alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

ALL AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1 

STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (UNAUDITED)

                                                               QUARTERS                           NINE MONTHS
PERIODS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30                               1998             1997              1998              1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>               <C>               <C>              <C>            
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net Income.................................   $       310,000   $     1,127,000   $     1,838,000  $     2,051,000
                                              ===============   ===============   ===============  ===============

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding........        19,686,611        19,673,600        19,684,604       19,670,859
                                              ===============   ===============   ===============  ===============

Basic Earnings Per Share...................            $  .02            $  .06            $  .09           $  .10
                                                       ======            ======            ======           ======

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net Income.................................   $       310,000   $     1,127,000   $     1,838,000  $     2,051,000
                                              ===============   ===============   ===============  ===============

Weighted Average and Dilutive Shares:
  Weighted average shares outstanding......        19,686,611        19,673,600        19,684,604       19,670,859
  Dilutive shares..........................           385,870           187,337           441,445           36,080
                                              ---------------   ---------------   ---------------  ---------------
                                                   20,072,481        19,860,937        20,126,049       19,706,939
                                              ===============   ===============   ===============  ===============

Diluted Earnings Per Share.................            $  .02            $  .06            $  .09           $  .10
                                                       ======            ======            ======           ======
</TABLE>
H. Con. Res. 11 Agreed to April 10, 1997

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

Concurrent Resolution

Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part of the

commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used

from 8 o’clock ante meridiem until 3 o’clock post meridiem on

May 8, 1997, for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of

the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. Physical

preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance

with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
# C_2023189EN.01003201.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/32

---

Order of the General Court of 31 March 2023 — Eggers & Franke v EUIPO — E. & J. Gallo Winery (EF)

(Case T-183/22) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2023/C 189/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eggers & Franke Holding GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and H. Förster, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and T. Klee, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: E. & J. Gallo Winery (Modesto, California, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2022 (Case R 729/2021-5), relating to opposition proceedings between E. & J. Gallo Winery and Eggers & Franke Holding GmbH.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Eggers & Franke Holding GmbH and E. & J. Gallo Winery shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Eggers & Franke Holding GmbH and E. & J. Gallo Winery shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 23.5.2022.

---
Reference

Standard (1) # Pass # Fail Protocol Gas Failure Rate

(2) # Pass # Fail Protocol Gas Failure Rate

(2) # Pass # Fail Protocol Gas Failure Rate

(2) SRM 2 4 67% 4 0 0% 2 1 33% NTRM 11 3 21% 14 0 0% 17 1 6% GMIS 20 2 9% 23 1 4% 20 1 5%

Tri-Blend NO/SO2/CO2 Protocol Gases - Certified According to EPA Traceability Protocol EPA Protocol Gas Audit Failure Rates for

EPA Cylinder Gas Assays: April 2003 - February 2004

(2) Failure rate refers to the number of tri-blend Protocol gases that failed the audit. Failure rate differs depending on what type of reference standard was used to develop each gaseous component of the tri-blend Protocol mixture. This table does not necessarily

mean that the reference standard used to develop Protocol tri-blend mixtures is the principal cause of inaccuracies in the m ixture concentrations. Operator error or improper use of analy tical methods may

significantly

contribute to inaccuracies of Protocol tri-blend tag value concentrations. (1) Reference Standard refers to the type of standard gas used by gas vendors to develop tri-blend Protocol gas mixtures. NO SO2 CO2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                Jul-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                     Jul-31-1996        
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                             2,997,000      
<SECURITIES>                               0      
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,744,000      
<ALLOWANCES>                               0      
<INVENTORY>                                0      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     966,000      
<PP&E>                           119,844,000      
<DEPRECIATION>                   (12,932,000)      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   112,619,000       
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              5,654,000      
<BONDS>                           36,889,000      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0      
<PREFERRED>                                0      
<COMMON>                         107,672,000      
<OTHER-SE>                       (37,596,000)      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     112,619,000       
<SALES>                           27,022,000      
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  27,893,000      
<CGS>                              9,577,000      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      16,569,000      
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     137,000       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 4,800,000      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    6,387,000      
<INCOME-TAX>                              0      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0      
<DISCONTINUED>                            0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     (473,000)      
<CHANGES>                                 0       
<NET-INCOME>                       5,914,000      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           $.65      
<EPS-DILUTED>                           $.65      
                                




</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, the undersigned officer of North American
Technologies Group, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of
my knowledge, the Company's Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended December 31, 2002, (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Amendment fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

/s/ Henry W. Sullivan                                     Dated:  April 29, 2003
--------------------------------------
Henry W. Sullivan
President and Chief Executive Officer
Download the latest version from

www.dji.com/support

DocSupport@dji.com.

Battery Use

Battery Charging

Battery Storage

Battery Disposal

Battery Maintenance

Travel Notice
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.3

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the
use of our report dated January 21, 2002, except for Note 17, as to which the
date is April 4, 2002 and Note 18, as to which the date is May 31, 2002, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-00000) and related Prospectus of BJ
Services Company for the registration of $516,350,000 of convertible senior
notes.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated
January 21, 2002, except for Note 17, as to which the date is April 4, 2002 and
Note 18, as to which the date is May 31, 2002 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of OSCA, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001 included
in BJ Services Company Form 8-K/A dated July 17, 2002 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.


ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
July 23, 2002
No. 11-10403.

#### Fels *v.*Illinois.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022158EN.01001102.xml

| 11.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/11

---

Action brought on 16 February 2022 — Korporaciya ‘Masternet’/EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)

(Case T-85/22)

(2022/C 158/14)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Bürglen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stayer Ibérica, SA (Pinto, Spain)

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 STAYER — European Union trade mark No 9 498 395

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2021 in Case R 932/2021-1

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. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

---
Custom er Service Hotline: 1 - 800 - 438 - 2474 UNITED STA

TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A GENCY

REGION III 1650 A rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 - 2029 September 24, 2010 Ms. Joy ce E. Epps, Director Pennsy lvania Department of Environmental Protection B ureau of Air Quality Rachel Carson State Office Building P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17105
- 2063 Dear Ms. Epps: On J ul y 23 , 20 10 , t he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Pennsy lvania State I mplementation Plan (SI P) from the Pennsy lvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). Th is revision pertains to amendments to the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) Rules and Regulations, Article XXI , Air Pollution Control which , incorporate s the Control Techniques Gu idelines (CTG) issued by EPA for control of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from large appliance and metal furniture; flat wood paneling; and paper, film, and foil surface coating processes in Allegheny County . The SI P revision also includes revisions to existing regulations for surface coating processes in Section 2105.10 and related d efinitions in Section 2101.20. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically

complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rule making (NPR). If members of y our staff have any questions, they

may direct them to Irene Shandruk , Office of Air Program Planning, at 215
- 814
- 2166
. Sh e is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerely , /s/ David Arnold for Diana Esher , Director A ir Protection Division
cc: Arle en Shulman, PADEP Stephen Hepler, PADEP James Thompson, ACHDCustom er Service Hotline: 1 - 800 - 438 - 2474
# C_2023024EN.01003002.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2022 — N.Ö. and M.Ö. v Stadt Wuppertal

(Case C-685/22)

(2023/C 24/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: N.Ö., M.Ö.

Defendant: Stadt Wuppertal

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 20 TFEU preclude a provision under which, in the case of voluntary acquisition of (non-privileged) nationality of a third country, nationality of the Member State and thus citizenship of the Union are lost ex lege where an individual examination of the consequences of the loss is conducted only if the foreign national concerned previously made an application for a retention permit and that application was approved prior to acquisition of the foreign nationality? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 20 TFEU preclude a provision under which, in the case of voluntary acquisition of (non-privileged) nationality of a third country, nationality of the Member State and thus citizenship of the Union are lost ex lege where an individual examination of the consequences of the loss is conducted only if the foreign national concerned previously made an application for a retention permit and that application was approved prior to acquisition of the foreign nationality?

| 2. | If the first question is to be answered in the negative: Is Article 20 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the procedure for the grant of the retention permit, no conditions may be laid down as a result of which an individual assessment of the situation of the person concerned and that of his or her family with regard to the consequences of the loss of citizenship of the Union does not take place or is superseded by other requirements? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is to be answered in the negative: Is Article 20 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the procedure for the grant of the retention permit, no conditions may be laid down as a result of which an individual assessment of the situation of the person concerned and that of his or her family with regard to the consequences of the loss of citizenship of the Union does not take place or is superseded by other requirements?

---
# C_2023155EN.01002601.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 14 December 2022 — XX v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

(Case C-782/22)

(2023/C 155/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: XX

Respondent: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Question referred

Does Article 63(1) TFEU preclude legislation such as that at issue, according to which dividends paid by listed and unlisted companies established in the Netherlands to a company established in another Member State that has invested, inter alia, in shares in those listed and unlisted companies to cover future payment obligations are subject to withholding tax at the rate of 15 % on the gross amount of those dividend payments, whereas the tax burden on dividend payments to a company established in the Netherlands in otherwise similar circumstances would be nil, because the calculation of the basis of assessment for the tax on profits to which that company would be subject takes into account the costs that are incurred as a result of an increase in the future payment obligations of the company, which increase corresponds almost entirely to a (positive) change in the value of the investments, even though the receipt of dividends does not as such lead to a change in the value of those obligations?

---
No. 11-10526.

#### Plummer *v.*Warren, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Scott Michael BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50338

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 16, 2018 * Pasadena, California

Filed February 22, 2018

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Robert Heberle, Trial Attorney; DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Karen Lee Landau, Esquire, Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant'

Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MENDOZA,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Salvador Mendoza, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Scott Michael Bowman appeals his thirty-six month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to obstruction of justice, conversion, falsification of records, and *602witness tampering. Interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is reviewed de novo, factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and application of the sentencing guidelines to the facts of the case is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Job,*871 F.3d 852, 868 (9th Cir. 2017); *United States v. Cruz-Mendez,*811 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir. 2016). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The obstruction of justice sentencing guideline, United States Sentencing Guideline (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2J1.2, instructs courts to cross-reference to the guidelines applicable to the offense that was obstructed when calculating sentencing guideline ranges. U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2(c)(l). Here, the district court properly cross-referenced to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the drug trafficking guideline, to calculate Bowman’s sentence. By pleading guilty to obstruction of justice as charged in the indictment, Bowman admitted that he corruptly obstructed, influenced, and impeded an official proceeding in June 2014 by taking confiscated money. *See United States v. Broce,*488 U.S. 563, 570, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989); *McCarthy v. United States,*394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). The only possible “official proceeding” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) that Bowman’s action could have obstructed, influenced, or impeded was the prosecution based on the methamphetamine distribution organization operating where the money was confiscated. Because the offense level for drug trafficking was greater than the one specified in the obstruction of justice guideline, the district court properly applied the cross-reference to calculate Bowman’s guideline sentence range. U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2(a), (c)(1).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 9/30/96
RALTSON PURINA CO. BALANCE SHEET & STMT OF EARNINGS & IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STMTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          62,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  881,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,900
<INVENTORY>                                    816,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,873,400
<PP&E>                                       2,797,300
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,341,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,785,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,895,500
<BONDS>                                      1,437,000
<COMMON>                                        11,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          323,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     677,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,785,100
<SALES>                                      6,114,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,114,300
<CGS>                                        3,668,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,668,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,684,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             190,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                562,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                   212,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            361,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,100
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   359,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.21
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5619]


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

ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE: March 13-14, 1997.

PLACE: ARRB, 600 E Street, NW, Washington, DC.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Review and Accept Minutes of Closed Meeting
2. Review of Assassination Records
3. Other Business

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Eileen Sullivan, Assistant Press 
and Public Affairs Officer, 600 E Street, NW, Second Floor, Washington, 
DC 20530. Telephone: (202) 724-0088; Fax: (202) 724-0457.
David G. Marwell,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 97-5619 Filed 3-3-97; 5:12 pm]
BILLING CODE 6118-01-P