alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

Computation of Primary and Fully Diluted Earnings Per Common Share
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

EARNINGS

                                                    3/31/95      3/31/96       3/31/97
                                                    -------      -------       -------

<S>                                                <C>        <C>          <C>        
Net Loss                                           $ 294,708  $(1,254.418) $   291,750
Series A Preferred Stock Dividends                  (188,571)    (185,199)     (91,542)
Series B Preferred Stock Dividends                  (465,540)    (464,655)    (232,332)
Series B Preferred Stock Dividends in arrears              0            0     (134,732)
                                                  ----------  -----------   ---------- 

Pro Forma Loss Applicable to Common Stock         $ (359,403) $(1,904,272)  $ (166,856)
</TABLE>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

SHARES

<S>                                            <C>         <C>         <C>      
Weighted Average Common Shares for the
  period ended                                 7,210,268   8,033,640   8,240,776

Additional Shares Assuming Conversion of:
  Employee Options Exercised                           0           0           0
                                               ---------   ---------   ---------

Pro Forma Shares for Primary Earnings
  Per Common Share                             7,210,268   8,033,640   8,240,776
                                               ---------   ---------   ---------

Additional Shares Assuming Conversion of:
  Preferred Stock                                      0           0           0
                                               ---------   ---------   ---------

Pro Forma Shares for Fully Diluted Earnings
  Per Common Share                             7,210,268   8,033,640   8,240,776
                                               =========   =========   =========

</TABLE>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Primary Earnings Per Common Share     $( .05)      $( .24)        $(.02)
Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share     *$( .05)     *$( .24)       *$(.02)


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

* Common Stock Equivalents Have an Anti-Dilutive Effect on Earnings Per Share
  and are Excluded From This Exhibit.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 03-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                   |  | 
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------- |  | 
|                      |  | /s/ J. Roe Buckley               
|                      |  | Name: J. Roe Buckley             
|Date: August 14, 2008 |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer   
|                      |  | Mewbourne Development Corporation
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5655 

To eliminate the annual numerical limitation on the number of aliens who 

may be provided status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 21, 2006 

Mr. HYDE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To eliminate the annual numerical limitation on the number 

of aliens who may be provided status under section 

101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Legal Employment Act 

5 of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF H–2B CAP. 

7 Section 214(g)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)) is amended to read as follows: 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5655 IH

1 ‘‘(1) The total number of aliens who may be 

2 issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant sta3 tus during any fiscal year under section 

4 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) may not exceed 65,000.’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
FIRST TECHNOLOGY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. Ronnie Lee SANDERS, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

No. COA19-187

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 3, 2019

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of the iShares® Diversified Alternatives Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Latham, Chief Executive Officer of iShares® Delaware
Trust Sponsor LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.

Date: March 24, 2011



|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael A. Latham                                                                 
|Michael A. Latham*
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal executive officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Latham is signing in his capacity as an officer of iShares® Delaware Trust Sponsor LLC, the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5654 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5654

   To prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from limiting the 
  amount of Urban Area Security Initiative or State Homeland Security 
Grant Program grant funds that may be used to pay salaries or overtime 
 pay of law enforcement officials engaged in antiterrorism activities, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 20, 2006

  Mr. Weiner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from limiting the 
  amount of Urban Area Security Initiative or State Homeland Security 
Grant Program grant funds that may be used to pay salaries or overtime 
 pay of law enforcement officials engaged in antiterrorism activities, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``First Responder Funding 
Modernization Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. USE OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS FOR SALARIES OR OVERTIME 
              PAY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ENGAGED IN ANTITERRORISM 
              ACTIVITIES.

    (a) Limitation on Use Prohibited.--The Department of Homeland 
Security may not limit the amount of covered grant funds that may be 
used to pay salaries or overtime pay of law enforcement officials 
engaged in antiterrorism activities.
    (b) Treatment in Ranking Proposed Uses.--In evaluating the 
anticipated effectiveness of proposed uses of covered grant funds for 
purposes of determining eligibility for or the amount of a covered 
grant, the Department of Homeland Security (including any peer reviewer 
acting on behalf of the Department) shall treat a proposed use for 
salaries and overtime pay of law enforcement officials engaged in 
antiterrorism activities as at least as effective as all other proposed 
uses.
    (c) Covered Grant Funds Defined.--In this section the term 
``covered grant funds'' means grant funds provided under the Urban Area 
Security Initiative or the State Homeland Security Grant Program.
    (d) Application.--This section shall not apply with respect to any 
grant awarded before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


As Adopted pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Narsi Narayanan, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the annual report of ClearOne Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ClearOne Communications, Inc.











Date:  March 30, 2011
By:
/s/ Narsi NarayananNarsi NarayananVice President of Finance


A signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications, Inc. and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Salomon Smith Barney Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci
Jerry Pascucci
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
President and Director

Date: May 15, 2008

---
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Brian BURNEY, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 105631

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: August 14, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Jeff Christian Schneider, Office of the State Public Defender, 1000 West Nifong, Bldg. 7, Ste. 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Robert Jefferson Bartholomew, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Brian Burney ("Defendant") appeals from the judgment upon his convictions after a bench trial for one count of aggravated stalking, in violation of Section 565.225.3 RSMo 20001 and one count of second degree sexual misconduct, in violation of Section 566.095. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of four years of imprisonment on the aggravated stalking count and fifteen days on the sexual misconduct count, and the trial court retained jurisdiction, directing Defendant *892to complete 120 days of shock incarceration pursuant to Section 559.115. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000 as amended.
1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2475

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * Timothy J. Barnhill, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 30, 2003 Filed: January 12, 2004

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Timothy J. Barnhill pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court 1 sentenced Barnhill to 72 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. The court also imposed, as special conditions of supervised release, the requirements that Barnhill (1) participate in substance-abuse, mental-health, and “breath-alcohol ignition interlock device” programs, (2) submit to searches by the probation office upon reasonable suspicion-2- of Barnhill’s violation of his release conditions, and (3) not consume or possess alcoholic beverages. On appeal, Barnhill’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the supervised-release conditions imposed by the district court are not reasonably related to Barnhill’s offense; the government breached its duty under the plea agreement by not recommending an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; the court erred by not granting the reduction; and Barnhill was denied effective assistance of counsel. Barnhill has moved separately for appointment of counsel. In the plea agreement, Barnhill waived his right to appeal his sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here. After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the government did not breach the plea agreement; that all of Barnhill’s arguments, except his ineffective-assistance claim, fall within the scope of the waiver; that Barnhill entered into the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily; and that no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. SeeUnited States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-93 & n.7 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 501 (2003); United States v. Blue Coat , 340 F.3d 539, 542 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Michelsen , 141 F.3d 867, 873 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 942 (1998). Further, Barnhill’s ineffective-assistance claim is not properly raised in this direct criminal appeal. See United States v. Woods , 270 F.3d 728, 730 (8th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 535 U.S. 948 (2002). We have reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues not waived by the plea agreement. Accordingly, we enforce Barnhill’s appeal waiver, dismiss this appeal, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We also deny Barnhill’s motion for counsel.

______________________________
exv10w14









    Exhibit 10.14



 




    AMENDMENT
    TO

    OPTIONSXPRESS HOLDINGS, INC.

    2005 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN



 



    THIS AMENDMENT TO THE OPTIONSXPRESS HOLDINGS,
    INC.  2005 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN (as amended
    and restated May 12, 2005) (this “Amendment”) is
    effective as of December 31, 2009.



 



    WHEREAS, Section 16 of the 2005 Employee Stock Purchase
    Plan (as amended and restated May 12, 2005) (the
    “ESPP”) provides that the Compensation Committee may
    amend the ESPP;



 



    WHEREAS, there have been recent changes to Treasury Regulations
    under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
    amended (the “Code”) governing the tax treatment of
    ESPPs that require updates to the ESPP;



 



    WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee has determined that pursuant
    to its authority under Section 16 of the ESPP it desires to
    make the amendments described herein;



 



    NOW, THEREFORE, the Compensation Committee does hereby amend the
    ESPP as follows:



 



    1. The following new sentence shall be added at the end of
    Section 7(a):



 



    “The maximum number of shares of Common Stock that each
    Participant may purchase during an Offering Period is
    100,000.”



 



    2. The first sentence of Section 8(b) shall be deleted
    and replaced with the following sentence:



 



    “Any amount remaining to the credit of a Participant’s
    account after the purchase of shares by the Participant on an
    Exercise Date shall be refunded to the Participant, provided
    that any amount which is insufficient to purchase a full share
    of Common Stock shall remain in the Participant’s account
    and be carried over to the next Offering Period, unless the
    Participant withdraws from participation in the Plan or elects
    to withdraw his or her account balance in accordance with
    Section 10(c).



 



    3. Continuing Force and Effect.  The ESPP,
    as modified by the terms of this Amendment, shall continue in
    full force and effect from and after the date of the adoption of
    this Amendment set forth above.
# REGISTRATION

85678-812345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*38*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*39404142*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*434445*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*46*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*47*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*48*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*49*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*50*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*51*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*52*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*53545556575859606162______________________________________________________________

Page is not included in this copy.

Pages 63 through 64 are not included in this copy.

_________________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of

information:

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients.

__ __ Identity of product impurities.

__ __ Description of the product manufacturing process.

__ __ Description of quality control procedures.

__ __ Identity of the source of product ingredients.

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information.

_____ A draft product label.

__X __ The product confidential statement of formula.

_____ Information about a pending registration action.

__ __ FIFRA registration data.

__ __ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _

.

_____ The document is not responsive to the request.

__ __ Internal deliberative information.

__ __ Privileged attorney-client communication.

__ __ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the

Agency.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ALBERTO ROCHA RIOS,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 73788

Agency No. A205

- 053

- 380

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2017 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,

Circuit Judges.

Luis Alberto Rocha Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of th e Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance or

administrative closure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 2 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 73788

review for abuse of di scretion the agency’s denial of a continuance. Sandoval

Luna v. Mukasey , 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008)

. We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good cause

Rocha Rios’s motion for an indefinite continuance to allow him to adjust his status

once his approved relative visa petition became current, where he presented no

evidence that relief was immediately available to him

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003. 29 (an

IJ may grant a c ontinuance for good cause shown) ; Sandoval

- Luna

, 526 F.3d at

1247 (no good cause for continuance where relief from removal was not

immediately available).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination regarding

administrative closure. See Diaz

- Covarrubias v. Mukasey , 551 F.3d 1114, 1118

(9th Cir. 2009)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DE NIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification of CEO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002

 

*I certify that this periodic report containing theissuer’s financial statements fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78mor 78o(d)) and that information contained in this periodic report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the issuer.*

 

 
| * * | * *                               | *By:*  | */s/  Keith C. Robbins*            |
|----------|----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|     |                                   |   |                               |
|     |                                   |   | President, Chief Executive Officer |
|     |                                   |   |                               |
|     | Date:  August 14,  2009 |   |                               |

 

----