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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

LEGACY SOFTWARE, INC.

COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE
COMMON STOCK SHARES OUTSTANDING


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Three Months      Six Months
                                             Total Number      Ended             Ended
                                             of Shares      June 30, 1998    June 30, 1998
                                             ------------   -------------    -------------
<S>                                          <C>            <C>              <C>
Outstanding shares as of January 1, 1998       2,655,002      2,655,002        2,655,002

                                                   -                -                -

                                                   -                -                -

                                             ------------   -------------    -------------
Total Weighted Average Shares Outstanding      2,655,002      2,655,002        2,655,002
                                             ============   =============    =============

     Net Loss                                                  (175,293)        (293,849)

     Net Loss per common share(1)                            $    (0.07)      $    (0.11)
</TABLE>

(1) The effect of common stock options and warrants are excluded as their
    inclusion would be anti-dilutive. For the three month periods ending June
    30, 1998 and 1997 fully diluted net loss per common share does not differ
    from primary net loss per common share.
Exhibit 15.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



| | (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-204205) pertaining to the 2015 Stock Option Plan and the 2015 Free Share Plan of Cellectis
S.A.;
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No 333-214884) pertaining to the 2016 Stock Option Plan of Cellectis S.A.; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-211202) of Cellectis S.A.;
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated March 22, 2017, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Cellectis S.A. and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Cellectis S.A., included in this annual report (Form 20-F) of Cellectis S.A. for the year ended December 31, 2016.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG et Autres

Paris La Défense,
France

March 22, 2017
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6794

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. TROY LAMONT MURPHY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:04-cr-00241-FL-2; 5:07-cv-00035-FL) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Lamont Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Troy Lamont Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Murphy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
No. 11-9452.

#### Bravo Flores *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 07-19-00373-CR

Marcus Reed

 Appellant

From the 167th District Court 

 of Travis County 

v. September 15, 2020

The State of Texas

 Appellee 

§

§

§

§

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated September 15, 2020, it is ordered, 

adjudged, and decreed that the appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the 

167th District Court of Travis County, Texas, for further proceedings in accordance with 

this Court’s opinion entered this day.

o O o

FILE COPY
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                 5276                    5276
<RECEIVABLES>                        280283                  280283
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                       0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                 11176                   11176
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                    3069                    3069
<PP&E>                                 3569                    3569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       350683                  350683
<SHORT-TERM>                           1098                    1098
<PAYABLES>                           245008                  245008
<REPOS-SOLD>                              0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                   78607                   78607
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                      704                     704
<LONG-TERM>                           10539                   10539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                       0
<PREFERRED>                               0                       0
<COMMON>                                141                     141
<OTHER-SE>                            14586                   14586
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         350683                  350683
<TRADING-REVENUE>                      2937                    1134
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                  11333                    5926
<COMMISSIONS>                         13303                    7058
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>             0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                           274                      14
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     7058                    3608
<COMPENSATION>                         4655                    2309
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (1206)                  (1067)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>            (1206)                  (1067)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<CHANGES>                                 0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                           (956)                   (870)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.07)                  (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.07)                  (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
#### Jose Manuel ZAVALA-VIRELAS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73641

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 ***

Filed December 20, 2017

*896Jose Manuel Zavala-Virelas, Pro Se

Ashley Young Martin, Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *896*See Fed. R.*App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Manuel Zavala-Virelas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. *Mandujano-Real v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 585, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Zavala-Virelas’ contention that the BIA erred in applying the categorical approach to analyze his conviction is not supported, where the BIA did not state that his conviction is categorically a crime of violence, and cited to *United States v. Cabrera-Perez,*751 F.3d 1000, 1005-07 (9th Cir. 2014), which applied the modified categorical approach to hold that a conviction under Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1203(A)(2) and 134204(A)(2) is a crime of violence. The BIA properly determined that Zavala-Virelas’ conviction for aggravated assault was under Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 134203(A)(2) and 13-1204(A)(2), and that it is an aggravated felony crime of violence that makes him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (2)(A) (iii). *See Cabrera-Perez,*751 F.3d at 1005-07.

We lack jurisdiction to review Zavala-Virelas’ unexhausted contentions regarding service anomalies with the notice to appear, errors in the allegations in the notice to appear, the divisibility of Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1203 and 13-1204, the IJ’s application of the modified categorical approach, and discrepancies between the plea agreement and the sentencing report in his record of conviction. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (due process claims based on procedural errors that could have been corrected by the agency must be exhausted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### COM. v. BROWN, J.

1229 EDA 2014

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/05/2017

CP-51-CR-1301955-2006 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 832 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 832

  To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow 
schools that participate in the school lunch program under such Act to 
                           serve whole milk.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2019

 Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Meuser, 
Mr. Smucker, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Collins of New York, Mr. Rodney Davis of 
  Illinois, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. Conaway, and Mr. Kelly of 
Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to allow 
schools that participate in the school lunch program under such Act to 
                           serve whole milk.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. WHOLE MILK PERMISSIBLE.

    Section 9(a)(2)(A) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)(A)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (i), by striking ``. Such milk shall be 
        consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for 
        Americans published under section 301 of the National Nutrition 
        Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5341)''; 
        and
            (2) in clause (ii), by inserting ``, flavored and 
        unflavored whole milk,'' after ``unflavored fluid milk''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>



                                                                     Exhibit 2.6

BILL OF SALE

July 18, 2002

Marlin Data Research, Inc. has sold a TERM ROYALTY INTEREST as more fully
described in the assignment dated and effective July 18, 2002 to Houston
American Energy Corp. for ten dollars and acknowledges receipt of this amount.


/s/  John F. Terwilliger                  /s/  John F. Terwilliger
----------------------------------        ----------------------------------
John F. Terwilliger                       John F. Terwilliger
President                                 President
Marlin Data Research, Inc.                Houston American Energy Corp.
#### Roland HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Romeo ARANAS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-15112

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Roland Hamilton, Pro Se

D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV — Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Roland Hamilton appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

To the extent that Hamilton’s deliberate indifference claim was based on defendant Dr. Aranas allegedly failing to recommend surgery for Hamilton’s hernia, the district court properly granted summary judgment because Hamilton failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Aranas was deliberately indifferent. *See id.*at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

However, to the extent that Hamilton’s deliberate indifference claim was based on defendant Dr. Aranas denying Hamilton a follow up appointment with Dr. Feikes, summary judgment was improper. The record reflects that after Hamilton told Dr. Aranas that he was supposed to have a follow up appointment with Dr. Feikes, Dr. Aranas told Hamilton that it “was not *913going to happen,” and there is no explanation in the record why Dr. Aranas did not refer the matter to the Utilization Review Panel. Because Hamilton has raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Aranas chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Hamilton’s health, we reverse the judgment in part and remand for proceedings as to this claim only.

We reject as without merit Hamilton’s contentions regarding judicial bias.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Ana Gabriela NAZARI-HERNANDEZ, AKA Ana Gabriela Hernandez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70389

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 21, 2018

Violeta Delgado, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Violeta Delgado, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner

John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ana Gabriela Nazari-Hemandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying her request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance, and review de novo questions of law. *Ahmed v. Holder,*569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion nor violate due process in denying Nazari-Hernandez’s request for a third continuance for lack of good cause, where she had been given time for preparation but, contrary to the IJ’s specific instructions, appeared at her final hearing without an asylum application. *See*8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1003.31(c); *Ahmed,*569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider); *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Úradný vestník C 168/2018

| | ISSN 1977-1037 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 168 |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Ročník 6115. mája 2018 |

ISSN 1977-1037

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 168

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Ročník 6115. mája 2018

---

| Číslo oznamu | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Oznamy |
| | ADMINISTRATÍVNE POSTUPY |
| 2018/C 168/01 | Výzvy na predkladanie prihlášok v rámci iniciatívy WiFi4EU v oblasti transeurópskych telekomunikačných sietí (podpora internetového pripojenia v miestnych komunitách) ako súčasť Nástroja na prepájanie Európy [zmenený pracovný program CEF Telecom z roku 2017 – vykonávacie rozhodnutie Komisie C(2017) 7732] | 1 |

Číslo oznamu

Obsah

Strana

V   Oznamy

ADMINISTRATÍVNE POSTUPY

2018/C 168/01

Výzvy na predkladanie prihlášok v rámci iniciatívy WiFi4EU v oblasti transeurópskych telekomunikačných sietí (podpora internetového pripojenia v miestnych komunitách) ako súčasť Nástroja na prepájanie Európy [zmenený pracovný program CEF Telecom z roku 2017 – vykonávacie rozhodnutie Komisie C(2017) 7732]

1

---

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

V Oznamy

ADMINISTRATÍVNE POSTUPY

| 15.5.2018 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 168/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2018

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 168/1

---

Výzvy na predkladanie prihlášok v rámci iniciatívy WiFi4EU v oblasti transeurópskych telekomunikačných sietí (podpora internetového pripojenia v miestnych komunitách) ako súčasť Nástroja na prepájanie Európy

[zmenený pracovný program CEF Telecom z roku 2017 – vykonávacie rozhodnutie Komisie C(2017) 7732]

(2018/C 168/01)

Generálne riaditeľstvo Európskej komisie pre komunikačné siete, obsah a technológie týmto zverejňuje túto výzvu na predkladanie žiadostí v rámci iniciatívy Wifi4EU s cieľom udeliť granty na projekty v súlade s prioritami a cieľmi vymedzenými v zmenenom pracovnom programe z roku 2017 v oblasti transeurópskych telekomunikačných sietí ako súčasť Nástroja na prepájanie Európy.

Otvára sa prvé kolo výziev (WIFI4EU-2017-1), v ktorom záujemcovia môžu predkladať prihlášky na podporu internetového pripojenia v miestnych komunitách.

Celkový orientačný rozpočet vyčlenený na prihlášky vybrané v rámci tejto výzvy predstavuje 17 745 000 EUR.

Konečný termín na predloženie prihlášok je 15. jún 2018.

Prihlášky sa musia predložiť prostredníctvom portálu WiFi4EU: https://www.wifi4eu.eu/.

Dokumentácia k jednotlivým výzvam je k dispozícii na webovom sídle Výkonnej agentúry pre inovácie a siete (INEA): https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-telecom/wifi4eu.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         700,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,555,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   124,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,416,000
<PP&E>                                      19,003,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,439,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,490,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,422,000
<BONDS>                                      6,158,000
<COMMON>                                       108,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,212,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,490,000
<SALES>                                     10,840,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,197,000
<CGS>                                        9,135,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,135,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               572,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             468,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,022,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   159,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            863,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 54,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   809,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18

U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANESOXLEY
ACT of 2002



In connection with the Annual
Report of Muliang Agritech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2019 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), Lirong Wang, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002,
that:



| | 1. | The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    | Muliang Agritech, Inc.
|------------------- | ----------------------
|                    |                       
|Dated: May 14, 2020 | By:                   
|                    |                       
|                    |