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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1



                         EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION


Earnings per share calculations may be affected by the granting of stock options
under the Company's stock option plan. The granting of these options may have a
dilutive effect on earnings per common and common equivalent share. Following is
a summary computation of the weighted average number of shares outstanding and
earnings per share using the treasury-stock method. Primary and fully diluted
earnings per share are the same for each period presented.



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             Three Months Ended December 31,
                                                                             -------------------------------
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding                                              1997                 1996
                                                                              ---------            ---------
<S>                                                                           <C>                  <C>      
Common stock outstanding throughout the period                                2,832,000            2,794,000
Weighted average exercised options                                                5,000                    -
Dilutive unexercised stock options (Treasury Stock Method):
       Shares presumed issued at exercise ($2.25 to $5.50 per share)            197,000                    -
       Less:  Shares repurchased with presumed proceeds at average per
              share price ($5.48 per share)                                    (156,000)                   -
                                                                              ---------            ---------
Weighted average shares outstanding                                           2,878,000            2,794,000
                                                                              =========            =========
</TABLE>




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   (a)             (b)
                                                                Weighted          Per Share (a / b)
Per Share Computations                        Results of         Average       ----------------------
                                              Operations          Shares           1997        1996
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>              <C>             <C>             <C>
Net loss -    Three Months Ended
              December 31, 1997               $  (35,000)      2,878,000       $ (.01)

Net income - Three Months Ended
              December 31, 1996               $  438,000       2,794,000                       $ .16
</TABLE>




                                       13
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. ss 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Don Sytsma, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Altus Explorations Inc.

2.	Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to date 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 annual report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.	The small business issuer's other certifying officers 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's control over financial reporting; and.

5.	The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal controls and procedures for financial reporting.

Date: April 13, 2004

/s/ Don Sytsma						
Signature:  Don Sytsma
Title:	  Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director 
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 1518

_____________________________
K EITH D. B URKS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

. October 28, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , C.J.
, and M AKAR and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Keith D. Burks, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1846 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1846

           To suspend temporarily the duty on Bromoxynil MEO.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on Bromoxynil MEO.

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

SECTION 1. BROMOXYNIL MEO.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.06.15      2,6-dibromo-4-      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         cyanophenyl                                                        31/2008
                         octanoate/
                         heptanoate (CAS
                         Nos. 1689-99-2
                         and 56634-95-8)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3808.30.15)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Edwin GARCIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-507.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
# C_2008259EN.01000601.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 259/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 259/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5158 — Strabag/Kirchhoff)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 259/04)

On 15 July 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5158. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5158. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
#### Rhonda K. PETERSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 05-1964.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 12, 2006.

Decided: May 3, 2006.

Carl A. Gallagher, Douglas M. Green-wald, McAnany & Van' Cleave, Kansas City, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Anthony Joseph Romano, Stacy Murrow Bunck, Polsinelli & Shalton, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.

*613Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, MCMILLIAN* and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Theodore McMillian died on January 18, 2006. This opinion is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Rule 47E. The opinion is consistent with the views expressed by Judge McMillian at the conference following oral argument.

[UNPUBLISHED]

LOKEN, Chief Judge.

Following her termination while on maternity leave, Rhonda Peterson commenced this action alleging, *inter alia,*that her former employer, TranSystems Corporation, violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) by interfering with her right to be restored to her prior position and by retaliating against her for exercising her FMLA leave rights. *See*29 U.S.C. §§ 2614(a)(1), 2615(a). Applying the proper standard of review, the district court1 granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Peterson appeals the dismissal of her interference and retaliation claims. We affirm.

Correctly anticipating this court’s interpretation of the FMLA in *Throneberry v. McGehee Desha County Hosp.,*403 F.3d 972, 976-81 (8th Cir.2005), the district court dismissed Peterson’s interference claim on the ground that TranSystems had presented overwhelming unrefuted evidence satisfying its burden to show that Peterson was not reinstated to her position because of her poor job performance prior to taking paid pregnancy leave and her attitude toward her work following a previous demotion. The district court dismissed Peterson’s retaliation claim on the ground that Peterson failed to show any causal connection between the termination and her exercise of FMLA rights — Tran-Systems presented strong evidence of legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the termination, and Peterson presented no evidence of retaliatory motive beyond some temporal proximity between the leave and the termination. *See Kipp v. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n,*280 F.3d 893, 896-97 (8th Cir.2002).

Having carefully reviewed the summary judgment record *de novo,*we agree with the district court’s thorough analysis. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the court’s Order dated March 17, 2005. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The HONORABLE HOWARD F. SACHS, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1865 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to release the condition on a portion 

of land adjacent to the community of Beaver, Alaska, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2005 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to release the condition on a portion of land adjacent to the community 

of Beaver, Alaska, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BEAVER AIRPORT LAND AMENDMENT. 

4 (a) RELEASE OF REVERTER CONDITION.—The Sec5 retary of the Interior shall execute such instruments as 

6 are necessary to release the condition that the land revert 

7 to the United States if the land is not used for airport 

8 purposes from a portion of land situated adjacent to the 

9 community of Beaver, Alaska, conveyed pursuant to Pat10 ent No. 50–69–0130 and dated August 23, 1968. The 
2 

•HR 1865 IH 

1 Secretary shall ensure that the release executed pursuant 

2 to this subsection— 

3 (1) applies only to approximately 33 acres of 

4 land identified as tracts II through VI of the Beaver 

5 Airport, a part of U.S. Survey No. 3798, Alaska (re6 ferred to in this section as the ‘‘community expan7 sion land’’); 

8 (2) is without any requirement for receipt of 

9 fair market value for the release and conveyance of 

10 the conditions otherwise applicable to the community 

11 expansion land; and 

12 (3) is contingent on the conveyance by the 

13 State of Alaska of the community expansion land to 

14 the Beaver Kwit’chin Corporation, the Village Cor15 poration of the village of Beaver, Alaska. 

16 (b) RECONVEYANCE.—The Beaver Kwit’chin Cor17 poration— 

18 (1) shall reconvey to any individual who cur19 rently occupies a portion of the land referred to in 

20 subsection (a) or successor in interest to such an in21 dividual, all right title and interest of the Kwit’chin 

22 Corporation in and to such land as is currently occu23 pied; 

24 (2) may subsequently— 
3 

•HR 1865 IH 

1 (A) convey the remaining land to other in2 dividuals or persons for community expansion 

3 purposes; or 

4 (B) retain the remaining land in whole or 

5 in part for community uses. 

Æ
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1760

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2005

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in 

Madison, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Robert M. La Follette, Sr. 

Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1760 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madi4 son, Wisconsin, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 16, 2005. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                        EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION



Earnings per share calculations may be affected by the granting of stock
options under the provisions of MPSI Systems Inc. Stock Option Plans. The
granting of these options may have a dilutive effect on earnings per common and
common equivalent share. Following is a summary computation of the weighted
average number of shares outstanding and earnings per share using the
treasury-stock method. All computations give effect to a reverse stock split
effective November 16, 1993 as if the transaction had occurred retroactively.
Primary and fully diluted earnings per share are the same for each period
presented.



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Three Months Ended June 30, Nine Months Ended June 30,
                                                --------------------------- --------------------------
                                                      1997        1996        1997        1996
                                                    ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
<S>                                                <C>         <C>         <C>         <C> 
Common stock outstanding throughout the period     2,794,000   2,752,000   2,794,000   2,732,000
Exercised options                                      3,000        --         3,000      11,000
Dilutive unexercised stock options:
     Shares presumed issued at exercise
        ($2.25 to $3.00 per share in 1997 and
          $2.25 to $3.75 per share in 1996)           10,000      68,000      53,000      83,000
                                                   ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------

Weighted average shares outstanding                2,807,000   2,820,000   2,850,000   2,826,000
                                                   =========   =========   =========   =========
</TABLE>




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           (a)             (b)
                                                                        Weighted
                                                       Results of        Average
                                                       Operations        Shares     Per Share (a / b)
                                                       ----------        ------     -----------------
<S>                                                    <C>              <C>         <C> 
Net income - Three Months Ended June 30, 1997          $  297,000       2,807,000   $.11
             Nine Months Ended June 30, 1997           $  896,000       2,850,000   $.31

Net loss  -  Three Months Ended June 30, 1996          $ (723,000)      2,820,000            $ (.26)
             Nine Months Ended June 30, 1996           $ (691,000)      2,826,000            $ (.24)
</TABLE>





                                                                             14
#### HORN et al., Appellants, v. GLICKMAN, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Appeal from Municipal Court, Action by Joseph Horn and Nellie Horn against Moses N. Glickman. From a judgment for nominal damages only, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, and new trial ordered. Walter H Thacher, for appellants. Charles Firestone, for respondent.

GÁYNOR, J.

The defendant in building a house on his lot adjoining the plaintiffs’ house negligently and needlessly excavated under their fence and caused it to fall. A strip of the plaintiffs’ soil three feet wide also fell into the excavation, carrying with it their rose bushes. The defendant also stored lumber on the plaintiffs’ roof, broke a shutter, and his men committed acts of personal nuisance on the plaintiffs’ premises. The defendant gave no evidence at all. The action is for damages for the trespasses. The Justice gave the plaintiffs a judgment for six cents, adding insult to injury. The technicalities of the counsel for the defendant which marked every; step of the trial are deplorable. The plaintiffs called a competent witness (the last witness, a builder) to prove the amount of damage, but his evidence was excluded, the Justice remarking that he must rigidly enforce the rules of evidence. It cannot be said that the case was tried at all. It was simply a case of baiting the plaintiffs and their counsel by captious, frivolous and vexatious technicalities, which should not be tolerated, much less favored, by a court. The judgment should be reversed.
#### In re SŨD-CHEMIE INCORPORATED, Petitioner.

Misc. No. 817.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 4, 2006.

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Sũd-Chemie Incorporated (SCI) petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the United States District Court for the South*7ern District of Indiana to vacate its order that compelled SCI to produce documents it asserts are protected by work product immunity. CSP Technologies, Inc. opposes.

SCI sued CSP Technologies seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforeeability of various CSP Technologies patents. SCI withheld from discovery a large number of documents based upon an assertion of work product immunity. CSP Technologies moved to compel production of the documents. The magistrate judge granted the motion to compel in part. SCI appealed to the district court the magistrate judge’s ruling as it pertained to 54 documents.

The district court conducted a document-by-document review and determined that 52 of the documents must be produced. The district court held that those documents were not encompassed by the work product doctrine because they “were not created at the direction of an attorney or in conjunction with an attorney in anticipation of litigation.” SCI petitions this court for a writ of mandamus to direct the district court to vacate that order.

The remedy of mandamus is available only in extraordinary situations to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. *In re Calmar, Inc.,*854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed.Cir.1988). A party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that its right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.” *Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,*449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). Thus, SCI has a heavy burden to obtain the requested writ.

In *In re Cordis,*769 F.2d 733, 737 (Fed.Cir.1985), we stated that mandamus must “be reserved for the most serious and critical ills, and if a rational and substantial legal argument can be made in support of the rule in question, the case is not appropriate for mandamus, even though on normal appeal, a court might find reversible error.” SCI and CSP Technologies each cite district court cases that support their position. Of course in this case we are asked to review, by mandamus, a decision of yet another district court, and the district court here presumably considered those other district court cases in reaching its decision. The district court conducted a thorough document-by-document review and does not appear to have ignored pertinent legal issues. There is no clear appellate authority on the precise issue in this petition within either the regional circuit’s or this court’s jurisprudence. Thus, SCI’s right to the requested relief is by no means clear and, upon review of SCI’s arguments, SCI has not met its burden here.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.