alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11
                   NUTRAMAX PRODUCTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                  (UNAUDITED)
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                             Thirteen Weeks    Thirteen Weeks     Forty Weeks      Thirty-Nine
                                                                  Ended             Ended             Ended        Weeks Ended
                                                             --------------    --------------    --------------    ------------- 
                                                              July 4, 1998      June 28, 1997     July 4, 1998     June 28, 1997
                                                             --------------    --------------    --------------    ------------- 
                                                                                 (shares data in thousands)
<S>                                                       <C>                <C>               <C>                <C> 
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:
   Net income per common share                                 $     0.04         $    0.16         $    0.29        $    0.54
                                                               ==========         =========         =========        =========
 
   Weighted average number of shares outstanding                    5,672             4,712             5,646            6,091
                                                               ==========         =========         =========        =========

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:
   Net income per common share                                 $     0.04         $    0.16         $    0.29        $    0.54
                                                               ==========         =========         =========        =========
 
   Weighted average shares                                          5,672             4,712             5,646            6,091
   Effect of dilutive securities:
    Stock options                                                      14                91                57               30 
    Warrants                                                           27                65                41               31 
                                                               ----------         ---------         ---------        --------- 
   Adjusted weighted average number of shares 
     outstanding                                                    5,713             4,868             5,744            6,152
                                                               ==========         =========         =========        =========

</TABLE>
# C_2021338EN.01002801.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/28

---

Action brought on 1 July 2021 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS)

(Case T-373/21)

(2021/C 338/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Etablissements Nicolas (Thiais, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: St. Nicolaus a.s. (Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark NICOLAS — European Union trade mark No 6 231 484

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 21 April 2021 in Case R 1195/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and the Council.

---
#### Gregory C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. HICKS, Sgt., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-15583

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

Gregory C. Bontemps, Pro Se

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 **

California state prisoner Gregory C. Bontemps appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was subjected to an inappropriate unclothed body search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. *Allen v. Meyer,*755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Bontemps consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C. *588§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then denied in forma pauperis status on the basis that Bontemps had accrued three strikes and dismissed Bontemps’ action for failure to pay the filing fee before the named defendants had been served. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1916(g) (prisoner cannot bring a civil action if he has accrued three strikes). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, *Williams v. King,*875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings.

Bontemps’ second request to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied as unnecessary.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

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

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

RE: AgInfomatics Give Presentation on the Benefits of Neonicotinoid Insecticides 

 April 30, 2014 

List of Documents 

 

1. Meeting Summary Page 1 

2. Meeting Sign in Sheet Pages 2 -3 

 

Meeting Summary 

EPA, California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), Canada’s Pesticide Management Regulatory Authority 

(PMRA), USDA Offices of Pest Management Policy (OPMP) and USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) 

attend presentation on the benefits of neonicotinoid use in agriculture. Neonicotinoid registrants Bayer 

(imidacloprid and clothianidin), Syngenta (thiamethoxam), and Valent (clothianidin) requested an opportunity to 

give relevant regulatory agencies the preliminary findings of the neonicotinoid benefits analysis they have 

sponsored. The benefits analysis was conducted and presented by the group AgInfomatics and this analysis 

examined grower perceived value, crop yield impacts of neonicotinoid use, and evaluation of alternatives 

insecticides. The preliminary findings presented were that the use of the neonicotinoids clothianidin, imidacloprid 

and thiamethoxam on corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and sorghum likely provides several billion dollars of 

benefits to the US economy. Feedback on the methods and interpretation of preliminary results were also 

provided by the participants. The AgInfomatics have not completed their analysis and they hope to publish their 

findings in a peer reviewed journal in the future.
No. 11-10054.

#### Buckman *v.*Massachusetts.

Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.
1

The HONORABLE RICHARD H. KYLE, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the HONORABLE

FRANKLIN L. NOEL, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2758

___________

Jerry William Weber, *

 *

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

 *

Frank W. Wood, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee, *

___________

 Submitted: August 1, 2000

 Filed: August 3, 2000

___________

Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jerry William Weber, a Minnesota inmate, appeals the district court’s1

 adverse

grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 retaliatory-transfer action. Having

carefully reviewed the record, we conclude summary judgment was properly granted,

for the reasons stated by the district court. We also conclude the district court did not
-2-

abuse its discretion in denying Weber’s various discovery motions. See 8th Cir. Rule

47B. Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Anthony Verdean DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10232 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 7, 2018

Leigha Amy Simonton, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S.' Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

James Matthew Wright, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Amarillo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM: *

The Court grants the petition for panel rehearing, withdraws its previous opinion in this matter, *United States v. Daniels,*689 Fed.Appx. 376 (5th Cir. 2017), and substitutes the following opinion.

Anthony Verdean Daniels appeals his 224-month sentence under the Armed Ca*414reer Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. His appeal rests on the assertion that Texas Penal Code § 30.02 is not divisible under *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016). After his brief was filed, we held that § 30.02 is divisible under *Mathis. United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 669-71 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017).

Relying on *Uribe,*our original opinion on this appeal affirmed the district court’s judgment. Subsequently, on February 20, 2018, this Court, sitting en banc, expressly overruled the holding in *Uribe. United States v. Herrold,*883 F.3d 517, No. 14-11317, 2018 WL 948373 (5th Cir. Feb. 20, 2018). More specifically, we held that the Texas burglary statute was indivisible and that it was broader than generic burglary. *Id.*883 F.3d at 541-42, 2018 WL 948373 at *18. Thus, the prior conviction under the Texas burglary statute did not qualify as a violent felony. *Id.*Because Daniels’s prior conviction was under the same Texas burglary statute, we VACATE his sentence and REMAND for resentencing consistent with the holding in *Herrold.*

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                          37,397
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  191,327
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,788
<INVENTORY>                                    359,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               596,358
<PP&E>                                          67,077
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 760,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          508,351
<BONDS>                                         55,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,123
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,941
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   760,293
<SALES>                                        841,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               841,690
<CGS>                                          758,447
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  758,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                67,317
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,890
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,645
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,245
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,245
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022084EN.01004501.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/45

---

Action brought on 24 December 2021 — European Food v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (FITNESS)

(Case T-799/21)

(2022/C 84/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Food SA (Drăgăneşti, Romania) (represented by: I. Speciac, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark FITNESS — European Union trade mark No 2 470 326

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 October 2021 in Case R 894/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | as a secondary claim, alter the contested decision and grant the appeal filed against the decision rendered by the Cancellation Division in Cancellation Proceedings No 5 802 C; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a secondary claim, alter the contested decision and grant the appeal filed against the decision rendered by the Cancellation Division in Cancellation Proceedings No 5 802 C;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council, and of rules 37 and 50(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council, and of rules 37 and 50(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 of the Council.

---
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                         4,178
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  21,864
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,725
<INVENTORY>                                    73,001
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               101,088
<PP&E>                                         46,568
<DEPRECIATION>                                 23,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 235,655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          37,162
<BONDS>                                        41,157
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3
<OTHER-SE>                                     157,333
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   235,655
<SALES>                                        61,909
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               61,909
<CGS>                                          39,618
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  39,618
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               31,579 <F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               812
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,300)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 8,078
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,222)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.08)

<F1>OTHER EXPENSES CONSIST OF ALL OPERATING COSTS AND EXCLUDES INTERST,
NON-OPERATING INCOME AND INCOME TAXES.
</FN>


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5945]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-17-003]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 5, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1997, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
the following tariff sheets proposed to become effective on April 1, 
1997:

Fifth Revised Volume No. 1

First Revised Sheet No. 202
Second Revised Sheet No. 203
First Revised Sheet No. 204
First Revised Sheet No. 205
First Revised Sheet No. 212
First Revised Sheet No. 215
First Revised Sheet No. 216
1 Revised First Revised Sheet No. 257
Second Revised Sheet No. 258
1 Revised First Revised Sheet No. 259
1 Revised First Revised Sheet No. 260
Original Sheet No. 260A
Third Revised Sheet No. 265
First Revised Sheet No. 268
First Revised Sheet No. 270
Third Revised Sheet No. 286
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 287
Original Sheet No. 287A
Second Revised Sheet No. 288
Second Revised Sheet No. 289

    Northern states that the instant filing is to (i) make effective 
changes to the General Terms and Conditions of Northern's tariff which 
are necessary to implement Gas Industry Standards Board (GISB) 
standards which have been previously approved by the Commission on a 
pro forma basis in Northern's compliance proceeding in Docket Nos. 
RP97-17-000 et al., filed on October 1, 1996 and December 16, 1996, 
(ii) incorporate the requirements of Order No. 587-B, issued January 
30, 1997 in Docket No. RM96-1-003, and (iii) include references to the 
GISB definitions, datasets and standards not previously incorporated by 
Northern, all as required by the February 18 Order.
    Northern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Northern's customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve to make 
Protestant a party to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file 
with the Commission and are available for inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5945 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
PAGE <1>

                                  Exhibit 32.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                  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 Annual Report of Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John H. Alexander, 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
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 results of operations
          of the Company.



     Dated: January 24, 2007

                                               JOHN H. ALEXANDER
                                               -----------------
                                               John H. Alexander
                                            Chief Executive Officer





















PAGE <1>

                                   Exhibit 32.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                  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 Annual Report of Pyramid Oil Company (the Company) on
form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Lee G.  Christianson,
Chief Financial 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 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 results of operations
          of the Company.




     Date: January 24, 2007

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer