alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                             PHOTON DYNAMICS, INC.
 
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 
                     (In thousands, except per share data)
 
Primary and Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   YEAR ENDED
                                                                    SEPTEMBER
                                                                       30,
                                                                   -----------
                                                                   1996  1995
                                                                   ----- -----
   <S>                                                             <C>   <C>
   Net income..................................................... $ 854 $ 377
   Reduction of interest expense related to modified treasury
   stock method...................................................    --    26
                                                                   ----- -----
   Adjusted net income............................................ $ 854 $ 403
   Computation of weighted average common and common equivalent
    shares outstanding:
     Common stock................................................. 7,387   963
     Convertible preferred shares.................................    -- 3,482
     Options and warrants.........................................    --   518
     Shares related to SAB No. 55, 64, and 83.....................    --   462
                                                                   ----- -----
   Total weighted average common and common equivalent shares
   outstanding.................................................... 7,387 5,425
                                                                   ----- -----
   Net income per share........................................... $0.12 $0.07
                                                                   ===== =====
</TABLE>
#### Kendall Dyre *vs.*Josias Sturges.

case *wm~*

decree.

A defendant oSymfharg&-tl,ie bill, and there be-íng no evi-to^®®^0?^' missed. A de-*554fendimt Ing accounta-in ney, milting that 011 and^dfs-chN£e ing- that he paH itaway.

*553[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, Charleston,

March, 1813.]

THIS is a bill of recovery, to ascer^n by the oath of the defendant, whether a note which the complainant Dyre drew in December, 1800, for *$*407, in favor of E. Collin, was not a loan or accommodation note to the fendant, Josias Sturges, and which the said complainant alledges the said Josias Sturges agreed and promised take up and satisfy when it became due $ but which did not take up, and complainant was- obliged to pay, *554and has the same in his • possession. The complainant states that he has brought suit at law for the recovery. °f the said money j but not being able to prove the same/ demand was rejected by the jury.

The defendant in his answer admits that the complai-brought suit at lawr for the recovery of the money question 5 but he was non-suited because his demand' not f°unded in justice. The defendant admits that the complainant did give such a note as he mentions $ but not on account of this defendant, who had no intc-in that transaction; but it was a loan for the use of Mr. E. Coffin, and it was paid out of *the funds of this defendant;*that it may be true that the complainant took up tiie said note when lodged for collection at the' bank, but that this defendant paid to complainant íSsoff' in cash, and gave a due-bill for the balance.

The defendant has thus positively denied the allegation of the bill, that the note was an accommodation to defendant on his own account / and this directly negatives the only claim made by the bill. But he admits, however, that it was a loan at his instance for the use of E. Coffin $ and he adds that he himself has paid and settled the note. There was'no engagement in writing tp bind defendant to pay the debt of Mr. Coffin. It depends therefpre wholly oh the defendant’s confession and statement of the transaction ; and by that statement he has paid off the demand and is not liable. And this he is at liberty to do *;*for if an executor or other person admits in his answer that he has received certain sums' of money, whiph sums he has paid away or settled, and thus discharging himself, he is at liberty to do so, and it will avail him- provided *it be*stated relative to the same transactl A The lapse of time too, which would have been a bar at law under the statute of limitations, is unfavorable to the claim, even if it rested on a stronger equitable ground. It is ordered and decreed that the bill be dismissed.

There was no appeal.
Exhibit 32.2

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned certifies that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

|Dated: February 29, 2008 |  | /s/MARSHA H. FANUCCIMarsha H. Fanucci
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal financial officer) |  | 
|------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUG 6, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-10860

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 06-01705-CV-BBM-1

GEORGE A. LOGAN,

PlaintiffCounter DefendantAppellant,

versus

MAJOR DAMIAN G. FINCH, Individually, Jointly, and in his official capacity,

SGT. J.P. BOGOLIN, Individually, Jointly, and in his official capacity, et al.,

DefendantsCounter ClaimantsAppellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(August 6, 2007)

Before BIRCH, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
 Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard sent a letter to Logan’s criminal attorney 1

which stated that “[a]lthough police were justified in arresting Mr. Logan under the circumstances

with which they were presented, my communication with officials at the Public Safety Training

Center of Georgia suggest that successful prosecution is not likely. In light of your client’s service

to the City of Atlanta and his status as a retired officer, I have decided not to proceed on the charges

against him.” (R.1-23 Ex. 4.)

2

George A. Logan appeals following the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of Major Damian G. Finch, Sergeant Joseph Bogolin, Officer

Zachery Kramer, Officer David Clemmons, Chief Richard Pennington, and the City

of Atlanta, Georgia. Bogolin, Clemmons, Kramer, and Finch arrested Logan, a

retired City of Atlanta police officer, for the felony of impersonating an officer in

violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-23. Although he was arrested for the crime, he was not

indicted. Subsequent to the arrest and the decision not to proceed on the charges,

1

Logan filed this suit. 

The district court granted summary judgment to all individual defendants, but

ordered the City of Atlanta to provide proof it did not maintain liability insurance for

incidents involving false arrest or police brutality against its citizens within ten days.

The City did so and the court then granted summary judgment in favor of the City.

This appeal followed. 

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, using the

same legal standards used by the district court. Having thoroughly reviewed the
3

briefs and the record on appeal, we hold that the district court properly granted all

defendants summary judgment. 

AFFIRMED.
*Laurens, Washington District.*

Heard by Chancellor James.

#### Judith Williams, per prochein ami, *vs.*Josiah Williams.

A husband abused and ill treated his wife, so as to drive her from his house — and he kept a mistress in his house under the eyes of his children. Thé court decreed alimony to the wife ¡ and that the daughters should be removed from under the pare of the husband, and placed under the care of the wifí, and an allowance made out of the father’s income for their maintenance and support.

The complainant filed her bill to obtain alimony from her husband, on account of extreme ill usage and cruelty to her, and thus driving her from his bouse, and keeping a woman of bad character in the house with his family, several of whom were daughters.

JUNE 1811

The defendant denied the cruelty and ill treatment j apd denied that he had ever struck the complainant ex,*184Cf>.pt once, and that by accident, for which he solicited and obtained her forgiveness. He admitted that they had latterly lived unhappily together, which he attributed to the interference of her relations, who stimulated her to leave him and his house, and to seek the peace against him; and that he had been bound over to keep the peace. The defendant stated, that, he was anxious for her return to him; and he offered to receive her home.

The case came to a hearing, and the evidence was very strong and clear as to the ill usage and abuse of the wife; and also, as to the misconduct of the husband in keeping a mistress in his house, and under the observation of his children.

"Whereupon the chancellor made the following decree :

This was an application" on”the part of the wife for alimony. She proved such intolerable cruelty towards her on the part of the husband, that his counsel abandoned his cause, and the court conceived itsejf bound to decree to the complainant suitable alimony. The complainant also proved such abandoned and flagitious conduct on the part of the defendant, in keeping a mistress in his house, and under the observation of his children, that the court was induced to take away from his guardianship the three daughters, to wit, Louisa, Ann and Martha, and to place them under the guardianship of the wife, with suitable maintenance for their education from the father.

Therefore, it is ordered' and decreed, That the commissioner do take into account and state the one third part of the nett amount of defendant’s income, and also, what sum will he sufficient to board and educate the daughters, and that the said sums respectively be allowed to the complainant for alimony and the maintenance and education of the daughters, and that defendant do pay the costs of this suit.

W. X>. James.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, W. Gordon Lancaster, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ivanhoe Energy
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:  a.)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b.)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based
on such evaluation; andc.)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting;  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors:  a.)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting. * * * Date: November 2, 2004 Chief Financial Officer By:     /s/ W. Gordon Lancaster
      
    W. Gordon Lancaster
EX-10.70



 Confidential treatment has been sought for portions of this Agreement. The copy filed herewith omits the
information subject to the confidential treatment request. Omissions are designated as * * *. A complete version of this exhibit has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Exhibit 10.70 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT No. 1 TO
DEVELOPMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into on March 18th, 2013 (the “Execution Date”) and made retroactive to January 1, 2013 (the “Effective Date of the Amendment”), by and between
DURECT Corporation (“Durect”) and Zogenix, Inc. (“Zogenix”). 
 WHEREAS, Durect and Zogenix are parties to a Development and
License Agreement dated July 11, 2011 (the “DLA”), and 
 WHEREAS, the parties now wish to amend the DLA as provided for herein.

 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and promises contained in this Amendment, the parties hereby agree as
follows: 
  

	 	1.	As of the Effective Date of the Amendment, Schedule 1.21 of the DLA is replaced and superseded in its entirety by Schedule 1.21 attached hereto and made a part hereof.


  

	 	2.	All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the same meanings that are ascribed to them in the DLA. 


 

	 	3.	Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the DLA shall remain unchanged and continue in full force and effect as provided therein. This Amendment and the DLA
constitute the complete, final and exclusive understanding and agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter of the DLA, and supersede any and all prior or contemporaneous negotiations, correspondence, understandings and agreements,
whether oral or written, between the parties respecting the subject matter of the DLA. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment in duplicate originals by their authorized
officers on the Execution Date. 

 



			
	 DURECT CORPORATION

		
	By:	  	/s/ Matthew J. Hogan
		
	Name:	  	Matthew J. Hogan
		
	Title:	  	Chief Financial Officer


 




			
	 ZOGENIX, INC.

		
	By:	  	/s/ Roger Hawley
		
	Name:	  	Roger Hawley
		
	Title:	  	CEO

  

 


  
 1 








 Confidential treatment has been sought for portions of this Agreement. The copy filed herewith omits the
information subject to the confidential treatment request. Omissions are designated as * * *. A complete version of this exhibit has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Schedule 1.21 

Durect Development Costs 

Durect Development Costs [***]. 
  

	(i)	[***] 

  

			
	Rank (Standard Rate)	  	Hourly FTE Rate
	[***]	  	[***]
	[***]	  	[***]
	[***]	  	[***]
		  	
	Rank (Preclin/Non-Clin Rate)	  	Hourly FTE Rate
	[***]	  	[***]
	[***]	  	[***]
	[***]	  	[***]

 [***] 
 Example:
[***] 
  
  
  

	(ii)	[***] 

  

	(iii)	[***] 


  
 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gerald D. Schiefelbein, Chief Financial Officer of Ivanhoe Energy Inc. (the Company), hereby
certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



| | (a) | the Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013 (the Form 10-Q), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related interpretations; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*     *     *



|                     |  |                           
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------
|By:                  |  | /s/ Gerald D. Schiefelbein
|                     |  | Gerald D. Schiefelbein    
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer   
|                    
|Date: August 8, 2013
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00720-CV

AGD, L.P. AND ANABELL CARDONA

v.

QUEST PRINCIPAL INVESTMENTS, INC., JUAN LEAL, RAUL A. PENA, MD, RUBEN 

CASTILLA AND RSRA, L.P.

On Appeal from the

332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-1526-08-F

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 20, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 21235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08874]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1496-000]


2014 ESA Project Company, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
2014 ESA Project Company, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is May 4, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9adcdfc8d9d5f4f6f3f4ffc9efeaeaf5e8eedafcffe8f9b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="377172657478595b5e595264424747584543775152455419505841">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 13, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08874 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification pursuant toSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

I, David Obstler, the ChiefFinancial Officer, Executive Vice President of Corporate Development &Strategy and Treasurer of Pinnacor Inc. (the “Company”), certify that(i) the Company’s 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and (ii) the information contained in such 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofPinnacor Inc.

 

 
|  /s/ David Obstler                                                    |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| David  Obstler, CFO, EVP of Corp. Development & Strategy and Treasurer |   |
| Date:  August 14, 2003                                                |   |
|                                                                            |        |  |  |

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toPinnacor Inc. and will be furnished to the SEC upon request.

 

----