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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                          PHYCOR, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

              Statement regarding computation of per share earnings

            Three months and six months ended June 30, 1997 and 1996

     (All amounts are expressed in thousands, except for earnings per share)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED        SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                             JUNE 30,                 JUNE 30,
                                                       -----------------         -----------------
                                                       1997         1996          1997      1996
                                                       ----         ----          ----      ----
<S>                                                   <C>           <C>          <C>       <C>   
Earnings per common share:

    Net income                                        $   13,706     8,419       26,013    16,109
                                                      ==========    ======       ======    ======

    Earnings per common share                         $      .20       .14          .39       .27
                                                      ==========    ======       ======    ======

    Weighted average common
         shares outstanding                               68,191    60,669       65,932    60,377
                                                      ==========    ======       ======    ======

Earnings per common share, assuming full dilution:

    Net income                                        $   13,706     8,419       26,013    16,109
                                                      ==========    ======       ======    ======

    Earnings per common share                         $      .20       .14          .39       .27
                                                      ==========    ======       ======    ======

    Weighted average common
         shares outstanding                               74,803    67,121       72,183    65,752
                                                      ==========    ======       ======    ======
</TABLE>


 Note:    The convertible debentures were not included in the calculation of 
          the fully diluted earnings per share since the effect of inclusion
          would be antidilutive.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-111

James A. Imes 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 17) that the

defendant’s guilty pleas be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s pleas of guilty to Counts 1 through 4 of the

information, and he is hereby adjudged guilty on those counts. The

court will defer the decision of whether to accept the plea

agreement until the sentencing hearing.

Date: July 2, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/02/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 51
#### Martin LASHER, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 397, Docket 29338.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 19, 1965.

Decided March 24, 1965.

Lionel Alan Marks, New York City, for petitioner.

Philip A. Loomis, Jr., S. E. C., Washington, D. C. (Walter P. North and Jacob H. Stillman, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent.

Before MOORE, KAUFMAN and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, Martin Lasher, seeks to review an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commis*469sion) denying his petition for a rehearing of the Commission’s decision finding him to have wilfully violated certain sections of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C.A. § 77q(a), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 78j(b), 78o(e) (1), and to have been a cause for the revocation of the registration of Armstrong & Co., Inc., as a broker and dealer, on the ground that a witness is now willing to testify that petitioner was an innocent victim of the president of Armstrong & Co., Inc. The Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and it properly concluded that further evidence of the type proffered would serve no purpose.

The order denying the petition for a rehearing is affirmed.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-946]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 2, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 2, 2022.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, 
                        ( print page 4944)
                        Virginia 22152. All request for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 7, 2021, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 2898 Manufacturers Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27406-4600, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled
                             substance
Drug
                             code
ScheduleRemifentanil
9739
II
 The company plans to import the above controlled substance as a Federal Drug Administration-approved drug product in finished dosage form for commercial distribution to its customers. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Brian S. Besser, Acting Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2022-01817 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

VISKASE COMPANIES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

WORLD PAC INTERNATIONAL AG, WORLD PAC

INTERNATIONAL USA, and SUN PRODUCTS 

MARKETING UND MANUFACTURING AG, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

____________________ 

2011-1256 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois in Case No. 09-CV-5022, 

Judge Elaine E. Bucklo. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

BRADFORD P. LYERLA, Jenner & Block LLP, of 

Chicago, Illinois, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him 

on the brief were JEFFREY A. KOPPY, ALEXANDER 

ROZENBLAT, and PETER H. HANNA. Of counsel on the brief 

was ELAINE J. GOLDENBERG, of Washington, DC. 
GARY A. ROSEN, Law Offices of Gary A. Rosen, P.C., of 

Ardmore, Pennsylvania, argued for defendantsappellants. Of counsel on the brief were JOHN D.

SIMMONS, STEPHEN E. MURRAY, and DENNIS J. BUTLER, 

Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel, LLP, of 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Of counsel was JAMES K.

BORCIA, Tressler LLP, of Chicago, Illinois. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

March 13, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
Reconstruction is included in the NPIAS when normal maintenance procedures are no

longer economical and effective.

STANDARDS

Standards projects include development to bring existing airports up to design criteria

recommended by the FAA. This is the largest development category, accounting for

37 percent of the NPIAS, up from 21 percent in the 1993 report. This is due largely to a

change in how the FAA classifies certain types of development. FAA now classifies

apron expansion, taxiway construction, and other development to accommodate

additional aircraft at uncongested airports as standards rather than capacity, as it was in

the past.

Many commercial service airports were designed up to 50 years ago to serve relatively

small and slow aircraft, but are now being used by larger and faster turboprop and jet

aircraft. As a result, runways and taxiways must be relocated to provide greater clearance

for aircraft with long wing spans, and aircraft parking areas must be adapted to

accommodate larger aircraft. Standards development at general aviation and reliever

airports is generally justified to accommodate a substantial number of operations by

"critical" aircraft with sizes and operating characteristics that were not foreseen at the

time of original construction. If it is not undertaken, aircraft may be required to limit fuel

or passenger loads because of inadequate runway length. The FAA usually requires an

indication that an aircraft type will account for at least 500 annual itinerant operations at

an airport before development is included in the NPIAS to accommodate it.

ENVIRONMENT

Environment includes development to achieve an acceptable balance between airport

operational requirements and the expectations of residents of the surrounding area for a

quiet and wholesome environment. This development supplements the large noise

reductions that are being achieved by quieter aircraft and the use of noise abatement

procedures. It accounts for 5 percent of NPIAS costs and includes the relocation of

households and soundproofing of residences and public buildings in areas underlying

aircraft approach and departure paths. Most of the cost is for land acquisition in fee

simple or easements to compensate property owners for overflights. Environmental costs

are concentrated at airports with frequent flights by jet aircraft (43 percent large hubs,

29 percent medium hubs, 16 percent small hubs,S percent nonhubs, and 6 percent reliever

airports). This development is part of an extensive Federal and industry program,

involving land use planning, quieter aircraft, and noise abatement procedures, that has

reduced the estimated number of people exposed to significant noise by approximately

75 percent since 1975 (see figure 7 on page 18).

38
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of BrandPartners Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,
hereby certifies 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





BY:
              /S/ James F. BrooksJames
      F. BrooksChief
      Executive Officer, Presidentand
      Interim Accounting OfficerMarch
      30, 2009





A SIGNED
ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO
THE ISSUER AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE ISSUER AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### People v Whittaker,

No. 90869;

reported below: 187 Mich App 122.
Exhibit 32.2



MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE & EQUITY, LLC

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350

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



In connection with the annual report of Municipal Mortgage &
Equity, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lisa Roberts, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: March 25, 2014

| |                         |  |  | 
| | ----------------------- |  |  | 
| |                         | 
| | /s/Lisa M. Roberts      | 
| | Lisa M. Roberts         | 
| | Chief Financial Officer | 
|





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC and will be retained by Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         776,290
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  255,522
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    776,244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       7,930,231
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,738,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,911,604
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,738,287
<SALES>                                        388,360
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,782,766
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,034,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               160,526
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               100,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             203,131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                748,322
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            748,322
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   748,322
<EPS-BASIC>                                       5.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.36


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

DERRICK SWEETING, Case No. 1:17-cv-727 

Plaintiff, 

Dlott, J. 

vs Bowman, M.J. 

THOMAS SCHWEIGTZER, et al., 

Defendants. 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Lebanon Correctional Institution, brings this action 

against defendants Thomas Schweitzer, Major Spurlock, Lt. Husbard, Lt. Couch, Lt. 

Shankin, and Sgt. Mrs. Hilis. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion 

for subpoena, motion for Rule 31 deposition and motion to appoint counsel. The 

motions will be addressed in turn. 

A. Motion to Serve Rule 45 Subpoena and Motion for Rule 31 Deposition 

Plaintiff’s motions purportedly seek to subpoena and /or depose two non-party 

LeCI prison officials. However as noted by Defendants, Fed. R. Civ. P. 31 does not require 

a party to make a formal motion for a written deposition. Rather, Plaintiff is required to 

complete Ohio Southern District Form AO88A and pay fees incurred under 18 U.S.C. § 

1821. Notably, at this time, the Court nor Defendants will be expected to absorb the costs 

associated with his proposed depositions. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 

21, 25) are herein DENIED as MOOT. 
2 

B. Motion to Appoint Counsel 

Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel will be denied based upon the 

general principle that civil litigants have no constitutional right to the appointment of 

counsel at government expense. See Anderson v. Sheppard, 856 F.2d 741 (6th Cir. 

1988). Plaintiff’s complaint is legible and articulate and he has adequately represented 

himself in this matter through the date of this decision. At this stage, Plaintiff has failed 

to demonstrate the type of exceptional circumstances that would justify the rare 

appointment of free counsel for a pro se civil litigant. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 

605 606 (6th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion requesting counsel (Doc. 26) are 

DENIED.

s/Stephanie K. Bowman 

 Stephanie K. Bowman 

 United States Magistrate Judge
AO 245D (Rev. 09/19) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations

Sheet 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

__________ District of __________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

v. (For Revocation of Probation or Supervised Release)

Case No.

USM No.

THE DEFENDANT: Defendant’s Attorney

G admitted guilt to violation of condition(s) of the term of supervision.

G was found in violation of condition(s) count(s) after denial of guilt.

The defendant is adjudicated guilty of these violations:

Violation Number Nature of Violation Violation Ended

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to

the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

G The defendant has not violated condition(s) and is discharged as to such violation(s) condition.

It is ordered that the defendant must notify the United States attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are

fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must notify the court and United States attorney of material changes in

economic circumstances.

Last Four Digits of Defendant’s Soc. Sec. No.:

Date of Imposition of Judgment

Defendant’s Year of Birth:

City and State of Defendant’s Residence: Signature of Judge

Name and Title of Judge

Date

Date of Imposition of Jud

Signature of Judge

 Southern District of Ohio

Seth Nezat

1:18-cr-109-12

19691-104

Kevin Tierney

✔ 1-3

1 Must report to the probation officer as instructed 01/31/2022

2 Shall participate in drug and/or alcohol treatment 02/16/2022

3 Must submit to substance abuse testing 02/17/2022

2

8785 08/29/2022

1972

Cincinnati, Ohio

Douglas R. Cole - U.S. District Judge

08/29/2022

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 264 Filed: 08/29/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1788
AO 245D (Rev. 09/19) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations

Sheet 2— Imprisonment

Judgment — Page of

DEFENDANT:

CASE NUMBER:

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total

term of :

G The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:

G The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

G The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

G at G a.m. G p.m. on .

G as notified by the United States Marshal.

G The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons:

G before 2 p.m. on .

G as notified by the United States Marshal.

G as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

Defendant delivered on to

at with a certified copy of this judgment.

UNITED STATES MARSHAL

By

DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

2 2

Seth Nezat

1:18-cr-109-12

5 months with credit for time served

✔

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 264 Filed: 08/29/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1789