alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Aaron MCGARVEY v. STATE

CR-15-1335

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 11.1
                                     
                        APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP INC.
                                     
                     COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                     

                                       Three Months Ended   Six Months Ended
                                            June 30,            June 30,
                                       ------------------   -----------------
                                          1997    1996        1997    1996
                                         ------  ------      ------   ------

Net (loss) income for primary
  and fully diluted earnings
  per share                            $(69,876) $21,908    $(50,636) $42,234
                                       ======== ========    ========  =======

Weighted average shares
  outstanding                            51,411   50,839      51,336   50,503
Incremental shares - stock options          470    1,736         563    1,783
                                       -------- --------     -------  -------

Primary shares                           51,881   52,575      51,899   52,286
Incremental shares - stock options           17        1           9      113
                                       -------- --------     -------  -------

Fully diluted shares                     51,898   52,576      51,908   52,399
                                       ======== ========     =======  =======

Primary and fully diluted
  earnings per share                     $(1.36)  $ 0.42      $(0.99)  $ 0.81
                                        =======  =======     =======  =======
IN the INTEREST OF A.Y., K.Y., and M.Y., children.

E.Y., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-2674

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 14, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1





                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A
Amendment No. 1) of CytRx Corporation of our report dated February 27, 1998,
included in the 1997 Annual Report to Shareholders of CytRx Corporation.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of CytRx Corporation
listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.
In our opinion, as of the date of our report referred to in the preceding
paragraph, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 Nos. 33-48706 and 333-37171 pertaining to the CytRx
Corporation 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan, No. 33-93816 pertaining to the CytRx
Corporation 1994 Stock Option Plan, and No. 33-93818 pertaining to the CytRx
Corporation 1995 Stock Option Plan, and on Form S-3 Nos. 33-93820, 333-39607,
333-44043 and 333-48837 and the related Prospectuses, of our report dated
February 27, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1) of CytRx Corporation.


                                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
May 18, 1998
----

----

----

----

----

| If to Employer: CytRx Corporation11726 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 650Los Angeles, California  90049Facsimile:                  (310) 826-5529Attention:                  Chief Executive Officer |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  If to Employee: ______________________________________________________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |

----

|   | “EMPLOYER” CytRx Corporation  By:/s/ STEVEN A. KRIEGSMAN                                                               Steven A. KriegsmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |  “EMPLOYEE”  /s/ JOHN CALOZ                                                               John Caloz                                                                            |
#### Tommy FERGUSON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-138

503 S.W. 907

Opinion delivered January 21, 1974

*Donald Poe,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Alston Jennings,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Frank Holt, Justice.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of the delivery of marijuana in violation of Act 590 of 1971 as amended (Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-2617 [Repl. I960]). A two year sentence was assessed in the Department of Corrections. Appellant contends for reversal of the *918judgment that the purchaser and other youths instrumental in the purchase of the marijuana from appellant are accomplices and, therefore, their testimony, must be corroborated.

Appellant is correct in asserting that “a conviction cannot be had in any case of felony upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.” Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2116 (Repl. 1964), *Moore*v. *State,*251 Ark. 436, 472 S.W. 2d 940 (1971).

In the case at bar, however, appellant’s contention for reversal was determined adversely in the recent case of *Sweatt*v. *State,*251 Ark. 650, 473 S.W. 2d 913 (1971). There we refused to classify the purchaser in an LSD sale as an accomplice of the seller. We said:

> It is uniformly held that one who buys narcotics, intoxicating liquor, or other contraband is not an accomplice in the sale of the article, for obviously he is not selling to himself. ******[t]o be an accomplice one ‘must stand in the same relation to the crime as the person charged therewith and must approach it from the same direction.’ A buyer and a seller certainly approach the transaction from opposite poles. *###

> The reason for holding that the purchaser is not the accomplice of the seller is that the purchaser, if guilty of any crime, is guilty of a crime distinct from that for which the seller is being prosecuted.

In the instant case neither the purchaser of the marijuana nor the other witnesses *delivered*the controlled substance. Therefore, neither could be charged with that offense. Their participation would be a separate and distinct offense, if any. Consequently, the court correctly refused to give an instruction relating to the requirement that the testimony of an accomplice or accomplices must be corroborated. An instruction must be germane to the issue.

Affirmed.

Harris, C.J., not participating.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Gloria Kaye WOLFORD, Juan C. Londono, and Alexis Ceron, Respondents.

Case No. 2D17-2361

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 14, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 31.2

I, Michael A. Angerthal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Virtus Investment Partners, 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; and

(c) 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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; and

(b) 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: May 13, 2009



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ MICHAEL A. ANGERTHAL
|Michael A. Angerthal    
|Chief Financial Officer 



6
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  Exhibit 11.1


                               Urologix, Inc.
                  Computation of Net Loss Per Common Share

 
                                                Three Months Ended
                                                    September 30,
                                                  1997         1996
                                            ----------------------------
 
Net loss                                      ($2,015,660)  ($1,789,685)
                                              ===========   ===========
Weighted average common shares outstanding      9,309,896     9,128,765
                                              ===========   ===========
Loss per common share                              ($0.22)       ($0.20)
                                              ===========   ===========
#### Anthony Quintin KELLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leslie SIMPSON, Case Management Specialist; Lieutenant George B. Mcalpine; Sergeant Robert Werner; Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-6598

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Anthony Quentin Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Quentin Kelly appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible eiTor. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kelly v. Simpson, No. 1:15-cv-03647-RDB (D. Md. Apr. 12, 2016). We deny Kelly’s motions for default judgment and for a hearing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Unaudited Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 29, 1996 and
Unaudited Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Nine Months Ended
September 29, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                          43,241
<SECURITIES>                                    13,739
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,292
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,369
<INVENTORY>                                     51,818
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               182,153
<PP&E>                                         811,320
<DEPRECIATION>                                 283,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 776,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,848
<BONDS>                                        306,591
<COMMON>                                        11,606
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     246,302
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   776,815
<SALES>                                        378,307
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               378,307
<CGS>                                          333,260
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  366,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,809
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,324
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,485
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,485
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Transport Airplane Directorate

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W.

Renton, Washington 98057-3356

April 29, 2013

Mr. Oscar Hernandez

Lead Certification Engineer

LiveTV

8900 Hanger Boulevard

Orlando, FL 32827

Dear Mr. Hernandez:

We received your April 16, 2013 petition for exemption from the requirements of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.571(e)(1), for Boeing Model 757 airplanes. The 

exemption, if granted, would allow installation of Ka Band radomes on Boeing Model 757

airplanes that do not meet FAA bird-strike-damage tolerance requirements. 

This request, which you submitted to the Department of Transportation’s Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS), has been given Docket No. FAA-2013-0372. We are 

reviewing your request and will contact you if we need additional information.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Todd Martin, ANM-115 at 425-227-1178 or e-mail Todd.Martin@faa.gov.

Sincerely, 

Michael Menkin

Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service
#### Norbert J. KEILBACH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EAST WEST BANK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55472

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted January 10, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed January 27, 2017

David R. Haberbush, Attorney, Haber-bush & Associates, LLP, Long Beach, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Kathryn L. McCann, Kim Zeldin, Attorney, Attorneys, Liner LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee East West Bank

Joon W.- Song, The - Song Law Group, APLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Hanmi Bank, Hanmi Financial Corp. .

Silva Berejian, Attorney, Levon Kirako-sian, Kirakosian *&*Associates, Glendale, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Vahe Yeghi-azarian, Inc., Vahe Yeghiazarian, Jee Young Kim, aka Jee Kim

Kenneth C. Feldman, Esquire, Attorney, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard *&*Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Leslie T. Zador

Jonathan Berres Cole, Esquire, Attorney, Mark Schaeffer, Nemecek & Cole, LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Dae Woo Nam, aka Dan Dae Woo Nam, Min Cha Kim, aka Kim Min Ja, DN AM Construction, Inc.

Daniel C. Streeter, Attorney, Troutman Sanders LLP, Irvine, CA,'Lisa Nobles, Attorney, Kelly *&*Walker LLC, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee Remax Holdings, Inc.

Before: KOZINSKI and WATFORD , Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,* Senior District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Norbert J. Keilbach appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for damages allegedly resulting from violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961*et seq.*Keilbach also objects to the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend.

For the reasons stated in the district court’s order (Keilbach v. Nam, No. 2:14-cv-09827-RGK-JC (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015)), the judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1395 

To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to discount 

FHA single-family mortgage insurance premium payments for first-time 

homebuyers who complete a financial literacy housing counseling program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2021 

Mrs. BEATTY (for herself and Mr. STIVERS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

to discount FHA single-family mortgage insurance premium payments for first-time homebuyers who complete 

a financial literacy housing counseling program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Housing Financial Lit5 eracy Act of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1395 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISCOUNT ON MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUM 

2 PAYMENTS FOR FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS 

3 WHO COMPLETE FINANCIAL LITERACY HOUS4 ING COUNSELING PROGRAMS. 

5 The second sentence of subparagraph (A) of section 

6 203(c)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 

7 1709(c)(2)(A)) is amended— 

8 (1) by inserting before the comma the following: 

9 ‘‘and such program is completed before the mort10 gagor has signed an application for a mortgage to 

11 be insured under this title or a sales agreement’’; 

12 and 

13 (2) by striking ‘‘not exceed 2.75 percent of the 

14 amount of the original insured principal obligation of 

15 the mortgage’’ and inserting ‘‘be 25 basis points 

16 lower than the premium payment amount estab17 lished by the Secretary under the first sentence of 

18 this subparagraph’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Lester SWARTZ, Appellant, v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Poinciana Place Condominium Association, Inc., Lawrence Rothschild, Doc Hart, Diane Jacobs, Sheila Goldman, Jean Lader, Richard Fisher, Marvin Rosenberg, Bernie Bluestein, Harold Scherf, Joe Dickens, Arthur Gordon and William Byrne, Appellees.

No. 4D17-1797

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 19, 2018]

Lester Swartz, Port Saint Lucie, pro se.

Thomas A. Valdez of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, Tampa, and Gary I. Masel of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee, PNC Bank, National Association.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Taylor, May and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE02077

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998, THE UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998
AND THE UNAUDITED NOTES THERETO FOR PLATINUM ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             277
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,375)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,234
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,457
<PP&E>                                           2,619
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (996)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,814
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,786
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,606
<SALES>                                          8,612
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,918
<CGS>                                            5,041
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,230
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 420
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,675)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,675)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,675)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.44)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.44)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNT IS LESS PREFERRED DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS OF $695.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>