alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1



                         ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Three Months Ended June 30,          Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                                -----------------------------       -----------------------------
                                                                    1997             1996               1997              1996
                                                                -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
<S>                                                             <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>         

Net Loss                                                        $    (4,699)      $    (3,226)      $    (9,267)      $    (5,892)
                                                                ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

Weighted average common shares outstanding                            8,496             8,299             8,467             7,886

Common shares and options granted (using the treasury
    stock method assuming an initial public offering price
    of $12.00) since December 15, 1994 included pursuant
    to Securities and Exchange Commission Rules                        --                 167              --                 167
                                                                -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------

Weighted average common and equivalent shares                         8,496             8,466             8,467             8,053
                                                                ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

Net loss per common and equivalent share                        $     (0.55)      $     (0.38)      $     (1.09)      $     (0.73)
                                                                -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
</TABLE>
# EPA Registration Jacket

86828-1______________________________________________________________

Page _ is not included in this copy.

Pages 161 through 164 are not included in this copy.

_______________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of
information:

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

_____ Identity of product impurities.

_____ Description of the product manufacturing process.

_____ Description of quality control procedures.

_____ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

__X__ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

_____ FIFRA registration data.

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______.

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

_____ Proprietary information pertaining to the chemical composition of an inert ingredient provided by the source of the ingredient.

_____ Attorney-Client Privilege.

_____ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the

Agency.

_____ Internal Deliberative Information.

* The information not included is generally considered confidential by product registrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.

_________________________________________________________________
#### Amr MOHSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55606

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Amr Mohsen, Pro Se

William Francis Sullivan, Attorney, Paul Hastings LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Amr Mohsen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); *Jones v. Blanas,*393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal based on the applicable statute of limitations). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Mohsen’s action was proper on the basis of claim preclusion because Mohsen’s claims were raised or could have been raised in a previous action between the parties or their privies that resulted in a final adjudication on the merits. *See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,*244 F.3d 708, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing claim preclusion elements under federal law); *see also Clements v. Airport Auth. of Washoe Cty.,*69 F.3d 321, 329-30 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing the court’s *314ability to overlook waiver and raise sua sponte claim preclusion).

The district court did not err by taking judicial notice of documents filed in Mohsen’s criminal case. *See Lee v. City of Los Angeles,*250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (a court may take judicial notice of matters of public record without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment).

Mohsen’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

Mohsen’s request to reassign this case to a different district court judge, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration  Statement No.
333-114496,  333-121039,  and  333-128547  on Form  S-3 and No.  333-116014  and
333-122716  on Form S-8 of Gasco  Energy,  Inc.  ("Gasco") of our reports  dated
February  27,  2007  relating  to  our  audits  of  the  consolidated  financial
statements  and  internal  control  over  financial  reporting,  included in and
incorporated  by  reference  in the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Gasco for the
year ended December 31, 2006.


/s/ HEIN & ASSOCIATES LLP

Denver, Colorado
February 27, 2007
#### Ignacio E. CASTILLO, Jr., Claimant-Appellant v. David J. SHULKIN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee

2016-1539

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: April 10, 2017

Kenneth M. Carpenter, Law Offices of Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.

Mollie Lenore Finnan, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr„ Martin F. Hockey; Brian D. Griffin, Christina Lynn Gregg, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

*958Before Lourie, Moore, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

Ignacio E. Castillo, Jr. (“Castillo”) appeals from a final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“the Board”) decision granting him a 30% initial disability rating. *See Ignacio E. Castillo, Jr. v. Robert A, McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,*No. 14-1498, 2015 WL 6605543 (Vet. App. Oct. 30, 2015).

The scope of our review in an appeal from the Veterans Court is limited. We may review the validity of a decision with respect to a rule of a law or interpretation of a statute or regulation that was relied upon by the Veterans Court in making its decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) (2002). Except with respect to constitutional issues, this Court “may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determination, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” *Id.*at § 7292(d)(2).

Despite Castillo’s attempts to frame his arguments as legal challenges, his appeal, at its core, seeks to impermissibly challenge the Board’s application of law to the facts of his case. Thus, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED
# Euroopa Liidu C 19A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0898
  doi:10.3000/19770898.CA2014.019.est |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 19A |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 57. köide22. jaanuar 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0898

doi:10.3000/19770898.CA2014.019.est

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 19A

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

57. köide22. jaanuar 2014

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Teated |
| | HALDUSMENETLUSED |
| | Euroopa Ravimiamet |
| 2014/C 019A/01 | Tühistamise teade | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

V   Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Euroopa Ravimiamet

2014/C 019A/01

Tühistamise teade

1

Ülevaade ELT C-seeria A-osas avaldatud konkursiteadetest

Allpool on esitatud loetelu käesoleva aasta C-seeria A-osas avaldatust.

Kui ei ole märgitud teisiti, on ELTd trükitud kõigis keeltes.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |

5

6

11

19

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

V Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Euroopa Ravimiamet

| 22.1.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 19/1

---

Tühistamise teade

(2014/C 19 A/01)

Euroopa Ravimiamet on otsustanud tühistada järgmised valikumenetlused:

| — | EMA/CA/S/039: lepinguline töötaja (lühiajaline leping), antimikroobsete ainete veterinaarmeditsiinis tarbimise üleeuroopalise seire (ESVAC) teadustugi (FG IV) (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/039: lepinguline töötaja (lühiajaline leping), antimikroobsete ainete veterinaarmeditsiinis tarbimise üleeuroopalise seire (ESVAC) teadustugi (FG IV) (1)

| — | EMA/CA/S/040: lepinguline töötaja (lühiajaline leping), veterinaarravimite osakond, Euroopa Komisjoni ravimiresistentsuse arvamuste teadussekretariaat (FG IV) (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/040: lepinguline töötaja (lühiajaline leping), veterinaarravimite osakond, Euroopa Komisjoni ravimiresistentsuse arvamuste teadussekretariaat (FG IV) (2)

---

(1)  ELT C 320 A, 6.11.2013, lk 2.

(2)  Vt joonealune märkus 1.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1






                          CONNECTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
                STATEMENTS RE: COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                               MARCH 31,
                                                                        -----------------------
                                                                         1997            1996
                                                                        -------         -------
<S>                                                                       <C>             <C>  
HISTORICAL

Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding                       9,078           4,791
                                                                        -------         -------
Total shares used in computing net loss per share                         9,078           4,791
                                                                        =======         =======
Net loss                                                                $(7,557)        $(3,446)
Convertible preferred stock, Series A preferred dividends                   (46)             --
                                                                        -------         -------
Net loss used in computing net loss per share                           $(7,603)        $(3,446)
                                                                        =======         =======
Historical net loss per share                                           $ (0.84)        $ (0.72)
                                                                        =======         =======
</TABLE>
#### Louis Rous et al., Appellants, *v.*Edna R. Carlisle et al., as Executors of Floyd L. Carlisle, Deceased, et al., Respondents, and Louis M. Greer, et al., Defendants.

Argued April 8, 1943;

decided June 10, 1943.

*870
      *Harry Bijur*for appellants.

*Horace R. Lamb*and *Homer Crawford*for Edna R. Carlisle et al., as executors of Floyd L. Carlisle, deceased, and another, respondents.

*Ralph M. Carson*and *Francis W. Phillips*for Greorge Whitney, respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis and Desmond, JJ. Conway, J., dissents upon the ground that a cause of action is stated in paragraphs 71 to 81 inclusive of the amended complaint. Taking no part: Finch, J.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Wayne JOHNSON, M.D., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50028

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 10, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed August 15, 2017

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Robert Barron, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Jennifer Leigh Williams, Cohen Williams Williams LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

*305Devin Burstein, Attorney, Devin Bur-stein, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: CALLAHAN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and GILLIAM,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Kenneth Wayne Johnson, M.D., appeals from his jury conviction and 108-month sentence for his participation in a multimillion dollar health care fraud scheme. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for resentencing.1

The district court was “well within its discretion” in “deferring consideration of [Johnson’s] ineffective assistance claim to collateral review, when a complete record would be available.” *United States v. Steele,*733 F.3d 894, 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2013).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the jury reasonably could have found that the Medicare and Medi-Cal cards qualified as “identification documents” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028. *See*18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(3) (defining “identification document”); *see also Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Moreover, Johnson’s conviction also rested on possession of driver’s licenses, which qualify as “identification documents.” 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(3).

Regarding sentencing, the district court did not plainly err in applying a sophisticated means enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B.1(b)(10)(C). Further, as Johnson concedes in his reply brief, the district court also did not plainly err in applying a number of victims enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B.1(b)(2)(A).

However, as with Johnson’s co-defendant, “the record does not show ... why the district court applied a sentence enhancement for unlawful use or possession of an authentication feature under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(11)(A)(ii).” *United States v. Ovsepian,*674 Fed.Appx. 712, 713 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2017). “We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resen-tencing so the district court can explain why it applied this enhancement and address whether such application constituted impermissible double counting.” *Id.*

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

***

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

1

. We grant both Johnson’s Unopposed Motion for Judicial Notice of Related Court Records (Dkt. No. 35) and the Government's Unopposed Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. No. 43).
Robert LITTLETON III v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CR-16-0390

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### LEAR CORPORATION, Appellant v. NHK SEATING OF AMERICA, INC., Appellee

2016-1716

2016-1717

2016-1721

2016-1722

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

December 20, 2016

Frank A. Angileri, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield, MI, argued for appellant. Also represented by John M. Halan.

John F. Rabena, Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by William H. Mandir.

(Newman, Mayer, and Lourie, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
(LOGO) NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION

18400 VON KARMAN, SUITE 1000, IRVlNE, CA 92612 (949) 440-7030 FAX (949) 440-7033



Report of Management on Compliance with Minimum Servicing Standards

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1999, New Century Mortgage Corporation
has  complied  with the minimum  servicing  standards  set forth in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers. As of and for this same period, New Century Mortgage Corporation had in
effect  fidelity  bond  coverage  in the amount of  $2,200,000.00  and  mortgage
contingent liability protection coverage in the amount of $2,200,000.00.



Steven G. Holder
Cheif Executive Officer
#### Michael BREYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLASSIFICATION EMPLOYEES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6175

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

Michael Breyan, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Breyan seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. This court may exercise *160jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.-§ 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Breyan seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Breyan to amend his complaint. *Goode,*807 F.3d at 630. 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.

*DISMISSED AND REMANDED*
fs12011ex10i_intelligent.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


 





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 





 




  





3











  






 





 




  





4











  






 





 




  





5











  






 





 




  





6











  






 





 




  





7











  






 





 




  





8











  






 





 




  





9











  






 





 




  





10











  






 





 




  





11











  






 





 




  





12











  






 





 




  





13











  






 





 




  





14











  






 





 




  





15











  






 





 




  





16











  






 





 




  





17











  






 





 




  





18











  






 





 




  





19











  






 





 




  





20











  






 





 




  





21











  






 





 




  





22











  






 





 




  





23











  






 





 




  





24











  






 





 




  





25











  






 





 




  





26











  






 





 




  





27











  






 





 




  





28











  






 





 




  





29











  






 





 




  





30











  






 





 




  





31











  






 





 




  





32











  






 





 




  





33











  






 





 




  





34











  






 





 




  





35











  






 





 




  





36











  






 





 




  





37











  






 





 




  





38











  






 





 




  





39











  






 





 




  





40











  






 





 




  





41











  






 





 




  





42











  






 





 




  





43











  






 





 




  





44











  






 





 


 




  





45











  






 





 




  





46











  






 


 





 




  





47











  






 





 




  





48











  






 





 




  





49











  






 





 




  





50











  






 





 




  





51











  






 





 




  





52











  






 






 


53