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

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              NINE MONTHS ENDED       THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                    MAY 31,                 MAY 31,

                                               2000         1999        2000         1999
                                            ---------    ---------   ---------    ----------
<S>                                         <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>
AVERAGE MARKET PRICE PER SHARE              $    2.24    $    1.30   $    2.08    $     2.10
                                            =========    =========   =========    ==========


NET INCOME (LOSS)                           ($296,482)   $ 611,352   ($463,591)   $  277,822
                                            =========    =========   =========    ==========


Basic weighted average number of common
     shares outstanding                     3,141,703    2,939,976   3,166,425     2,978,448
                                            ---------    ---------   ---------    ----------

Diluted effect of stock options                  --        212,848        --         432,517
                                            ---------    ---------   ---------    ----------

Diluted weighted average number of common
     shares outstanding                     3,141,703    3,152,824   3,166,425     3,410,965
                                            =========    =========   =========    ==========

Basic earnings (loss) per share             ($    .09)   $     .21   ($    .15)   $      .09
                                            =========    =========   =========    ==========

Diluted earnings (loss) per share           ($    .09)   $     .19   ($    .15)   $      .08
                                            =========    =========   =========    ==========
</TABLE>


                                       11
Rasheen NIFAS, petitioner, v. Brian V. COLEMAN, et al.

No. 13-6677.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
#### HOUGH CASH-RECORDER CO., Appellant, v. MOWRY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 3, 1899.)

Action by the Hough Cash-Recorder Company against John S. Mowry.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See 55 N. Y. Supp. 1141.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1826 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1826

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Chlorobenzyl chloride.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2005

  Mr. Cardin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Chlorobenzyl chloride.

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

SECTION 1. 2-CHLOROBENZYL CHLORIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.56 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation 

ANNUAL

REPORT 

2020
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Mikojo Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The
annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 (the "Form
10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
October 20, 2009





/s/ James CatesJames
      CatesPrincipal
      Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided toMIKOJO
INCORPORATEDand will be retained byMIKOJO INCORPORATEDand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7200
RICHARD ROY YOST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus P. L. HUFFMAN, Warden; JOHN B. METZGER, III, Chairman, Virginia Pa role Board; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-869-R) Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 7, 1997 Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Roy Yost, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) petition. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Yost v. Huffman , No. CA-95-869-R (W.D. Va. July 2, 1996). We deny Yost's motions for stay of the district court order pendingappeal and for a certificate of probable cause to appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
An Update on Emerging Issues in Banking 

Ten Largest Thrift Companies:

Earnings rebound sharply from the previous quarter.

This document is based on publicly available information provided by the 

companies it covers. It is intended for informational purposes only and does 

not represent official policy or supervisory guidance from the FDIC. 

May 17, 2002 

Earnings of the 10 largest thrift companies increased by $830 million in the first

quarter of 2002, to $1.8 billion, from $982 million in the fourth quarter of 2001,

when write-downs of intangible assets and large restructuring charges held down 

earnings. Losses on first-quarter securities sales limited the improvement in 

earnings. Earnings were also 47 percent higher than a year ago, when these 

thrifts' net income was $1.2 billion. The weighted-average return on assets (ROA)

for these companies was 1.32 percent, up from 0.78 percent last quarter and 

1.05 percent a year ago. Favorable interest rates led to a 6-basis-point

improvement in net interest margins and helped produce a $412-million increase 

in net interest income. Growth in earning assets, partially from the consummation 

of a merger, also contributed significantly to this increase. Detailed aggregate and 

individual company information are available in the FDIC report, "Ten Largest 

Thrift Companies." 

D

Noninterest income returned to a more normal level of $1.5 billion, following the 

fourth-quarter write-downs of mortgage servicing rights at several companies. 

Fourth-quarter earnings of the ten largest were also depressed by charges taken 

by one company as it eliminated a business line. Losses on securities sales were 
$212 million this quarter compared to gains of $498 million in the fourth quarter. 

Asset quality declined slightly with nonperforming assets growing by $399 million 

(10 percent) to 0.80 percent of assets in the first quarter, up from 0.78 percent in 

the fourth quarter. Net charge-offs rose $12 million (7 percent) to $185 million. 

The charge-off rate was 0.24 percent of average loans, up from 0.23 percent in 

the previous quarter. This modest decline in key asset quality measures 

continues an ongoing trend of lagged response by large thrifts to weakness in the 

economy. 

Last 

Updated 

05/17/200

2 

Chart 1

Large-Thrift Profits Rebounded Strongly in the First Quarter

Year:Quarter Return on Assets for the Ten Largest Thrift Companies

(Percent, Annualized)

2001:Q1 1.05

2001:Q2 1.23

2001:Q3 1.23

2001:Q4 0.78

2002:Q1 1.32
OVERSTOCK.COM., INC., petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, et al.

No. 13-252.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Steven F. Udvar-Hazy, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of International Lease FinanceCorporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 13, 2006                                           /s/ Steven F. Udvar-Hazy   STEVEN F. UDVAR-HAZY   Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 ACR Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alex Trevino, Jr., the
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that, to my knowledge:




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




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




/s/
                  Alex Trevino, Jr.Alex
                  Trevino, Jr.Chief
                  Executive OfficerJuly
                  16, 2007




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to ACR Group, Inc. and will be retained by
      ACR
      Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.




This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
- MinutesMarch1908.pdf
- add31908.pdf
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Dennis M. McGrath certify that:

(1)

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PhotoMedex, 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)

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are 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:

(a)

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;



(b)

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



(c)

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)

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our 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.

Dated: November 9, 2004

By: /s/ Dennis M. McGrath



Dennis M. McGrath

Chief Financial Officer
|   | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the “Quarterly Report”) complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date: August 19, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Rodney W. Schutt    |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                       |   | Rodney W. Schutt        |
|                       |   | Chief Executive Officer |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CRAIG C. LADYMAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:14CV2038-PPS

)

NICHOLAS MEADE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Craig C. Ladyman, acting without an attorney, began this lawsuit more

than 31⁄2 years ago in November 2014. After the pleading and discovery stages finally

concluded in May of this year, the case had been whittled down to claims against a sole

remaining defendant, Jeanne Drust. To determine whether a trial of those claims is

necessary, deadlines for potentially dispositive motions have been set. Any motion for

summary judgment is to be filed by June 29, with oppositions due 14 days thereafter and

any reply filed within 10 days of an opposition. [DE 84.] On April 26, 2018, Magistrate

Judge Gotsch entered an order striking an untimely attempt by Ladyman to amend his

complaint [DE 75], and Judge Gotsch’s order was affirmed by my May 31, 2018 order

denying Ladyman’s motion for review of the magistrate judge’s decision [DE 81.] 

That order explained what I reiterate here in even plainer terms: the proceedings in

this lawsuit are past the point of amending pleadings, and Ladyman cannot amend his

complaint without being granted leave to do so based on some compelling argument for

allowing such a step at this very late date. Nonetheless, on June 22, 2018, Ladyman has

filed a “Revised Complaint for Compensatory and Punitive Damages, Injunctive and
Declaratory Relief, and Demand for Jury Trial.” [DE 85.] The 12-page document names

defendants Meade, Bohner, Smith, Gupta, Drust, Wicks, Burton, Whitmer, Bauer, Hudson

and Hill. The would-be amended complaint is not accompanied by any motion for leave

to file it, in which Ladyman offers an argument as to the appropriateness and necessity of

an amendment at this juncture, after previously having been told several times that he is

too late. The “Revised Complaint” will be stricken.

ACCORDINGLY:

Plaintiff Craig C. Ladyman’s “Revised Complaint for Compensatory and Punitive

Damages, Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, and Demand for Jury Trial” [DE 85] is

STRICKEN as untimely filed without leave of Court. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 25, 2018.

 /s/ Philip P. Simon 

United States District Court Judge

2
EXHIBIT 12




Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries
Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



                                                                                    Nine months ended
                                                                                      September 30,
(Dollars in millions)                                                            1998              1997
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income:
<S>                                                                        <C>               <C>           
    Income before provision for income taxes                               $          78.4   $         65.7
    Fixed charges                                                                     98.6             97.6
                                                                           ------------------------------------
    Income before provision for income taxes and fixed charges             $         177.0   $        163.3
                                                                           ====================================

Fixed charges:
    Interest expense                                                       $          95.6   $         95.0
    Preferred stock dividends                                                          3.0              2.6
                                                                           ------------------------------------
                                                                           $          98.6   $         97.6
                                                                           ====================================

Ratio of income before provision for income taxes and fixed
    charges to fixed charges                                                           1.80             1.67
                                                                           ====================================



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 28018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13184]



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


POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., May 30, 1995.

PLACE: Conference Room, 1333 H Street, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 
20268.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Docket No. R94-1 On Reconsideration.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Margaret P. Crenshaw, Secretary, 
Postal Rate Commission, Suite 300, 1333 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20268-0001, Telephone (202) 789-6840.
Margaret P. Crenshaw,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-13184 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P