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

                SUNRISE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          SIX MONTHS ENDED               THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                             JANUARY 31,                     JANUARY 31,
                                         1997           1996             1997           1996
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMARY:

<S>                                  <C>            <C>               <C>           <C>
Common Shares Outstanding,
Beginning of Year                     2,982,968      2,935,894         2,982,968      2,935,894

Effect of weighting shares:

Issuance of Common Stock                  9,188           --              18,376           --
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average Number of Common
Shares and Common Share
Equivalents Outstanding               2,992,156      2,935,894         3,001,344      2,935,894
===============================================================================================
Net Loss Available for
Common Stock                        $  (263,599)   $   (95,927)      $  (266,704)   $  (155,127)
===============================================================================================
Net Loss per Common Share
and Common Share Equivalent         $     (0.09)   $     (0.03)      $     (0.09)   $     (0.05)
===============================================================================================
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Dynacq International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chiu M.
Chan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/S/ CHIU M. CHAN
-------------------------------------
Chiu M. Chan, Chief Executive Officer
April 14, 2003



The signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Dynacq International, Inc., and will be retained by Dynacq
International, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
(logo)LNR

          Partners, LLC

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

OF

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

 

 

The undersigned, Job Warshaw,being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the “Special Servicer”), as special servicerunder the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the transactionslisted on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject to anylimitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, onbehalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized officerof the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

 

1.            A review ofthe activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencingon January 1, 2019 and ending on December 31, 2019 (or any other shorter periodset forth on Schedule I hereto) (the “'Reporting Period”), and of theSpecial Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement hasbeen made under my supervision; and

 

2.            To the bestof my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicingcriteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC,

a Florida limited liabilitycompany

 

 

By: /s/ Job Warshaw

Job Warshaw

President

 

 

Dated: February 20, 2020

 

 

1601 Washington Avenue • Suite 700 • Miami Beach,Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 • Fax: (305) 695-5601

 

 

 

**Schedule I**

 

 

MSBAM 2015-C21

Morgan Stanley Bank of AmericaMerrill Lynch Trust 2015-C21, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,Series 2015-C21

 

DBRS, Inc.

333 West Wacker Drive, Suite1800

Attn: Commercial MortgageSurveillance

Chicago IL 60606

General Contact

 

Fitch Ratings Inc.

33 Whitehall Street

Attention: CommercialMortgaged Surveillance

New York NY 10004

General Contact

 

Moody’s Investors Service,Inc.

7 World Trade Center

250 Greenwich Street

Attn: Commercial MortgageSurveillance Group

New York NY 10007

General Contact

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

1221 Avenue of the Americas

New York NY 10020

James Y. Lee

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

1585 Broadway

New York NY 10036

Stephen Holmes

 

Morningstar Credit Ratings,LLC

220 Gibraltar Road, Suite 300

Attn: CMBS Surveillance

Horsham PA 19044

General Contact

 

Morningstar Credit Ratings,LLC

1065 Avenue of the Americas,33rd Floor

New York NY 10018

General Contact

 

Situs Holdings, LLC

5065 Westheimer 700E

Houston TX 77056

Pete Larsen

 

Situs Holdings, LLC

2 Embarcadero, Suite 1300

San Francisco CA 94111

Stacey Ciarlanti

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia MD 21045

Group Notices
# C_2022037EN.01004101.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/41

---

Action brought on 3 November 2021 — Balaban v EUIPO (Stahlwerk)

(Case T-705/21)

(2022/C 37/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Okan Balaban (Bornheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Schaaf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Stahlwerk’ — Application for registration No 18 235 592

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2021 in Case R 77/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s refusal decision of 18 November 2020 in respect of application number 18 235 592 as well as the contested decision, in so far as the application was rejected in part, and order the defendant to register the trade mark for all goods and services sought by the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s refusal decision of 18 November 2020 in respect of application number 18 235 592 as well as the contested decision, in so far as the application was rejected in part, and order the defendant to register the trade mark for all goods and services sought by the application;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Docket No: FAA-2015-8137 Dir ID: 2014-NM-104-AD

FAA MCAI AD WORKSHEET (CONTINUED)

. Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 5/19/14

Regional Airline Association 5/19/14

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 5/19/14

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 5/19/14D
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 9431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5264]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting; Sunshine Act Notice: Correction

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS NOTICE: 62 FR 8742, February 26, 
1997.
    This notice corrects an earlier notice which was published at 62 FR 
8742, on February 26, 1997.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, 
March 5, 1997.

PLACE: Board Room, Second Floor, Federal Housing Finance Board,1777 F 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006.

STATUS: The entire meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED DURING PORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:
    <bullet> Mission Regulation--Proposed Rule.
    <bullet> Affordable Housing Program Application Approvals.
    <bullet> Financial Management Policy.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the 
Board, (202) 408-2837.
Rita I. Fair,
Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 97-5264 Filed 2-27-97; 11:27 am]
BILLING CODE 6725-01-P
# C_2022359EN.01003201.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/32

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 15 June 2022 — EXTÉRIA, s. r. o. v Spravíme, s. r. o.

(Case C-393/22)

(2022/C 359/36)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EXTÉRIA, s. r. o.

Defendant: Spravíme, s. r. o.

Question referred

Must Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters be interpreted as meaning that the concept ‘contract for the provision of services’ also includes a contract to enter into a future contract (pactum de contrahendo), in which the parties undertook to enter into a future contract that would be a contract for the provision of services, within the meaning of that provision?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 10.5 Amendment to Employment Agreement


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment Agreement”) is executed on March 24, 2014 with an effective date of January 1, 2014, by and among John A. Brda, an individual (“Employee”), and Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”).  The Employee and the Company are sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties”.  




Recitals




A.

Employee and the Company entered into an Employment Agreement on October 10, 2013 with an effective date of July 1, 2013 (the “Contract”). 




B.

Reference is here made to the Contract as if such Contract were written herein verbatim.    




C.

The Parties now wish to amend the Contract to change certain terms of the Contract.




Agreements




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:




1.

All capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Contract, unless expressly defined otherwise in this Amendment Agreement.




2.

Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Contract shall apply to the interpretation and enforcement of this Amendment Agreement as if explicitly set forth herein.




3.

Amendment to Subsection (a), “Base Fees” of Section 4, “Compensation”:




Subsection (a) of Section 4 of the Contract is amended and replaced in its entirety to read as follows:




“(a)

Base Fees.  The Company shall pay Employee Base Fees (the “Base Fees”) equal to $300,000 per year, effective January 1, 2014. Payment shall be made monthly, on the last day of each calendar month.




4.

This Amendment Agreement will be of no force and effect until receipt and execution of this Amendment Agreement by all the undersigned parties hereto.  This Amendment Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall be deemed one instrument, by signature delivered by facsimile transmission or by e-mail delivery of a “.pdf” format data file, each of which shall be deemed an original for all purposes.




5.

Except as expressly amended hereby, the Contract remains in full force and effect.  Any references to the Contract shall refer to the Contract as amended hereby.















Amendment to Employment Agreement - Page 1






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment Agreement on the date set forth above.




TORCHLIGHT ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.







/s/ Thomas Lapinski                                           

By:  Thomas Lapinski, Chief Executive Officer










/s/ John A. Brda                                                 

John A. Brda









Amendment to Employment Agreement - Page 2
<PAGE>   1



                                                                     EXHIBIT 12

Statement re: Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
Quaker State Corporation and Subsidiaries
For the Years Ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995
(in thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                       1997       1996       1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                                  <C>         <C>        <C>     
Interest expense                                     $ 26,913    $ 12,609   $  7,178
Interest factor of rental expense (1)
                                                       11,586       9,120      8,311
                                                  ----------------------------------

Total fixed charges                                  $ 38,499    $ 21,729   $ 15,489
====================================================================================

Income from continuing operations
  before income taxes                                $(11,389)   $ 17,551   $ (5,723)
Fixed charges                                          38,499      21,729     15,489
                                                  ----------------------------------

Total earnings                                       $ 27,110    $ 39,280   $  9,766
====================================================================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        0.7         1.8        0.6
====================================================================================

(1)  Interest factor of rental expense computed based on: (a) average interest
     factor from a sample of leases for operations representing in excess of 50%
     of rentals from continuing operations, and (b) one-third factor of rentals
     for other operations.

</TABLE>
# C_2022064EN.01003101.xml

| 7.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/31

---

Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Gameageventures v EUIPO (GAME TOURNAMENTS)

(Case T-776/21)

(2022/C 64/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gameageventures LLP (Folkestone, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Santos Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark GAME TOURNAMENTS– Application for registration No 18 207 605

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2021 in Case R 211/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the obligation to state reason and of the right to be heard; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the obligation to state reason and of the right to be heard;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of sound administration.

---
# C_2023164EN.01002701.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/27

---

Appeal brought on 28 December 2022 by Louis Vuitton Malletier against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 19 October 2022 in Case T-275/21, Louis Vuitton Malletier v EUIPO — Wisniewski

(Case C-788/22 P)

(2023/C 164/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Louis Vuitton Malletier SAS (represented by: P. Roncaglia and N. Parrotta, avvocati, and P.-Y. Gautier, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 21 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Louis Vuitton Malletier SAS should bear its own costs.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8968-8969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03447]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

Sunshine Act Meeting

ACTION: Notice of an Open Meeting of the Board of Directors of the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States.

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

TIME AND PLACE: Thursday, February 20, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting 
will be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 321, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20571.

OPEN AGENDA ITEM:  Item No. 1 Ex-Im Bank Advisory Committee for 2014 
(New Member)

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:  The meeting will be open to public observation 
for Item No. 1 only.

FURTHER INFORMATION:  Members of the public who wish to attend the 
meeting should call Joyce Stone, Office of the Secretary, 811 Vermont 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571 (202) 565-3336

[[Page 8969]]

by close of business Tuesday, February 18, 2014.

Joyce Brotemarkle Stone,
Assistant Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03447 Filed 2-12-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
No. 11-10458.

#### Moore *v.*United States.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
333 Exeption Request: DJI Inspire 1 Users Manual

Use the following link to view the DJI Inspire 1 Users Manual:

http://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_User_Manual_v1.0_en.pdf

(Note: The file was over 10MB, exceeding the limit set on the regulations.gov website.)
#### Don Alfonso WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee

No. 17-10674

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 26, 2018

Don Alfonso Williams, Pro Se

Casey Leigh Jackson Solomon, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Don Alfonso Williams, Texas prisoner # 01786481, is serving 50-year concurrent *355terms in prison for murder and each of two aggravated robbery convictions. Williams filed an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his convictions. He subsequently filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and (b)(4), seeking relief from the denial of his § 2254 petition on the basis of a void judgment and fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. The district court denied the motion. Williams now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion.

Before he can appeal the denial of his motion under Rule 60(b), Williams must obtain a COA. *See Ochoa Canales v. Quarterman,*507 F.3d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 2007). The district court did not determine whether Williams was entitled to a COA. Because the district court has not issued a COA ruling, we assume without deciding that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. *See*Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings; *Cardenas v. Thaler,*651 F.3d 442, 443-44 & nn.1-2 (5th Cir. 2011). Nevertheless, we decline to remand this case to the district court for a COA ruling because the appeal is frivolous and a remand would be futile. *See United States v. Alvarez,*210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000).

In the alternative, even if we have jurisdiction over the appeal absent a COA ruling in the district court, we would deny a COA. To obtain a COA, Williams must establish that reasonable jurists would debate that the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. *See Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Hernandez v. Thaler,*630 F.3d 420, 428 (5th Cir. 2011). He has failed to make the required showing.

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and Williams’s motion for a COA is DENIED AS MOOT.

3⁄8

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *355published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.