alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                            U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC.
 
           EXHIBIT 11.2--COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA EARNINGS PER SHARE
 
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     SIX MONTHS    SIX MONTHS
                                     YEAR ENDED         ENDED         ENDED
                                  DECEMBER 31, 1996 JUNE 30, 1996 JUNE 30, 1997
                                  ----------------- ------------- -------------
<S>                               <C>               <C>           <C>
PRIMARY:
  Weighted average common shares
   outstanding...................        2,344          2,344         2,344
  Assumed conversion of preferred
   stock issued within one year
   of initial public offering....        1,743          1,743         1,743
  Net effect of dilutive stock
   options, convertible debt, and
   warrants--based on the
   treasury stock method using
   average market price..........          415            415           415
  Shares issued in initial public
   offering......................        3,500          3,500         3,500
  Less excess shares issued in
   initial public offering.......           --             --            --
                                       -------         ------        ------
    Total primary shares.........        8,002          8,002         8,002
                                       =======         ======        ======
  Pro forma net income...........      $ 2,574         $1,007        $1,594
                                       =======         ======        ======
  Pro forma net income per
   share.........................      $  0.33         $ 0.13        $ 0.20
                                       =======         ======        ======
FULLY DILUTED:
  Weighted average common shares
   outstanding...................        2,344          2,344         2,344
  Assumed conversion of preferred
   stock issued within one year
   of initial public offering....        1,743          1,743         1,743
  Net effect of dilutive stock
   options and warrants--based on
   the treasury stock method
   using the year-end market
   price, if higher than average
   market price..................          415            415           415
  Shares issued in initial public
   offering......................        3,500          3,500         3,500
  Less excess shares issued in
   initial public offering.......           --             --            --
                                       -------         ------        ------
    Total fully diluted shares...        8,002          8,002         8,002
                                       =======         ======        ======
  Pro forma net income...........      $ 2,574         $1,007        $1,594
                                       =======         ======        ======
  Pro forma net income per
   share.........................      $  0.33         $ 0.13        $ 0.20
                                       =======         ======        ======
</TABLE>
390

88

434

912

BallotsCounted

6

9

6

21

BallotsRejected

WYOMING

Mail,Fax,Email

Election/Registrar's

Office

Internet

DM

V

Public

Assistance

Office

DisabilitiesAgency

Military

RecruitmentOffice

OtherState

Agency

RegistrationDrives

Registration:Other

104,887

3,796

1,177

0000000

RegistrationFormSource

TotalRegisteredVoters

284,203

SectionA-VoterRegistration

RegistrationFormsReceived

238,577

ConfirmationNotificationsSent

46,039

Polling

Place

UOCAVA Absentee Provisional

Ballot

EarlyVote

Center

Voteby

Mail

Turnout:

Other

176,158

53,638

25,825

912 20 0 0

SectionF-TurnoutbyMethod

CountedFull Counted

Part

Rejected Provisional:

Other

20

28

0 0

SectionE-ProvisionalBallots

UniformedService

Non-militaryOverseas

Other

SectionB-UOCAVA

557

480

125

1,162

BallotsTransmitted

TOTAL TOTAL

ProvisionalBallotTotal:48 TurnoutTotal:256,553

Select: WYOMING

TOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                          

  

2016EAVSDataBrief 

U i
October 19, 2015

Mr. James Kolander

10985 E. Old Trails Rd.

Scottsdale, AZ 85262

Dear Mr . Kolander :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your July 21, 2015, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 3065 , but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This web site helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa

. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1561

___________ J. Lloyd International, Inc., * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Northern District of Iowa. * The Testor Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 3, 2010 Filed: November 30, 2010

___________ Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. J. Lloyd International, Inc. (JLI), filed a complaint against the Testor Corporation (Testor) alleging breach of warranty and three breaches of their manufacturing agreement. After discovery– which JLI frustrated with often-vague responses, even after (occasional) compul sion – Testor moved for summary judgment. The district court 1 granted Testor’s motion. JLI appeals.-2- The district court issued a comprehens ive order addressing JLI’s four claims. See J. Lloyd Int’l, Inc. v. Testor Corp. , No. 08-CV-134-LRR, 2010 WL 605657 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 17, 2010). As no e rror of law appears in the or der, this court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Cabinet Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003
of the Company fully complies, in all material respects, with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date:  August 12, 2003
'f" ^^ ^ T ^ 'c ti' "^ `^ f '

. .I ^ Jr ^1 (^ + ^ i k?^ ^ ^ ~ U 14^ ^ ^ • L! ^-j 

# CITY GF SOUTH BEND PETE BUTTIGIEG, MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 

### The Honorable Gina Mc arthy EPA Administrator U.S. Environmental Prote tion Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave Washington, DC 20460 The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary of Transportatio ri 

### U.S. Departinent of Trans ortation 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Docket ID No. EPA—flQ—OAR-2014-0827 and NHTSA-2014-0132 Dear Administrator McCaohy and Secretary Foxx: We commend your efforts to implement strong, achievable fuel efficiency and emission standards for medium- an heavy-duty vehicles. This new proposed rule demonstrates America's leadership in a cleaner and inore efficient transportation sector. The new standards will help cities like ours that use M dium- and Heavy-duty trucks daily for trash collection, snow removal and other municipal functi ns, save millions of taxpayer dollars yearly. With medium-and heavy-quty vehicles accounting for twenty percent of US oil consumption but only five percent of vehicl s, 1 

### the opportunity for improvement is significant. Requiring increased efficiency in a fl xible, cost-effective way helps make U.S. businesses located in South Bend more competitive gl bally — especially beneficial to the rapidly-growing distribution and logistics companies that o erate in our region. Locally, air quality affects our County, with ozone and particulates adversely impacting human health approximately eight days per year. 2 

### With a diverse community and a poverty rate of 27.8 percent, 3 

### we recognize tha we must protect the health of vulnerable populations while being good stewards of limited t xpayer resources. Here in South Bend we are already replacing much of our fleet with cleaner-bi4ming and lower-cost compressed natural gas vehicles.

' EPA and DOT propose greenhou gas and fuel efticiency standards for heavy-duty trucks. NHTSA. z Atnerican Lung Association, 20111 State of the Air, St. Joseph County Indiana 3 U. S. Cetlsus Bureau, American C tnmunity Survey, 5-Year Estimates

1400 COUNTY—CITY BILDING . 227 W JF.FFERSON BOUI.EVARD • SOUTH BEND, 1NDIANA 466oi

PHOrIF t574 /2 35-9 26i

- Fax 574 J2 35-9 8 9 2 ' TTY 574/235-5567

### Thank you for your work

standards for trucks. We i Transportation to finalize 

## 2016.
Sincerel^

ft P' eg Mayor iosing strong fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emission, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of ,ig Phase Two standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks in

# I

I



# 1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40254

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OTIS HARDING WILLIAMS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-807-2

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Otis Harding Williams has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Williams has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         6232870
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   90051287
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         3138182
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           3125640
<LOANS>                                      157355362
<ALLOWANCE>                                    1809435
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               267151727
<DEPOSITS>                                   221099798
<SHORT-TERM>                                   9056995
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            3762152
<LONG-TERM>                                   14054000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       4002154
<OTHER-SE>                                    15176628
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               267151727
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                3219375
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1320458
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 25566
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               4565399
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             2075303
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2334163
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          2231236
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   150000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1928323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 720970
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      720970
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    475341
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.58
<LOANS-NON>                                    1749811
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                704000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1715068
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    64261
<RECOVERIES>                                      8628
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1809435
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        1809435


</TABLE>
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-80-2021]

On December 3, 2021, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 27R, in Andover, Massachusetts.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (86 FR 70439, December 10, 2021). On April 4, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including section 400.14.                

Dated: April 4, 2022.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-07367 Filed 4-6-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Leah Nivison,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the GS MortgageSecurities Trust 2015-GC28 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asSpecial Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Custodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, asOperating Advisor, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., asServicing Function Participant, National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant, and Berkeley Point Capital LLC, as Primary Servicer.

 

 

 

Dated: March 25, 2019

 

 

/s/ Leah Nivison

 

 

Chief ExecutiveOfficer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4731

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLES RICHARD BURKE, a/k/a Rick, a/k/a “D”, a/k/a Detroit 

Rick, a/k/a Hasim Coleman, a/k/a Rick Calloway, a/k/a Jihad 

Alexander,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, 

District Judge. (3:10-cr-00224-1)

Submitted: May 17, 2013 Decided: June 6, 2013

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael D. Payne, REDMAN & PAYNE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, Charleston, 

West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United 

States Attorney, R. Gregory McVey, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Richard Burke appeals his sentence of 236 

months of imprisonment following his guilty plea to conspiracy 

to distribute oxycodone and 280 grams or more of cocaine base, 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Burke contends that the 

district court erred in determining that his prior state and 

federal felony drug convictions are separate sentences under 

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 4A1.2(a)(2) (2011), 

and, consequently, incorrectly classified him as a career 

offender under USSG § 4B1.1(a). We affirm.

In assessing a challenge to the district court’s 

application of the Guidelines, we review the district court’s 

factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de 

novo. United States v. Perez, 609 F.3d 609, 612 (4th Cir. 

2010). 

Pursuant to USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2), “[p]rior sentences 

always are counted separately if the sentences were imposed for 

offenses that were separated by an intervening arrest . . . .” 

USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2). In the absence of an intervening arrest, 

“prior sentences are counted separately unless (A) the sentences 

resulted from offenses contained in the same charging 

instrument; or (B) the sentences were imposed on the same day.”

Id. Accordingly, where a defendant, like Burke, has been 

sentenced on different days for federal and state crimes charged 
3

in separate indictments, those convictions are properly counted 

as separate sentences under § 4B1.1. See United States v. 

Rooks, 596 F.3d 204, 212-13 (4th Cir. 2010) (explaining that 

defendant’s state and federal convictions, for which he was 

indicted and sentenced separately, should be counted as separate

offenses despite the fact that they arose from the same course 

of criminal conduct).

We therefore find no error in Burke’s classification 

as a career offender and affirm his sentence. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED