alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
             EXHIBIT 11.1-COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                     (in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Three Months Ended September 30,         Nine Months Ended September 30,
                                                                2000                 1999                2000                1999
                                                       ------------------    ----------------    ---------------     ---------------
<S>                                                  <C>                   <C>                 <C>                 <C>
Income (loss) applicable to common shares:

Net income (loss)                                            $(1,386)              $  349           $(2,860)              $1,275

                                                       ------------------    ----------------    ---------------     ---------------
       Income (loss) applicable to common shares             $(1,386)              $  349           $(2,860)              $1,275
                                                       ==================    ================    ===============     ===============

     Weighted average number of shares used for
     calculation of basic net income (loss per
     share)                                                     7,456               7,361              7,432               7,350
                                                       ==================    ================    ===============     ===============
     Weighted average number of common shares
     used for calculation of diluted net income
     (loss) per share                                           7,456               7,602              7,432               7,591
                                                       ==================    ================    ===============     ===============

    Basic and diluted net income (loss) per common
      share                                                   $(0.19)              $ 0.05           $ (0.38)              $ 0.17
                                                       ==================    ================    ===============     ===============
</TABLE>



                                       14
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Angelo, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 753]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Orange County (Kiedasch, J.), dated May 24, 2002, which, pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level three sex offender.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant’s claim that the County Court erred in designating him a level three sex offender is unpreserved for appellate review since *he did not*object to the designation on the grounds he now raises (see *People v Baker,*303 AD2d 570 [2003]). In any event, his contentions are without merit as the order was supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Ritter, JP., S. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

WCR, INCORPORATED, :

: Case No. 3:18-cv-00278 

 Plaintiff, :

: District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

vs. : Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

:

WESTERN CANADA PLATE : DECISION AND ENTRY 

EXCHANGER, LTD. :

:

 Defendant. :

———————————————— 

WCR, INCORPORATED, :

: Case No. 3:20-cv-00143 

 Plaintiff, :

: District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

vs. : Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

:

WESTERN CANADA HEAT : DECISION AND ENTRY 

EXCHANGER, LTD., et al., :

:

 Defendants. :

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington in 3:18cv00278 (ECF. No. 38), to whom this case 

was originally referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and noting that no objections have 

been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. 

It is therefore ORDERED that: 

1. The Report and Recommendations docketed on October 20, 2020 in WCR, Inc.

v. Western Canada Plate Exchanger, Ltd., 3:18cv00278 (ECF No. 38) is

ADOPTED in full;

Case: 3:18-cv-00278-TMR-SLO Doc #: 46 Filed: 11/10/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 519
2. WCR, Inc’s Motions to Consolidate in WCR, Inc. v. Western Canada Plate

Exchanger, Ltd., 3:18cv00278 (ECF No. 38) and in WCR, Inc. v. Western

Canada Heat Exchanger, Ltd., et al., 3:20cv00143 (ECF No. 14) are

GRANTED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to consolidate the above-captioned cases under

Case No. 3:18cv00278.

s/Thomas M. Rose 

Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge 

Case: 3:18-cv-00278-TMR-SLO Doc #: 46 Filed: 11/10/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 520
Timothy Lee LEEMING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-440

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Salon Media Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Conrad
Lowry, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                       /s/ Conrad Lowry
                                       ----------------
           June 28, 2006               Conrad Lowry
                                       Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Myron GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3585

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Marvin C. GILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1728

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Consent of Sheila E. Daniel
 
 I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Feasibility Study of the Rainy River Project, Ontario, Canada” effective date January 16, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.
 
 
 Dated this 28th day of March, 2014
 
 
 “Sheila E. Daniel”Name:
Sheila E. Daniel, M.Sc., P. GeoTitle:
Head Environmental Management

Senior Associate Geoscientist
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 on Form 10-K of NaviSite, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, James W. Pluntze, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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: October 22, 2003                   By: /s/ James W. Pluntze
                                             --------------------
                                         James W. Pluntze
                                         Chief Financial Officer
#### IN RE: George Thomas POTTS, Jr., Petitioner.

No. 17-1392

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

George Thomas Potts, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Thomas Potts, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted Potts’ § 2255 motion on April 26, 2017. Accordingly, because the district court has recently ruled on Potts’ motion, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
Wade Hampton TURNER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5098

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
#### Nathanael Lenard REYNOLDS, Appellant v. William DRIGGERS, Judge and Delores F. Williams, Chief Magistrate Judge, Appellees

No. 16-7018

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: March 16, 2017

Rehearing En Banc Denied June 6, 2017

Nathanael Lenard Reynolds, Pro Se

BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Millett, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

*6JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(3). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed January 20, 2016, dismissing the complaint with prejudice on the ground of judicial immunity, be affirmed. It is well established that “[a] judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts.... ” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
D.C.M., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1350

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 599 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3500 West 6th Street, Suite 103 in Los Angeles, California, as the ‘‘Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 599 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DOSAN AHN CHANG HO POST OFFICE REDESIG2 NATION. 

3 (a) REDESIGNATION.—Section 1 of Public Law 108– 

4 239 is amended by striking ‘‘3751 West 6th Street in Los 

5 Angeles, California’’ and inserting ‘‘3500 West 6th Street, 

6 Suite 103 in Los Angeles, California’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in section 1 of Public Law 

10 108–239 as amended by subsection (a) shall be deemed 

11 to be a reference to the ‘‘Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Of12 fice’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 31, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1516 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with State or 

local ballot initiatives or referenda. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2021 

Ms. PORTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

prohibit contributions and donations by foreign nationals 

in connection with State or local ballot initiatives or 

referenda. 

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 ‘‘Stop Foreign Inter5 ference in Ballot Measures Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1516 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS 

2 BY FOREIGN NATIONALS IN CONNECTION 

3 WITH BALLOT INITIATIVES AND REFERENDA. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 319(a)(1)(A) of the Fed5 eral Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 

6 30121(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘election;’’ and 

7 inserting the following: ‘‘election, including a State or local 

8 ballot initiative or referendum;’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this Act shall apply with respect to elections held in 2022 

11 or any succeeding year. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Stuart A. Tashlik, as ChiefFinancial Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Qreport for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  August 11, 2003 |                         |
|------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                         |   /s/ Stuart A. Tashlik |   |
|                         | Stuart A.  Tashlik,          |
|                         | Chief  Financial Officer     |

 

1

----
Robert MCCLURE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0209

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 13





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Annual Report of Commtouch Software Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Ido Hadari and Ron Ela, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our 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.





/s/Ido Hadari

/s/Ron ElaIdo Hadari

Ron ElaChief Executive Officer

Chief Financial OfficerJune 7, 2011

June 7, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                              330,845
<SECURITIES>                                        364,873
<RECEIVABLES>                                        24,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                          38,925
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    784,650
<PP&E>                                              446,281
<DEPRECIATION>                                      297,742
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      990,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               117,475
<BONDS>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                             28,692
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                          844,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        990,298
<SALES>                                              92,350
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     92,350
<CGS>                                                42,501
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        92,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    203,752
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    2,339
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (181,180)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (181,180)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (181,180)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.07)
        


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________________ No. 96-40593 Summary Calendar

___________________ CARL RUBIN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:96-CV-292)

October 20, 1997 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Carl Rubin Williams, Texas prisoner # 398504, filed a civil
rights action against Gary Johnson, Director of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), alleging that he was
deprived of the opportunity to have 1758 days of good time credits

restored in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. We do not
decide whether Williams should have brought his claim in a habeas
corpus application or a civil rights action because he has failed- 2 -

to state a claim for relief under either standard. See Thomas v.

Torres , 717 F.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir. 1983); cert. den ied 465 U.S.

1010 (1984).

Effe ctive 20 November 1993, TDCJ issued a directive
discontinuing the restoration of good conduct time forfeited as a

result of disciplinary violations. We have held, that this

directive does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Hallmark v.

Johnson , 118 F.3d 1073, 1078-79 (5th Cir. 1997).

To the extent that Williams raises a claim that he was
deprived of a liberty interest without due process, we review for
plain error. See United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-63

(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing U.S. v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 730-

37 (1993)), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1196 (1995)). We do not address

the issue because Williams has not demonstrated error, plain or

otherwise. Id.

AFFIRMED
Ronald E. MCBRIDE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5075

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
September 4, 2012

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations, M-30

West Building ground floor,

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Request for extension of exemption

 (Docket Number FAA-2010-1227)

SimCom Training Center is requesting and extension of our Exemption No. 10209 which 

allows relief from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.531 (a)(2); 91.531 (a)(1); 91.9 (a) 

to the extent necessary to allow SimCom to train, test, and certificate pilots to fly the 

Cessna Citation, CE500 series aircraft, Single-Pilot.

We assert that the conditions and reasons regarding the public interest and safety made in 

our original application remain unchanged.

If there are any questions or concerns, or a need for additional information, please contact 

me at (480)905-3080.

Sincerely,

William C. Gant

Bill Gant

SimCom Training Center Manager

bgant@simulator.com

(480)905-3040

7860 East McClain, Suite 1, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260

(480) 905-3040 / (800)293-3035 (480) 951-2709 Fax
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

August 27, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00713-CV

IN RE J. WOMACK, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 24, 2015, relator J. Womack filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see 

also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator appears to ask this court to issue a 

temporary restraining order against Galveston County and the state of Maryland to 

prohibit alleged violations of unspecified constitutional rights.

Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code expressly limits the 

mandamus jurisdiction of the court of appeals to: (1) writs against a “judge of a 

district or county court in the court of appeals district”; and (2) all writs necessary 
2

to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 

2004). Because the petition for writ of mandamus is not directed to a judge of a

district or county court in this court of appeals district, and the issuance of a writ of 

mandamus is not necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdiction, we have no 

jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Brown.