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



EXHIBIT 11 BAY VIEW CAPITAL CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS) For the Three
    
    For the NineMonths Ended
    
    Months Ended
    
    For the Year EndedDecember 31,
    
    September 30,
    
    December 31,2003
    

    2002
    
    2001
    
    2000
    
    1999(Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)Basic earnings (loss) per share: (1)Net earnings (loss) available to
common shareholders
    
    $
    (673
    )
    
    $
    71,661
    
    
    $
    (101,170
    )
    
    $
    (326,197
    )
    
    $
    28,964Weighted-average shares outstanding
    
    
    6,419
    
    
    
    6,272
    
    
    
    5,087
    
    
    
    3,263
    
    
    
    2,117Basic earnings (loss) per share
    
    $
    (0.10
    )
    
    $
    11.43
    
    
    $
    (19.89
    )
    
    $
    (99.97
    )
    
    $
    13.68Diluted earnings (loss) per share: (1)Net earnings (loss) available to
common shareholders
    
    $
    (673
    )
    
    $
    71,661
    
    
    $
    (101,170
    )
    
    $
    (326,197
    )
    
    $
    28,964Weighted-average shares outstanding
    
    
    6,419
    
    
    
    6,272
    
    
    
    5,087
    
    
    
    3,263
    
    
    
    2,117Dilutive potential common shares
    
    
    
    
    
    
    41
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    15Diluted weighted-average shares outstanding
    
    
    6,419
    
    
    
    6,313
    
    
    
    5,087
    
    
    
    3,263
    
    
    
    2,132Diluted earnings (loss) per share
    
    $
    (0.10
    )
    
    $
    11.35
    
    
    $
    (19.89
    )
    
    $
    (99.97
    )
    
    $
    13.59
 (1) Computation of per share earnings (loss) only applies to periods reported under the going concern basis of accounting.
#### In the Matter of Richard DeGrizje, Appellant, v Loreta Delviccario, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 670]

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5-A, the petitioner father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), entered October 9, 1998, which, *inter alia,*granted the joint motion of the Law Guardian and mother to dismiss his petition on the ground that New York is an inconvenient forum.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction on the ground that New York is an inconvenient forum. As a result, *575the father’s petition for visitation with his two infant sons was dismissed.

Domestic Relations Law article 5-A provides that a court must first decide whether it has jurisdiction pursuant to one or more of the jurisdictional predicates set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 75-d, and, second, if so, whether it should exercise that jurisdiction according to one of the subsections *(see, Vanneck v Vanneck,*49 NY2d 602). Domestic Relations Law § 75-h provides one of the grounds for declining to exercise jurisdiction, namely, inconvenient forum. Domestic Relations Law § 75-h (3) sets forth the following factors that a court may consider: whether another State is or recently was the child’s home State; whether another State has a closer connection to the child; whether evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available in another State; whether the parties have agreed on another forum; and whether the exercise of jurisdiction contravenes the purposes of Domestic Relations Law article 5-A *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 75-h [3]; *Hettinger v Hettinger,*217 AD2d 490). Further, before determining to decline jurisdiction, a court may communicate with a court of another State, sharing information pertinent to the proceeding and insuring that the forum will assume jurisdiction *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 75-h [4]; *Singer v Singer,*79 AD2d 680).

The Family Court considered the evidence concerning the subject children’s closer connections to the State of Arizona *(see, Matter of Heitler v Hoosin,*143 AD2d 1018). There was no evidence that any of the statutory aims were violated *(see, Matter of Swain v Vogt,*206 AD2d 703). Moreover, the Family Court communicated with the court in Arizona to insure that the petitioner’s rights would be protected *(see, Singer v Singer, supra).*

Jurisdiction is a threshold question which can be raised at “any time before making a decree if [a court] finds that it is an inconvenient forum * * * under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-h [1]; *Grossman v Meller,*213 AD2d 221). The Family Court properly made its determination in the best interests of the children. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.
** **

**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

 

**               **In connection with thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC (the “Company”)for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barb Bontrager, ChiefFinancial 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:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 
|   | /s/ Barb Bontrager        |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Barb Bontrager            |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer* |
|   |                      |
|   | Dated: November 14, 2007  |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Peter Hovenier, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Boingo Wireless, Inc.; and

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 
| By:    | /s/ Peter   Hovenier                           |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Peter   Hovenier                               |   |
|   | Chief   Financial Officer                      |   |
|   | (Principal   Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
|   |                                           |   |
| Date:  | July 20,   2018                           |   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1332

GEORGIA ARNETTE GREEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. BRANSON VICKERY, III, State Elect District Attorney; DAWN STROUD, Lenoir County Clerk; W. E. SMITH, Sheriff; ALL JUDGES FOR LENOIR COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-122-4-H) Submitted: August 11, 2004 Decided: August 23, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Georgia Arnette Green, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Giles Meacham, Jr., NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Georgia Arnette Green appeals from the district court’s order dis missing her action in which she sought to remove her criminal prosecution from state court to the federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (2000). While the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the case, see City of Greenwood, MS v. Peacock , 384 U.S. 808, 827-28 (1966), the proper disposition upon a determination of the lack of subject matter jurisdiction is to remand the case to the state court, rather than dismiss the action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(c)(3), (4), 1447(c) (2000); see alsoRoche v. Lincoln Prop. Co. , 373 F.3d 610, 612 (4th Cir. 2004) (determining that district court lacked jurisdiction, vacating district court’s order, and directing action remanded to state court); Virginia v. Wallace , 357 F.2d 105, 106 (4th Cir. 1966) (affirming district court order remanding criminal prosecution to state court). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal order and remand this case to the district court with instructions to remand the case to the state court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
<page>
EXHIBIT 32.01

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 Morgan Stanley Charter
Campbell L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Jeffrey A.
Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, 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
results of operations of the Partnership.









By:    /s/Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President

Date:		May 16, 2005
DANIEL SCHMITT & COMPANY, Appellant, v. Anthony ARCESE, Sr., Mitch Stoddard & Associates, P.C., Respondents.

No. ED 106091

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: May 29, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Louis J. Basso, 1734 Clarkson Road, # 103, Chesterfield, MO 63107.

FOR RESPONDENT: Richard C. Wuestling, M. Adina Johnson, 1034 S. Brentwood, Suite 2100, St. Louis, MO 63117, Joshua M. Avigad, 225 S. Meramec, Suite 1021, St. Louis, MO 63105.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Anthony Arcese filed action against Daniel Schmitt and Company ("DSC") alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The trial *824court granted summary judgment in favor of DSC on Arcese's claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of DSC and awarded DSC attorney's fees. Arcese appealed from the trial court's judgment, and this Court reversed the trial court's award of attorney's fees and court costs to DSC. *Arcese v. Daniel Schmitt & Co.*, 504 S.W.3d 772, 790 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (" *Arcese I*").

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Transport Transports Canada Canada TP 7245E



# AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The following airworthiness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicate is registered in your na me. ADs are issued pursuant to Canadian Aviation Regulation (CAR) 521 Division X . Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H , the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD may invalidate the flight authorization of the aircraft. Alternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above-referenced Standard

. This AD has been issued b y the Continuin g Airworthiness Division ( AARDG ) , National Aircraft Certification Branch, Trans p ort Canada, Ottawa, tele p hone 613 952-4357.

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister in writing of any change of his or her name or address. To request a change of address, contact the Civil Aviation Communicat ions Centre (AARC) at Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8 , or 1-800-305-2059 , or www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/communications/centre/ address.asp
2 4-0022 ( 01-2005 ) 1/1 No

. CF-2012-05 Issue Date 13 January 2012

Number: CF-2012-05 Subject: Chafing of the Wire Harness at the Wing Leading Edge
Effective: 1 February 2012 Applicability: Bombardier Inc. DHC-8 Aeroplane Models 400, 401, and 402, Serial Numbers 4001 through 4382. Compliance: As indicated below, unless already accomplished. Background: There have been several in-service reports of chafing between the wire harness along the wing leading edge and the wing leading edge inboard end rib. The chafing condition was found to be caused by insufficient clearance between the wire harness and the structure. Chafing and damage to this wire har ness could lead to the loss of the airframe de-icing system, and could be a possible igni tion source causing fire and the subsequent loss of the aeroplane. This Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandates the inspection of the wire harness along the leading edge and the relocation of the anchor nut.
Corrective Actions: Within 3000 hours air time or 18 months, whichever occurs first, from the effective date of this AD, perform a detailed inspection of the wire harness on the leading edge for chafing damage, repair as applicable and relocate and install new anchor nuts, all in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-57-24, dated 30 September 2011, or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada.
Authorization: For the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities


### ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Derek Ferguson Chief, Continuing Airworthiness
Contact: Miss Helen Tsai, Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone 613-952-4357, facsimile 613-996-9178 or e-mail CAWWEBFeedback@tc.gc.ca or any Transport Canada Centre.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 49 (Monday, March 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11138-11139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5613]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee 
Meeting on Planning and Procedures

Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a 
meeting on April 1, 2009, Room T2-B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that 
relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the 
ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 12 p.m.-1 p.m.
    The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related 
matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant 
issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Officer, Mr. Sam 
Duraiswamy (Telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET) 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only 
during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. 
Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS 
meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2008 (73 
FR 58268-58269).

[[Page 11139]]

    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Officer between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. 
(ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the 
above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting 
to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda.

    Dated: March 10, 2009.
Cayetano Santos,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch A, Advisory Committee on Reactor 
Safeguards.
 [FR Doc. E9-5613 Filed 3-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 38990/38991

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BRUNO ANTONIO SANTOSDOMINGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 448

Filed: April 17, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Blaine

County. Hon. Robert J. Elgee, District Judge. 

Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of fourteen years with a 

minimum period of confinement of eight years, for trafficking in 

methamphetamine, and ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five

years, for delivery of cocaine, affirmed.

Silvey Law Office LTD; Greg S. Silvey, Star, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, Bruno Antonio Santos-Dominguez pled guilty to 

trafficking in methamphetamine (docket number 38991). Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(4)(B). The 

district court sentenced Santos-Dominguez to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of eight years. Santos-Dominguez also pled guilty to delivery of cocaine

(docket number 38990). Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced SantosDominguez to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years,

and ordered the sentence to run concurrent with the sentence in docket number 38991. Santos-
2

Dominguez appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive

sentences.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Santos-Dominguez’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
### Please place these documents in the NOx SOx secondary standards docket Bryan Hubbell to: Tricia Crabtree 10/05/2010 09:54 AM
Thanks! Dr. Bryan J. Hubbell Senior Advisor for Science and Policy Analysis Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. EPA/OAQPS (C504-02) RTP, NC 27711 (919) 541-0621 ----- Forwarded by Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/05/2010 09:54 AM -----

From: Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US To: Angela Nugent/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 10/01/2010 11:43 AM Subject: response to Ted Russell requestsAngelaWe are working on preparing a new version of Figure 8-1, that I expect to provide to you by Monday morning. With regards to the other requests, please find attached a set of graphs showing the distributions of the components of the AAPI equation, and a separate file with a variance-covariance matrix for the components. Please forward these on to Ted Russell and the rest of the CASAC panel. Thanks, Bryan

Dr. Bryan J. Hubbell Senior Advisor for Science and Policy Analysis Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. EPA/OAQPS (C504-02) RTP, NC 27711 (919) 541-0621

_

________________ _ Bryan, Back to Figure 8-1... just making sure: It has DDEP_ in front of each species. Does the first "D" stand for "Dry", or are we looking at total deposition of that species? Also, if you ever re-do that Figure, I might make sure the colors and order of species match between the top and bottom figure. Also, in Appendix C, Table 1, can you provide the ranges used for each component as used? I am not sure about the others, but I would find some graphic/table indicating the spatial distribution of each quantityto be useful. While I am at it , and recognizing all the free time you all may have between now and Wednesday, giving us some feel for the frequency distribution and possibly a variance-covariance matrix for the terms in the AAPI equation as well... (If I don't ask, I know it will not come, so I thought I might ask). Cheers,
Ted

Prof. Armistead (Ted) Russell Georgia Power Professor of Environmental Engineering Ford Environmental Science and Technology Building School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology 311 Ferst Drive Atlanta, GA 30332-0512 404-894-3079
EXHIBIT
23

















Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











Capitol
Bancorp Ltd.


Lansing,
Michigan










We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-15111, 333-153121, 333-122278, 333-104665, 333-84009, and 333-41215 on Form
S-3, Registration Statements Nos. 333-157263, 333-139235, 333-137910,
333-137367, 333-129778, 333-128850, 333-124417, 333-116571, 333-113931, and
333-115110 on Form S-4 and Registration Statements Nos. 333-122278, 333-144180,
333-137092, 333-126206, 333-105339, 333-105314, 333-99175, 333-97189 and
333-30521 on Form S-8 of Capitol Bancorp Ltd. of our reports dated March 19,
2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of
Capitol Bancorp Ltd.'s internal control over financial reporting, which appear
on pages F-49 – F-51 in the Annual Report to shareholders (Financial Information
Section), which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.










/s/ BDO
Seidman, LLP








March 31,
2010


Grand
Rapids, Michigan
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Andrew Keith STARK, Appellant.

WD 79981

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: May 22, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 3, 2018

Michael Gunter, Kansas City, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Gregory Barnes, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division One: Lisa White Hardwick, P.J., Thomas H. Newton, and Anthony Rex Gabbert, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Mr. Andrew Keith Stark appeals his conviction of class A felony second-degree murder, § 565.021, two counts of class C felony second-degree assault, § 565.060, class D felony resisting a lawful stop, § 575.150, unclassified misdemeanor driving while revoked or suspended, § 302.321, *135and class D felony leaving the scene of a motor-vehicle accident, § 577.060. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment totaling fifteen years. For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 30.25(b).