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


                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.1
GALAGEN INC.

STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                    ------------------------------------------
                                                        1998           1997           1996
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------
<S>                                                 <C>            <C>           <C>
BASIC LOSS PER SHARE:

Weighted average shares outstanding                   8,067,564      7,184,722      6,604,902
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------
Net loss applicable to common stockholders          $(4,520,229)   $(5,635,134)  $(14,783,591)
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------
Basic net loss per share applicable to common 
  stockholders                                            $(.56)         $(.78)        $(2.24)
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------

DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE:

Weighted average shares outstanding                   8,067,564      7,184,722      6,604,902
Dilutive potential common shares                              -              -              -
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------
Total                                                 8,067,564      7,184,722      6,604,902
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------
Net loss applicable to common stockholders          $(4,520,229)   $(5,635,134)  $(14,783,591)
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------
Diluted net loss per share applicable to common 
  stockholders                                            $(.56)         $(.78)        $(2.24)
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------
                                                    ------------   -----------   -------------
</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 10 (24)
 Layne Christensen Company  Water Infrastructure Division Incentive Compensation Plan
 Effective February 1, 2008
 SECTION  I. Definitions.
          SECTION  II. Purpose of the Plan.




---



##### 



SECTION  III. Administration.
    SECTION IV. Participation.
   SECTION V. Calculation of Benchmarks.
  SECTION VI. Generation of Bonus Pools.
   2




---



##### 



SECTION VII. Determination of Amount of Award.
   SECTION VIII. Type of Award
  SECTION IX. Termination of Employment
   SECTION X. Miscellaneous
    3




---



##### 



SECTION XI. Effective Date.
  4
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

LARRY COLTELLI, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D22-341

LT Case No. 2017-31215-FMCI

MARJORIE BLANCA BIRD COLTELLI, 

 Appellee. 

_______________________________/ 

Decision filed December 27, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Volusia County, 

Elizabeth A. Blackburn, Judge.

Gabriela A. Bonilla, of Bonilla Law,

PLLC, Orlando, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
IN REPLY' REFER TO 

REF ID :A521741. 

WAR DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SIGNAL. OFFICER 8 

WASHINGTON 

Apr.il ··g 1 1935 

Invention of Cipher Wheel Control Mechanism for a cipher 

machine of the type of Converter M-134-T2 

1. Have five toothed wheels with varying numbers of teeth, all being 

prime to one another. For example, 37, 38, 39, 41, and 43 teeth. 

2. These wheels are mounted on a common shaft but are not keyed to 

the shaft, being free to rotate independently. They are driven stepwise 

by meshing gears which mesh with the peripheral teeth for driving. The_ 

driving gears are mounted upon and keyed to a common drive shaft. 

3. Mounted on each wheel is a collar, split into two pieces so as 

to be demountable easily by removable screws. These collar rings have 

notchings in irregular sequences. The notchings on the collars of the 

different wheels are all different and can be varied at will by issue of 

new collars or new 1/2 collars. 

4. These notchings control contacts for opening and closing circuits 

to cipher wheels of cryptograph. 

5.· Switching arrangements are provided so that the toothed wheels can 

be made to control the cipher wheels permutatively. Example: Toothed wheel 

No. 1 can control cipher wheel No. 3; toothed wheel No. 2 can control cipher 

wheel No. 5, etc. 

6. Paired toothed wheels, ten in all, can be employed as an alternative 

scheme. By appropriate switching arrangements TW1 and TW6, for example, can 

be made Jointly to control one contact; TW2 and Tw9, another, etc., so that 

the ten toothed wheels control, jointly in pairs, the five contacts which open 

and close the circuits for the cipher wheel stepping magnets. This arrangement would provide for a key of enormous length and variability. 

7. Markings are provided on the periphery of the toothed wheels, for 

purposes of aligning them on a bench mark, so as to set the wheels according 

to a key.
FI RST DI VI SI ON DOYLE, REESE and SELF, JJ.
N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s Nov em ber 6, 2017



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia
A1 5 A2 26 8
. NORTON et al

. v . UNITED HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA, INC. et al

. DO-1 1 1

D O Y LE , J u d g e. In Un i t ed Hea lt h S

vcs . o f Ga ., In c. v. No rt o n , 1 t he Su p rem e Co u rt o f Geo rg i a
rev ers ed t h i s C o u r t ’ s op i n i o n i n No r to n v. Un i t ed Hea l t h S vcs . o f Ga ., In c. 2 Acco rd in g ly , we v acat e o u r p ri o r o p i n i o n , an d w e ad o p t th e o p i n i o n of t h e Su p rem e Co u rt . Th e ju d g m en t o f t h e t ri al co u rt i s affi rm ed

. Ju d gmen t a f f i r m ed. Rees e a nd

S el f , JJ.

1 3 0 0 Ga. 7 3 6 (7 9 7 SE2 d8 2 5 ) (2 0 1 7 ).
2 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p . 5 1 (7 83 SE2 d4 3 7 ) (2 0 1 6 ).
REF ID:A516620 

MEMO.-. ROUTING·: SLIP . I NEVER USE FOR APPROVALS, DISAPPROVALS, 

CONCURRENCES, OR SIMILAR ACTIONS 

t NAME OR TITLE , INITIALS CIRCULATE 

't'va. CJ. F." F ,,_.:. ,_., I 

- ORGAICZA Tiotl AND J..0CA TIOll S/Assr DATE COORDINATION 

2 - FILE 

- INFORMATION 

- 3 ~ 

. -Y NECESSARY ACTION 

)7 F 0, ~--/'r, I -

....... NOTE AND 

RETURN 

- A I . SEE ME 

- SIGNATURE 

REMARKS 

t.JI...- ~ - 4-.... r ~ ~ ~J 

~ ,.:J:.-- :..:t- :t:r ~. ~ ij...... '· ::) .. Als-4 - °'+. . 

~ ~ L-.., ~ •'-

,,...-:;-' --...-( -! ~ c-. 

,_ a.~J.., ,,,,__ _.,:J- ,......;k- ~ :..::r .!.. ~ 

~ ~ -:\' ~ ~ ..... llo.-. ~ . :;:) ~ 

~ 

. . -8 ~ c-cJ. '--- - ~~-- -.o- ...._ 

A---. .. _,,.:._..-k..,l ~ ~ '-.,..{ 1-..A. ~ ,.,., . c . r_,...T 

~ "* i-..J. ..,.. .,1..-:;k" ~ --"- ~ ~~ 

~ ~ ~ ..&-..:.., -I- - ........ , ... A~ ~· 

FROM NAME OR TITLE 

ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION 

~..2- .. p..,_ .. .. Al SA-Soi. lfl8-A 

Rcplaoos DA AGO Form 89.5, 1 Aw 48, and AFHQ Form 12, 10 Nov 47, whicb may b<l Wlod. 

DATE 

,, ~ TELEPHONE ,,2. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 04-02-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

~S"' 
·~ 

MEMO ROUTING SLIP NEVER USE FOR APPROVALS. DISAPPROVALS, 

CONCURRENCES. OR SIMILAR ACTIONS 

INITIALS 

DATE 

2 

3 

4 

REMARKS 

CIRCULATE 

COORDINATION 

FILE 

INFORMATION 

NECESSARY 

ACTION 

NOTE AND 

RETURN 

SEE ME 

SIGNATURE 

~~~~~~ 

~·~.~~~rw~ 

°'-- ~ /JV ~ O"'-'-

,, 

u ~~~ 

~. l,(rh ~· 

DD t F

FOEIMB llO 9 5 !teJ>lacaa D.A AGO Form 895, l Apr 48, and .AF.HQ Form 12, 10 Nov 47, wbiob ma1 tie used. 

•
#### Hoffman *&*Billings Manufacturing Company, Appellant, vs. Burdick and another, Respondents.

*February 4*

February *23, 1897.*

*Appeal, dismissal for insufficient return.*

Unless the affidavits' on which the court below acted in making the order appealed from are returned with the record, the supreme court will dismiss the appeal, even though they had never been filed in the court below. All papers must come to that court under the certificate of the clerk of the lower court and cannot ■*, be filed for the first time in the supreme court.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Waupaca county: Chas. M. Webb, Circuit Judge.

*Appeal dismissed.*

This was an action of replevin to recover possession of a stationary engine which formed the motive power 'of an electric lighting plant at New London. Judgment by default was rendered for the plaintiff, adjudging return of the engine or the recovery of $1,200, the adjudged value, in case delivery could not be had. The judgment was paid two days later by one Sherman, the owner of the real estate. It appears that afterwards the defendants moved upon affidavits for an order vacating the judgment. The motion was opposed and counter affidavits filed, and on March 6, 1896, the court made an order that the plaintiff pay the defendants $206.60, with motion costs, within twenty days, or that in default of such payment the judgment be vacated. From this order the plaintiff appealed.

. For the appellant there Avas a brief by *Oerrit T. Thorn,*attorney, and *W. W.*Gilman, of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Gilman.*

For the respondents the case was submitted on a brief by *Gate, Sanborn, Lamoreaux dk Parle.*

WiNslow, J.

The affidavits upon which the order appealed from was founded are not returned with the record, *343and it affirmatively appears by the certificate of the clerk that they were never filed. Thus the papers upon which the court acted in making the order are not before us. In. such case it is well settled that the court will dismiss the appeal because the return is insufficient to enable the court to review the order appealed from. *Glover v. Wells & M. Grain Co.*93 Wis. 13. It is the appellant’s duty to see that the proper return is made to this court. He could have obtained an order authorizing the filing of copies in case the originals were lost or withheld from the files. R. S. sec. 2835. Two packages of papers were produced on the argument, with the assurance that thejr were the motion papers or copies of the motion papers used below, and request was made that they be filed in this court and considered on this appeal. We cannot do this. In appeal cases all papers essential to the record must come to this court under the certificate of the clerk of the court below. *Tyson v.*Tyson, 94 Wis. 225.

*By the*Court.— Appeal dismissed.
# LEWISTOWNMUNICIPALAIRPORTBOARD

Carl Seilstad, Airport Board Chairman P0Box343 Lewistown, Montana 59457 April 8, 2013 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor, Room Wl2-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590 To Whom This May Concern: Telephone (406) 535-3264 Fax number (406) 535-5396 lwt@midrivers.com

'I• •••••••••,:: l

.......**·~\ ~~::~:;;~;~_:_:;** **.~::~::::~:~:~~:: (:.:::~~:.**  The Lewistown Airport Board formally appeals the ORDER TO SHO\Y1 :.,**C~!J.~E** ..PROPOSING TERMINATION OF ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE ELIGIBILITY, Docket DO:.J!-OST-1997-2605. This Order terminates the eligibility ofLewistown under the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. The Board requests an Order reprieve oftwo (2) years in order to have the opportunity to increase the passenger numbers out ofLewistown. The Airport passenger numbers were much higher two years ago when there was a flight from Lewistown, MT to Denver, CO and we have genuine community support for the reestablished Lewistown to Denver flights. Listed are compelling reasons for continued EAS funding for Lewistown air service: • The airline is the only public ttal.J.SpOrtation out ofLewistown as there is no longer bus or train service; • Loss ofair service would cripple an already struggling local economy and have an adverse impact on future business growth; • Montana is the 4th largest state and being a small community, Lewistown and Fergus County residents have great driving distances to destination hubs. Ifyou have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me by telephone at 406-535-5119 or by email at cseilstad@co.fergus.mt.us Thank you for your consideration ofour appeal and request. Respectfully submitted,

# tf.J~ Carl Seilstad Board Chairman Lewistown Municipal Airport
,-

&"«>MIDUM l'Olt t8S SJSCll'lA:JJ 01 D.D'DBZ 

A.1'?11 ... J ••• ~ia 

SUD.JICf i 8'1perO'Me U\W•'-lon 

•rial• N 1254 

l. a.flft"enee °"" telQilOllO COQvenaUoa a 19 Apiil 1961, 

I will t.iaive tlut •wrial ,.,_.w aw.i lMle at t..11e ti&Uoa&l 

Secmi~~ jJln-::y on w attar a8 April 1961. 

2. l have 4•lgq&ted :or. M!Ma'ice Ii. ia.tn, ff8A fdl'\tctor 

ot ~r u4 fa...al,. to give )Oil ~ uaistance ;ioi rtMpl1n 

-- 10\1- ~ ~ ........... 

<:.op,- J"\u'niabed: 

t.. n. FJDT 

l/icil Maial., tBI 

1.)1:rHtor 

1Jeaanal ~. B. n.ld.M,. UISNC•8et1 

AUt. to S.cDet, Sp Op09 

M/R AND DISTRIBt11'IOlf AT'rACBED 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 10-09-2013 pursuantto E.O. 1352e 
.. 

ec: J>II 

AD 

Beading File 

nBS 

11./B: 8el.t-uplanatory. 

REF ID:A43699 

Serial: N 125'~ 

MAURICE K. D.Em, D/n,Bs, 3755,. 20 Apr 61, 'bp
97-2247.

#### State v. Bey.

Lucas App. No. L-94-003. Reported at 85 Ohio St.3d 487, 709 N.E.2d 484. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Resnick, J., not participating.
exv4w6











Exhibit 4.6




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

STONE ENERGY CORPORATION

2009 AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN




     WHEREAS, STONE ENERGY CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), has heretofore
adopted the STONE ENERGY CORPORATION 2009 AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (the “Plan”);
and



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows:



     1. The first sentence of Paragraph V(a) of the Plan shall be deleted and the following shall
be substituted therefor:




“Subject to adjustment in the same manner as provided in Paragraph IX with respect
to shares of Common Stock subject to Options then outstanding, the aggregate number
of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan, and the maximum number
of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan through Incentive Stock
Options, shall not exceed 8,525,000 shares (which number includes the
number of shares of Common Stock previously issued pursuant to an award (or made subject to an
award that has not expired or been terminated) granted under the Plan, the 2004
Plan, the 2001 Plan, the 2000 Plan, or the 1993 Plan); provided, however, that the
aggregate number of shares shall not include any shares of Common Stock issued
pursuant to an automatic “Bonus Stock Award” (as defined in and granted under the
provisions of the 2004 Plan).”



     2. This amendment to the Plan shall be effective as of the date of the 2011 annual meeting of
the Company’s stockholders provided that this amendment to the Plan is approved by the stockholders
of the Company at such meeting. If this amendment to the Plan is not so approved at such meeting,
then this amendment to the Plan shall be void ab initio.



     3. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.


Approved on May 20, 2011.
99-1016.

#### State v. Lantz.

Perry App. No. 99CA14. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Perry County. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a merit brief, due July 20, 1999, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sua sponte.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000


<S>                           <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>               Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                 Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                       10
<SECURITIES>                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                0
<ALLOWANCES>                 0
<INVENTORY>                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             0 <F1>
<PP&E>                       0
<DEPRECIATION>               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               10
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        0 <F1>
<BONDS>                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        0
<PREFERRED>                  0
<COMMON>                     10
<OTHER-SE>                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 10
<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-BASIC>                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                0



</TABLE>
~ \ -

ll .:R. G. :Bi\KER 

VICE PRESIDENT" 

Mr. William 1'. Fried.man 

National Security Agency 

Washington 25, D.C. 

De~ Mr. :Fried.man: 

REF ID:A66197 

GENERAL EIBCTRIC 

COMPANY 

SmACUSI# NEW YORK 

lebruary 17, 1954-

I ba.ve received the list of names in your letter ar Feb. ll, 19~41 Serial lfo. 743, very carefully •• 

! f'eel that you have a. very small cbance ot' attracting the ~n ot the 

caliber listed, The position of Deputy Director tor Research and Develq;,ment 

is certainly an iil\lortant position and one that will be a challenge to any 

one. At this same time, even though you are able to get a G8•l8 rating tar 

the position, the very Mture or it will restrict the mem to praot1call.y no 

outside activities. This will cause mny ot those connected with educational 

inBtitutions to refuse to accept the position. Thia 1s due to the :tact that 

m<)st of the college professors today receive a con&iderabl.e portion ot their 1nco~ ~rem outside consultant aetivitiee 'Without interrerence with their 

college duties. 

At this same time, those vho a.re Of' a like caliber and connected. with 

industry are generally' receiving compensation equivalent to that of a 08·18 

These people have considerable latitude in their work, a.nd I do. not teel 

are restricted 8' I voul.d visualize s. ~ occupying this poettion will be. 

Of those contained in your liet, l feel the.t Mr. ~ Jeffries (recently 

retired. from General Electric) would probably give seriOU8 consideration to 

accept1og thia position. 

Fell rather ceJ:ta,in that Dr. George L. Haller would be extremezy interested 

in the position a.a a challenge to him protesaione.Uy, but that be could not 

af'f ord to accept it due to hie outside contacts and his predent position as 

the Dean ot Chemistry and Ptqaics, Pennsylvania State University. 

You might a.dd Mr- Urner Lid.ell, who va8 With the Navy Department for a 

while and. 'Who 1a now with Bend.ix to the list of possible candidates, and a.lap 

Dr. Thomae J. Killian, who was aleo connected. with the Ha.vy Pepa.rt~nt. You 

will find biographical •ketches or these two gentlemen in 1'Wh.O t. 'Who in 

Science." 

Ho.Pe the above intonation ia of some value to you. 

Sincerely, 

I•/ w. tt. G. MXER 

l!\pproved for Release by NSA on 07-23-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352e
e 

USCIB: 29.11/3 

'i'9P SEl0Riff • 'f:J .S. EfilS ONLY 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE Ml!MBEBS OF USCIR: 

Subject: 

Ref'erence: USCIB 29.11/2 of' 18 February 1954. 

2 March 1954 

EO 3.3(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

31 

1. The USCIB Executive Committee considered the reference at its 

Eleventh Meeting on 26 February 1954. 

2. The Executive Committee agreed that the enclosure' to the 

reference involves a matter of major policy within the meaning of paragraph 2 of USCIB Directive Number 2 and recommends to the Board that: 

With the understanding that the nature of' the problem is such as 

to require prior consideration by cognizant U.S. authorities (and hence 

by the Board) of any specific commitment under consideration, USCIB 

approve the enclosure to the reference with the following changes: 

I. Substantive Changes 

a. Delete subparagraph 3b. 

b. Delete paragraph 4. 

II. Consequential F.ditorial Changes 

a. Change the period at the end of the text of paragraph 3 

to a colon. 

b. In paragraph 3 delete the subparagraph designation 11a." 

c. Renumber paragraph 5. 

,3. The above deletions are recommended by USCIBEC in order to 

limit the paper to only ~at can be considered as possible quid pro quo 

without consulting the U.K., having in mind the fact that there is more 

to be added to any list of things that cannot be considered without 

consulting the U.K. 

4. This item will be placed on the agenda for consideration at 

the next regular meeting' of USCIB. 

USCIB: 29. ll/.3 

TOP SECR:E'F 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-24-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a