alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11


                                 BACOU USA, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 (in thousands)
                                   (unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Three Months Ended               Nine Months Ended
                                                               September 30,                   September 30,
                                                          ---------------------------     ------------------------------
                                                            1998             1999             1998             1999
                                                          -----------     -----------     -------------    -------------

Basic:
<S>                                                         <C>             <C>               <C>              <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding                         17,604          17,627            17,599           17,623
                                                          ===========     ===========     =============    =============

Net income                                                  $6,675          $7,635           $15,510          $21,017
                                                          ===========     ===========     =============    =============
Per share amount                                            $ 0.38          $ 0.43           $  0.88          $  1.19
                                                          ===========     ===========     =============    =============

Diluted:
Weighted average shares outstanding                         17,604          17,627            17,599           17,623
Net effect of dilutive stock options based on the
  treasury stock method using the average market
  price                                                        184              67               123               88
                                                          -----------     -----------     -------------    -------------

Total diluted shares                                        17,788          17,694            17,722           17,711
                                                          ===========     ===========     =============    =============

Net income                                                  $6,675          $7,635           $15,510          $21,017
                                                          ===========     ===========     =============    =============
Per share amount                                             $0.38           $0.43            $ 0.88           $ 1.19
                                                          ===========     ===========     =============    =============
</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 32004B0416(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32004B0416(01)

**Budget of the European training Foundation for the financial year 2004 **

*
Official Journal C 092 , 16/04/2004 P. 0035 - 0035 *

Budget of the European training Foundation for the financial year 2004

(2004/C 92/07)

The Foundation's budget 2004 amounts to EUR 17,6 million of which EUR 11,6 million are reserved for personnel costs, EUR 1,4 million for building, equipment and other administrative expenses and EUR 4,5 million for specific operations and projects in the area of vocational education and training.

Furthermore, the Foundation manages Phare/Cards, Tacis and Meda funds for a total amount of EUR 178,3 million and a revolving annual fund of EUR 500000 provided by the Italian Government.

For complete details about 2004 budget and establishment plan please visit ETF website at the following address: www.etf.eu.int

EUROPEAN TRAINING FOUNDATION

BUDGETS 2003/2004

EXPENDITURE

>TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific 
Counselors, NIDA. The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated 
below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 
552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and 
evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by 
the National Institute on Drug Abuse, including consideration of 
personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of 
individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDA.
    Date: May 3, 2022.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:45 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personnel qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, Biomedical 
Research Center, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Deon M. Harvey, Ph.D., Management Analyst, 
Office of the Scientific Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 
251 Bayview Boulevard, Room 04A314, Baltimore, MD 21224, (443) 740-
2466 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5c1c0cacb8bcdc4d7d3c0dce5cbcccd8bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1773727879397f766561726e57797e7f39707861">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug 
Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist 
Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug 
Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 
93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 8, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-05285 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 21 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 21

   Proposing a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 19 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

  Mr. Thompson (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Bond, Mr. 
 Brown, Mr. Burns, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Frist, 
Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Mack, Mr. Packwood, Mr. Smith, and Mr. 
Thomas) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 
             and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Proposing a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. After this article becomes operative, no person shall 
be elected to a full term as a Senator more than twice, or to a full 
term as a Representative more than thrice; no person who has been a 
Senator for more than three years of a term to which some other person 
was elected shall subsequently be elected as a Senator more than once; 
and no person who has been a Representative for more than a year of a 
term to which some other person was elected shall subsequently be 
elected as a Representative more than twice.
    ``Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have 
been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the 
several States, as provided by the Constitution, within seven years 
from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, March 29, 2022, 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 04, 2022, V 87 #43 Page 12467, FR Doc No. 2022-04619.                

Meeting is being amended to change the Contact Person from Ai-Ping Zou to David Jollie, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: March 16, 2022.

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-05896 Filed 3-18-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis HEREDIA Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1839

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 7, 2017

Filed: November 13, 2017

David D. Hagler, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Luis Heredia, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

*532PER CURIAM.

Jose Heredia directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. He pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal in light of the appeal waiver. Counsel also has moved for leave to withdraw. Heredia has filed a *pro se*brief, arguing that the district court either lacked jurisdiction or committed a sentencing error. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver.

We conclude that Heredia’s jurisdictional argument is meritless. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3231 (“The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.”). As to his sentencing-error argument, we conclude that the waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. *See United States v. Scott,*627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing *de novo*validity and applicability of appeal waiver); *United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing requirements for enforcing appeal waivers). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 637 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 637

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the rule 
  allowing certain tax-free distributions from individual retirement 
                   accounts for charitable purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2015

 Mr. Schock (for himself and Mr. Blumenauer) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 
      addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the rule 
  allowing certain tax-free distributions from individual retirement 
                   accounts for charitable purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RULE ALLOWING CERTAIN TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL 
              RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES MADE 
              PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 408(d)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (F).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to distributions made in taxable years beginning after December 31, 
2014.

SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

    The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on either 
PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory 
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit No. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
Nevstar Corporation
File No. 0-21071


                    Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                       as adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nevstar Corporation (Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (Report),  I, Timothy P. Halter,  Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  adopted  as  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 result of operations of the Company.


Date: October 29, 2007                     By:       /s/ Timothy P. Halter
      ----------------                         ---------------------------------
                                                               Timothy P. Halter
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer





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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 261 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 261

 To express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture 
   should allow livestock producers who had qualified for emergency 
  livestock feed assistance in the 1995 crop year to be eligible for 
  emergency livestock feed assistance in the 1996 crop year, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 12, 1996

Mr. Gramm (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Pressler) 
 submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Agriculture 
   should allow livestock producers who had qualified for emergency 
  livestock feed assistance in the 1995 crop year to be eligible for 
  emergency livestock feed assistance in the 1996 crop year, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK FEED ASSISTANCE.

    It is the sense of the Senate that, as part of the orderly 
termination of the emergency livestock feed assistance program 
established under title VI of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 
1471 et seq.), livestock producers who were eligible for emergency 
livestock feed assistance for the 1995 crop year, but were unable to 
apply for the assistance for the 1996 crop year, and who have suffered 
a qualifying loss as determined by the Secretary, should be eligible to 
receive assistance under the program through at least August 31, 1996.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 21 Held at Desk Senate (HDS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 21

  Directing that the ``Portrait Monument'' carved in the likeness of 
Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, now in the 
 Crypt of the Capitol, be restored to its original state and be placed 
                        in the Capitol Rotunda.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 14 (legislative day, July 10), 1995

    Mr. Stevens (for himself, Mr. Ford, Mr. Dole, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
   Hatfield, Mr. Pell, Mr. Helms, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mrs. 
   Hutchison, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. D'Amato) submitted the following 
  concurrent resolution; which was ordered held at the desk until the 
                    close of business July 17, 1995

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Directing that the ``Portrait Monument'' carved in the likeness of 
Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, now in the 
 Crypt of the Capitol, be restored to its original state and be placed 
                        in the Capitol Rotunda.
Whereas, in 1995, women of America are celebrating the 75th anniversary of their 
        right to participate in our government through suffrage;
Whereas Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony were 
        pioneers in the movement for women suffrage and the pursuit of equal 
        rights; and
Whereas the relocation of the ``Portrait Monument'' to a place of prominence and 
        esteem in the Capitol Rotunda would serve to honor and revere the 
        contribution of thousands of women: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol shall restore the ``Portrait 
Monument'' to its original state and place it in the Rotunda of the 
United States Capitol.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nathen Jerome ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30182

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 7, 2017 *****Portland, Oregon

Filed November 24, 2017

Colin Michael Rubich, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Mark S. Werner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana (Billings) Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and MELLOY,** Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Michael J, Melloy, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Nathen Jerome Adams appeals his sen*700tence for conspiracy to distribute explosives without a license. *See*18 U.S.C. § 844(a), (n); *see also id.*§ 842(a)(3)(B). We vacate the sentence and remand.

Adams asserts that the district court committed procedural error1 when it calculated his U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range by adding four levels to his base offense level2 on the basis that he had “transferred [an] explosive material with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or possessed in connection with another felony offense.”3 We agree. When the district court determined that Adams had transferred an explosive (a stick of dynamite) to another person (an undercover agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) with the requisite mental state at the time he made the transfer and was paid therefor, it clearly erred4 because there was not sufficient evidence to support that determination.5 There was evidence that after the dynamite had been delivered to the buyer and paid for (that is, after the transfer itself had been completed), the agent stated that he would use it for the felonious purpose of blowing up another person’s car, and Adams replied: “That’ll do it.” However, that exchange did not indicate that Adams knew or had reason to believe that the dynamite would be used in that manner at the time the transfer was completed. Nor did any other evidence suggest that he had that mental state.

Therefore, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resentencing.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. *See United States*v. *Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

2

. *See*USSG § 2K1.3(b)(3). Unless otherwise indicated all references to the United States Sentencing Guidelines are to the November 1, 2015, version thereof.

3

. *Id.*

4

. *See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc); *United States v. Spangle,*626 F.3d 488, 497 (9th Cir. 2010); *see also United States v. Hinkson,*585 F.3d 1247, 1261 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

5

*. See United States v. Dare,*425 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2005).