". 

6R 'T : J --0 r; It Old SE E-.- - '3 i;;. 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 09-24-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
REF ID:A517,jl0 

l Ot= 8ECRE"f 3 · J ._, -o t: -

~ 

J>< \/J ~ V1UJ 0 I lk l 6 tL.r 

co The approach to 

action on the basis or its approval. 

implementing 

3. 3 (h) (2) 

86-36/50 USC 3605 

3. Following these developments USClB will, as previously 

agreed, be prepared to discuss/tha means £or approaching the L..I __ _. 

.__ __________ ____.lhl.ong the general lines recommended in 

the reference lettero 

W. B. SMITH 

Chairman 

United States Communications Intelligence Board 

. ,. 

~: ~ :~ ~-' r.
EXHIBIT 8

LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES

Following are significant (direct/indirect) subsidiaries of Creative:



|                                          |  |                         |  |           |  
|----------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | --------- | -
|Name/Region of Principal Operations       |  | Country ofIncorporation |  | Ownership |  
|United States of America:                 |  |                         |  |           |  
|Creative Labs, Inc.                       |  | U.S.A.                  |  | 100       | %
|                                          |  |                        
|Europe:                                   |  |                         |  |           |  
|Creative Labs Ireland                     |  | Ireland                 |  | 100       | %
|                                          |  |                        
|Asia:                                     |  |                         |  |           |  
|Creative Media Kabashiki Kaisha           |  | Japan                   |  | 70        | %
|Creative Technology Centre Pte Ltd        |  | Singapore               |  | 100       | %
|Creative Labs Pty Ltd                     |  | Australia               |  | 100       | %
|Creative Technology (Qingdao) Co. Ltd     |  | China                   |  | 100       | %
|                                          |  |                        
|Others:                                   |  |                         |  |           |  
|CTI Limited                               |  | Bermuda                 |  | 100       | %
|CTI II Limited                            |  | Bermuda                 |  | 100       | %
|3Dlabs Inc., Ltd and subsidiary companies |  | Bermuda                 |  | 100       | %
# CE2004078EN.01062901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/629 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/629

---

(2004/C 78 E/0663)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3690/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Florence

Subject:

In its answer to question E-1006/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Florence had submitted projects and secured funding under the Daphne programme, the Commission stated that a number of proposals had been submitted, but that the outcome of the assessment would be available in July 2003.

1

Can the Commission say whether the projects submitted actually received funding and, if not, why they were not considered suitable?

Have any other projects been submitted in the meantime?

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 62.

1

---
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.4.2


                                  CERTIFICATION



I, Robert C. Radle, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing  distribution  or  servicing  reports  filed in  respect  of  periods
included in the year covered by this annual report,  of American  Express Master
Trust;

2.  Based on my knowledge,  the  information in these reports, taken as a whole,
does not  contain  any untrue  statement  of a material  fact or omit to state a
material  fact  necessary  to  make  the  statements   made,  in  light  of  the
circumstances  under which such  statements  were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and  servicing,  or
similar, agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

4.  Based on my knowledge and upon the annual  compliance statement  included in
the report and required to be delivered  to the trustee in  accordance  with the
terms of the  pooling  and  servicing,  or  similar,  agreement,  and  except as
disclosed in the reports,  the servicer has fulfilled its obligations  under the
servicing agreement; and

5.  The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's
compliance with the minimum  servicing  standards based upon the report provided
by an independent  public  accountant,  after  conducting a review in compliance
with the Uniform  Single  Attestation  Program for  Mortgage  Bankers or similar
procedure,  as set forth in the pooling and  servicing,  or similar,  agreement,
that is included in these reports.


Date:  March 31, 2005

 /s/ Robert C. Radle
----------------------
Name:  Robert C. Radle
Title: Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
       American Express Bank, FSB
ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION j\ 

rd.: 

2 

NEYER USE FOR APPROYALS. DJS .ROYALS, 

CONCURRENCES, OR SIMILAR • ,IONS 

A-IL 

INITIALS CIRCULATE 

DATE COORDINATION 

FILE 

INFORMATION 

NECESSARY 

ACTION 

NarE AND RETURN 

SEE ME 

SIGNATURE 

REMARKS 

c--, ~ ~) _.,t • .AJ~ 1-~ ('o..-JL 

'C7 . ~ ~\ ~~vt, )o ~ , h~ 

~CA4<> • ~ d 0...-0 ~ , 

~~rt 

+-~ 

eclassified and approved for release by NSA on 

4-14-2014 ursuantto E .0. 13526 

s- i..:: ~ ~ n 

,_OR_G_A-NIZA-TIO_N_A_N_D -LOCA-0T .... IF ... N-~--1--0--o-· -:;,~,:.:.-:.._:_------ TELEPHONE 

DD FORM 9 5 Replaces DA AGO Form 896, l Apr 48, and AFHQ ,,. GPO 1111 • 0 oa- 1 FEB 50 Form 12, 10 Nov 4.7, which mq lie used. 
~ANDARDFORMN0.114 a ~.f. .rn.; h651a1 • • ... t • ... ,,,.,,ud.llA"lLI e 

Office Memorandum • UNITED sTATEs GOVERNMENT 

TO DR. Campaigne DATB: 2J ·~ SJ. . : 

PR.OM AFSA-oor • Capt. Lane 

-SUBJBCT: ciearance ~ members tor SCAG 

AtSA-ooT has been intormrf.'1 by' AFSA-16 that Saumerii M~L~ ~ John 

Matthew Coombs have been c_liared for AFSA purposes. Arranganants tor 

their admission to SCAG are re.tarred to 7ou in the absence ot Hr. Friedman. . , . 

JWn" c. LAJ{E . Captain" WAC 

_, 

. ' . ' . -

' -·
99-1211.

#### State v. Gonzalez.

Athens App. No. 97CA52. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., dissent.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

NADIR OMAR ABDULLAH BIN, )

SA’ADOUN ALSA’ARY, )

aka Ahmed Omar (ISN 030) )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 09-CV-0745 (RCL)

)

BARACK OBAMA, )

President of the United States, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

ORDER

Upon consideration of Respondents’ Unopposed Motion for an extension of time within

which to comply with this Court’s Order of June 22, 2009, it is hereby

ORDERED that Respondents’ motion is GRANTED nunc pro tunc; it is further

ORDERED that Respondents shall have until August 21, 2009 to produce documents that

reflect negatively on the credibility of a certain detainee, and until August 5, 2009 to produce all

other documents responsive to June 22, 2009 Order.

Date: 9/4/2009

_______/s/___________________

Honorable Royce C. Lamberth 

United States District Judge, Chief Judge
# CE2004084EN.01042801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/428 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/428

---

(2004/C 84 E/0498)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0561/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Ireland and Nitrates Directive

Subject:

The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC (1)) was adopted by the Council on 12 December 1991 and should have been implemented in full by all Member States by 1995 at the latest.

1

In October 2001, the Commission referred Ireland to the European Court of Justice for failing to comply with the Directive. On 26 June 2003, Advocate-General Geelhoed of the ECJ delivered an opinion to the effect that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under this Directive and ordered Ireland to pay the costs of the case.

Could the Commission therefore clarify the claim made by the Irish Minister for Agriculture at the Annual General Meeting of the Irish Farmers' Association on 14 January 2004 that Ireland has negotiated a derogation from the Nitrates Directive?

---

(1)  OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willy Calderon, Appellant.

[774 NYS2d 678]

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered February 10, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously dismissed.

Since defendant has been deported, he is not presently available to obey the mandate of the court in event of affirmance *(see People v Reyes,*292 AD2d 271 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 701 [2002]). Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed. Were we not dismissing the appeal, we would find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
# CE2004084EN.01076601.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/766 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/766

---

(2004/C 84 E/0861)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0182/04

by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Network and information security

Subject:

Does the Commission agree that ICT products should be designed with specific security standards in mind, and with the goal of being evaluated and certified as having an internationally recognised level of security? If so, how can the European Network and Information Security Agency use the ‘Common Criteria’ to promote this goal?

---
July 21, 2014 Secretary Anthony Foxx US Secretary ofTransportation DOT Office ofthe Secretary 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 -_j**~** : ..f 

# FORT DODGE GRO\xTfH

Sent Electronically via E-Mail

RE: Petition ofFort Dodge, lA for a Two-Year Waiver from the 10-Enp1anement Statute Docket-DOT-OST-2001-10682
Dear Secretary Foxx, On behalfofthe Greater Fort Dodge Growth Alliance, I am submitting this petition for a two-year exemption from 49 U.S.C. 

### § 41731(a)(l)(B) interminating our EAS eligibility based upon the 10 passenger per day statute. This request is based upon airport enplanementhistory and the fact that our air carrier suspended all air service onFebruary 1, 2014 due to a pilot shortage. Fort Dodge (Webster County, Iowa) and the region are in the middle ofa renaissance ofeconomic and community development. The region can account for nearly 10% ofthe capital investment in the entire state from 2012-2014. With the creation ofover 600 newjobs at or over above the county average wage within an 18 month period, produces more people with a higher disposal income. Notwithstanding the global companies that have been investing inthe region; Cargill, CJ Bio America, Boehringer Ingelheim, Nestle, Koch, Silgan, Poet, John Deere, etc. These global companies expect air service that will provide efficient travel to their customers, suppliers, sister facilities and headquarters. Our region is also has a unique economic development opportunity with Cargill's investment in the county. Their business model is one with which attracts "over-the-fence" or co-location companies to create efficiencies in delivering product. Iftheir model is as successful as the one in Blair, NE; the region would realize an increase of2,207jobs and an increase ofspending of$7.2 billionby 2018. 1
Not orily has the private sector invested inthe region, so hasthe public. The city ofFort Dodge and Webster County have invested over $270 Million iri public works, education, health care and quality of life amenities. The region is touted by Governor Branstad, Lt. Governor Reynolds, Director Durham and others as one ofthe fastest economic growth areas ofthe state oflowa. Air service is an essential piece to the momentous growth ofthe regionto support our companies and citizens. The termination ofour EAS eligibility will inhibit the growth ofourregion. I request that you grant this exemption consideringthe economic condition ofour region. Sincerely,



### ()

# ~~ Dennis A. Plautz CEO Greater Fort Dodge GrowthAlliance 1. Economic Development in the North Central Iowa Growth Region: Bioenergy Impacts, Goss 

### & Associates, 2014.
REF ID:A275597 

~ lll&IJOCllllOU 

THE AMERICAN CRYPTOGRAM ASSOCIATION 

Ofll.Cial Magazine "The Cryptogram" 

Office of the Editor 

Please reply to 

292 Davis Street 

Greenfield, Mass. 

July 12, 19.58 

Garrison B. Coverdale, Major General, u. s. Army 

Chief' of' Staff' 

National Security Agency 

Ft. George G. Meade, Maryland 

Dear Major General: 

Thank you for your reply = Serial N 3120 of' July 10th, 1958. 

While we did not intend ourselves to make public for our members the 

contents of the technical paper: "German Military Ciphers from February 

to November 1918", wi did, if' permitted plan on telling them where the 

material could be obtained. We have leaxmd that the University Micro-

• films, Ann ArborJ Michigan have converted a microfilm copy of this co -

text into a full-size paper-bound book, and are offering it to the general public (not merely the members of' our organization) tor $J.40. 

Do you care to comment further on this matter? 

Sincerely Yours, 

, 

I I 

William G. Bryan, Editor 

American Cryptogram Association 

16rCX~' 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 05-16-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

· ..
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 11457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04326]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; AIDS Research Review Committee 
Independent Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: March 24, 2015.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Vasundhara Varthakavi, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 5601 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, 240-669-5020, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f495e4d4b575e545e4956497f51565e565b1151565711585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eb9d8a999f838a808a9d829dab85828a828fc5858283c58c849d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 25, 2015.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-04326 Filed 3-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>