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

                                                                     Exhibit 11


                      COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


        The table below presents information necessary for the computation of
loss per share of the Common Stock, on both a primary and fully diluted basis,
for the three months ended March 31, 1998 and 1997, and the years ended
December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995.



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                            ------------------
                                                MAR. 31,                    YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                --------                    -----------------------
                                          1998           1997          1997            1996         1995
                                          ----           ----          ----            ----         ---- 
<S>                                     <C>           <C>           <C>             <C>           <C>
Net loss applicable to share of
Common stock and Common Stock
equivalents                             $  (64,244)   $ (142,737)    $(1,708,418)   $ (733,973)   $(1,440,003)

Average number of shares of Common
Stock Outstanding                        9,821,754     8,504,954       9,821,754     8,504,954      7,742,710
Common Stock equivalents                 7,127,022     1,416,467       7,127,022     1,416,467        951,667
                                        ----------    ----------     -----------    ----------    -----------
Total shares of Common Stock and
Common Stock equivalents                16,948,776     9,921,421      16,948,776     9,921,421      8,694,377
                                        ==========    ==========     ===========    ==========    ===========
Primary loss per share of Common
Stock                                      $ (0.01)      $ (0.02)        $ (0.17)      $ (0.09)       $ (0.19)

Fully diluted loss per share of
Common Stock                               $  (0.0)      $  (0.1)        $  (0.1)      $ (0.07)       $ (0.17)

</TABLE>

-----------------
        Common Stock equivalents are considered anti-dilutive because of the 
net losses incurred by the Company
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Michael C. Himes

HiRez Productions

1101 South State Street Apt 2202

Chicago, Illinois 60605

mikehimes9@gmail.com

312.735.0768
Calix Networks, Inc. Non-Employee Director Cash Compensation Policy



 Exhibit 10.16 
 CALIX NETWORKS, INC. 
 Non-Employee Director Cash
Compensation Policy 
 1.    General.    The Non-Employee Director Cash
Compensation Policy (the “Policy”), as set forth herein, was adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Calix Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) on March 2, 2010. The Policy, as set forth
herein, is effective as of the completion of the Company’s initial public offering of its common stock (the “Effective Date”). 
 2.    Annual Cash Compensation.    Each member of the Board who is not employed by the Company or one of its affiliates (a “Non-Employee
Director”) shall be entitled to an annual retainer fee payable in cash with the amount determined pursuant to the following table (such amount, the “Annual Retainer”): 
  

				
	 Position
	  	Annual Retainer
	 Chairman of the Board
	  	$	55,000
	 Chairman, Audit Committee
	  	$	52,000
	 Chairman, Compensation Committee
	  	$	50,000
	 Chairman, Nominating and Governance Committee
	  	$	45,000
	 Committee Member who is not a Committee Chair
	  	$	40,000
	 Member of the Board who does not serve on a Committee
	  	$	35,000

 3.    Timing of Payment.    Annual Retainers payable hereunder shall be paid in quarterly installments that are pro-rated for any partial period of service. For the avoidance of doubt, any
Annual Retainer earned hereunder will be paid prior to the fifteenth day of the third month following the end of the calendar year during which such Annual Retainer was earned. 
 4.    Policy Subject to Amendment, Modification and Termination.    This Policy may be
amended, modified or terminated by the Board in the future at its sole discretion. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Board hereby expressly reserves the authority to terminate this Policy during any year up and until the election
of directors at a given annual meeting of stockholders. 
 * * * * *
December 19, 2011 

Mr. Charles Gaber 

Gulfstream Aerospace LP 

P.O. Box 1036 

Airport City, 70100 

Israel 

Dear Mr. Gaber: 

This letter is to inform you that we have received and begun processing your petition for 

exemption. It acknowledges receipt of the petition and describes how we will process it. 

We Have the Petition 

We’ve received your November 10, 2011, petition on behalf of Gulfstream Aerospace LP 

(GALP), for an exemption from § 21.213(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would allow GALPs limited partnership company the 

ability to obtain a Class II provision airworthiness certificate on its G280 that are not 

manufactured in the United States. 

We’ve added your petition to the public docket (No. FAA-2011-1271) and we are processing 

it. We will contact you if we need additional information. 

How We’ll Process the Petition 

A petition for an exemption, according to 14 CFR 11.63(d), must be sent to the FAA at least 

120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. Although you requested that 

we not delay your petition by publishing it in the Federal Register, we find that the petition, if 

granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish the petition in the Federal Register

so that the public may comment on it.
2 

We will advise you of the agency's final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions in the meantime, you may contact me at (202) 267-4095. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frances Shaver 

Program Analyst 

Aircraft and Airport Rules Division
Deandre COOPER v. STATE

CR-15-1323

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

N O

. P D

- 0 5 7 2

- 1 4 & P D

- 0 5 7 3

- 1 4

P A T R I C I A D O N A L D S O N

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

, A p p e l l e e

O R D E R T O D E T E R M I N E R E P R E S E N T A T I O N

D A L L A S C O U N T Y

T h i s o r d e r w a s d e l i v e r e d p e r c u r i a m

.

O R D E R

A p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f f a l s e s t a t e m e n t t o o b t a i n p r o p e r t y o r c r e d i t i n c a u s e

n u m b e r s F

- 1 0 0 0 4 3 3

- S a n d F

- 1 0 0 0 4 3 5

- S i n t h e 2 8 2 D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f D a l l a s C o u n t y

. n d

A p p e l l a n t w a s s e n t e n c e d t o c o n f i n e m e n t f

o r f i v e y e a r s

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a f f i r m e d t h e

j u d g m e n t s o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t D o n a l d s o n v

. S t a t e

, N o

. 0 5

- 1 3

- 0 0 5 9 8

- C R

, 0 5

- 1 3

- 0 0 5 9 9

- C R

( T e x

. A p p

. — D a l l a s

, d e l i v e r e d J u n e 4

, 2 0 1 4 )

. A p p e l l a n t f i l e d a p r o s e p e t i t i o n f o r

d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w w h i c h w a s g r a n t e d b y t h i s C o u r t o n F e b r u a r y 4

, 2 0 1 5

. O n F e b r u a r y 1 0

,DONAL DSON -2

2 1 0 5

, p u r s u a n t t o a n o r d e r f r o m t h i s C o u r t

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a p p o i n t e d t h e D a l l a s C o u n t y P u b l i c

D e f e n d e r s O f

f i c e t o r e p r e s e n t A p p e l l a n t o n h e r p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w

. H o w e v e r

,

o n M a r c h 1 6

, 2 0 1 5

, w e g r a n t e d t h e D a l l a s C o u n t y P u b l i c D e f e n d e r s O f

f i c e m o t i o n t o

w i t h d r a w a s a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l

. S i n c e A p p e l l a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o r e p r e s e n t a t i o n b e f o r e t h i s

C o u r t a t t h i s t i m e

, w e o r d e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o a p p o i n t a n a t t o r n e y t o r e p r e s e n t A p p e l l a n t

b e f o r e t h i s c o u r t i n r e g a r d t o P D R N o s

. P D

- 0 5 7 2

- 1 4 a n d P D

- 0 5 7 3

- 1 4 i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e

p r o v i s i o n s o f A r t i c l e s 1

. 0 5 1 a n d 2 6

. 0 4

, V

. A

. C

. C

. P

. A n y h e a r i n g c o n d u c t e d p u r s u a n t t o t h i s

o r d e r s h a l l b e h e l d w i t h i n 1 5 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s o r d e r

. T h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o r d e r a p p o i n t i n g

c o u n s e l a n d a n y o t h e r s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d s h a l l b e r e t u r n e d t o t h i s c o u r t w i t h i n 3 0

d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s o r d e r

.

I t i s s o o r d e r e d t h i s t h e 1 8 d a y o f M a r c h

, 2 0 1 5 t h

D o n o t p u b l i s h
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,419]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 27, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of EDS, an HP Company, Project Management Delivery Division, Lansing, Michigan.

The petition has been deemed invalid. Two of the petitioners did not provide complete information. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of March 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-7111 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of BonusAmerica Worldwide Corp
on Form 10-QSB/A, Amendment No. 1, for the nine-month period ended September 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Michael Mak, acting in the capacity of Chief Financial Officer of BonusAmerica
Worldwide Corp, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section
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. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

November 23, 2004                          By: /s/ Michael Mak
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                Michael Mak
                                                Chief Financial Officer

                                       34
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 United eSystems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Walter Reid Green, Jr., as Principal Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 Company.





/s/ Walter Reid Green, Jr.Walter Reid Green, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerDate:  November 22, 2010








This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 32.2   Certification of CEO
      and CFOPursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant
      toSection 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   In connection with the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofORGANA GARDENS INTERNATIONAL INC.for the
Quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jaclyn Cruz, as the
equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  hereby certifies, 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 his
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.  /s/Jaclyn CruzName: Jaclyn CruzDate: November 16,
2009  This
certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
Jacques CORTES-GASCOT, Petitioner, v. Shrinath S. KAMAT, M.D., P.A. d/b/a Bay Area Neurology Associates Raj M. Eliazer, M.D. and Shrinath Sheshgiri Kamat, M.D.; BayCare Health System, Inc. d/b/a St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc.; Pamela B. Wilson, M.D.; Daniel H. Hopkins, D.O.; Bhavik Patel, M.D.; Cogent Healthcare of Pensacola, L.L.C.; Cogent Healthcare, Inc.; Emergency Medical Associates of Tampa Bay, LLC; and Emergency Medical Associates of Florida, LLC, Respondents.

Case No. 2D17-667

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 18, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 31.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Edward J. Peplinski, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Veterans in Packaging, Inc., certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Veterans in Packaging, Inc.;  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;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  a) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  b) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. I, as the certifying officer have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 13, 2011 By: /s/ Edward J. Peplinski Edward J. Peplinski  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6667** 
CHRISTOPHER G. DARBY, a/k/a Chris Darby , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN CARTLEDGE , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 2:12

- cv - 00021

- TLW )

Submitted : August 22 , 2012 Decided: August 27, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Christopher G. Darby, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher G. Darby seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recomme ndation of the magistrate judge to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as an unauthorized, successive petition . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demo nstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district

c ourt denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have in dependently reviewed the record and conclude that Darby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Darby’s motions for the appointment of counsel and for transcripts at Government expense. We dispense with oral3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Antrade ROBY v. STATE

CR-15-0467

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Brandon VIERLING and Heather Scott-Vierling, Respondents, v. John MILLER, a partner of Stor-Safe Mini Warehouses, a Missouri general partnership, Appellant.

WD 81970

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: May 21, 2019

Corey L. Kraushaar, St. Louis for appellant.

Michael T. Crabb, Stephen J. Torline, Benjamin T. Friesen, Overland Park for respondents.

Before Division Two: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Gary D. Witt, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM:

*497Brandon Vierling suffered severe electrical burns while attempting to install a metal cover on an electrical junction box at RoKC, LLC's rock climbing gym in North Kansas City. Vierling and his wife filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Clay County against RoKC, LLC and against John Miller, a partner of Stor-Safe Mini Warehouses, the Missouri general partnership that owned the building in which the gym was located. During discovery, the Vierlings requested to inspect "the electrical junction box at issue in this suit." On the day of the inspection, the Vierlings' consulting expert was able to view the electrical junction box, but the Vierlings were told that the cover could not be located, and had presumably been discarded. Later, the Vierlings became aware that the cover had been in the possession of Miller's son, and had been made available to Miller's expert. The Vierlings moved for sanctions against Miller for his failure to produce the metal cover for inspection by their expert. After the resolution of the Vierlings' underlying personal injury and loss of consortium claims, the circuit court imposed a $ 4,000 discovery sanction on Miller. Miller appeals the sanctions order. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum to the parties which sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).