alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
US Airways Group, Inc.
                              Exhibit 11
         Computation of Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Common Share
                              (unaudited)
                (in millions, except per share amounts)


                                          Three Months Ended March 31,
                                          ----------------------------
                                                1998          1997
                                                ----          ----
Adjustments to Net Income
-------------------------
Net income                                      $  98        $ 153
Preferred dividend requirement                     (6)         (21)
                                                 ----         ----
Earnings applicable to common stock
  used for basic computation                       92          132

Diluted adjustments
  Assume conversion of all preferred stock:
    Preferred dividend requirement                  6           21
                                                 ----         ----
Adjusted net earnings applicable to common
  stock used for diluted computation            $  98        $ 153
                                                 ====         ====

Adjustments to common stock shares outstanding
----------------------------------------------
Weighted average number of shares of common
  stock outstanding used for basic computation     94           64

Diluted adjustments
  Incremental shares from outstanding stock
    options (treasury stock method)                 2            2
  Assume conversion of all preferred stock          7           39
                                                 ----         ----
    Total weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding used for diluted
      computation                                 103          105
                                                 ====         ====

Earnings per Common Share
-------------------------
Basic                                           $0.98        $2.05
                                                 ====         ====
Diluted                                         $0.96        $1.45
                                                 ====         ====

Note:  Numbers may not calculate due to rounding.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1796 

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route of the 

Mississippi River from its headwaters in the State of Minnesota to 

the Gulf of Mexico for study for potential addition to the National 

Trails System as a national scenic trail, national historic trail, or both, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2005 

Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota (for herself, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. CORRINE

BROWN of Florida, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. 

BERRY, and Mr. SABO) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the 

route of the Mississippi River from its headwaters in 

the State of Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico for study 

for potential addition to the National Trails System as 

a national scenic trail, national historic trail, or both, 

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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mississippi River Trail 

5 Study Act’’. 
2 

•HR 1796 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF ROUTE OF THE MISSISSIPPI 

2 RIVER FOR STUDY FOR POTENTIAL ADDI3 TION TO THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—Section 5(c) of the National 

5 Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating the first paragraph after 

7 paragraph (40) as paragraph (41) and, in such 

8 paragraph, by striking ‘‘The’’ and inserting ‘‘LONG

9 WALK TRAIL.—The’’; 

10 (2) by redesignating the second paragraph after 

11 paragraph (40) as paragraph (42); and 

12 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

13 paragraph: 

14 ‘‘(43) MISSISSIPPI RIVER TRAIL.—The route of the 

15 Mississippi River from its headwaters in the State of Min16 nesota to the Gulf of Mexico.’’. 

17 (b) RELATION TO OTHER STUDIES.—The study re18 quired by the amendment made by this section is intended 

19 to complement, and not duplicate, other studies of the sce20 nic or historical importance of the Mississippi River that 

21 may be underway or undertaken. 

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1523

ANDREW CHIEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VA; MARK R. HERRING, Attorney General; 

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY; KARL S. LEONARD, Sheriff of Chesterfield 

County; FREDERICK G. ROCKWELL, III, Judge of Chesterfield Circuit Court; 

JUDY L. WORTHINGTON, former Clerk of Chesterfield Circuit Court; MARY E. 

CRAZE, Deputy Clerk of Chesterfield Circuit Court; WENDY S. HUGHES, Clerk 

of Chesterfield Circuit Court; DONALD W. LEMONS, Chief Justice of VA 

Supreme Court; GLEN A. HUFF, Chief Judge of VA Court of Appeals; W. 

ALLAN SHARRETT, Hon., Chief Judge, Prince George Circuit Court; DENNIS 

S. PROFFITT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00677-LO-TCB)

Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 20, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Andrew Chien, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Snead Gregor, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Jeffrey Lee Mincks, County Attorney,

Emily Claire Russell, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Chesterfield, Virginia; John P. 

O’Herron, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia; William Fisher 

Etherington, BEALE, DAVIDSON, ETHERINGTON & MORRIS, PC, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Chien appeals an order of the district court ruling on two postjudgment 

motions. First, the district court denied Chien’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to 

reconsider its judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We review 

this order for an abuse of discretion, Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) 

(en banc), and we perceive no such abuse in the district court’s ruling. Chien also seeks 

to challenge the court’s denial of an extension of time to file an appeal. As Chien has 

filed a timely appeal, this portion of the appeal is moot. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment and deny Chien’s motion to disqualify the district court judge. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Mosquito and Fly Research: Gainesville, FL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    CMAVESearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




Entomologist Jerry Hogsette sets out stable fly traps and targets for a field study.
 Dr. Kenneth Linthicum calibrates a thermal fogger to test applications of aerosol pesticide to control sand flies.
 Mosquito and Fly Research Unit scientist Seth Gibson conducting experimental spray trial to develop novel methods to control immature *Aedes aegypti*mosquitoes (Zika and dengue vectors) in a hot-arid desert environment.


Publications
                            More... Topical toxicity and repellency profiles of 17 essential oil components against insecticide-resistant and susceptible strains of house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) Point protection with transfluthrin against Musca domestica in a semi-field enclosure Point protection with transfluthrin against Musca domestica in a semi-field enclosure


**About MFRU**History | Research | Achievements Protection and Prevention **MFRU Collaborations** US Navy Entomology Center of Excellence and the DoD Armed Forces Pest Management Board NASA-DoD AFHSC Rift Valley Fever Cooperators | Technology Transfer Air Curtain | DWFP | Lincoln Workshop


Southeast Area   jerry.hogsette@usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EXHIBIT 2

                 STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                     THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Arthur J.
Seidenfeld certify that:

1.  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003
    (the "Report") of Modern Technology Corp. (the "Company"), 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.

Date: May 2, 2003

                       /s/ Arthur J. Seidenfeld
                       ------------------------
                         Arthur J. Seidenfeld
                  President and Chief Financial Officer
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2075

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require a member of the Armed 

Forces to designate a person to be authorized to direct the disposition 

of the member’s remains if the member should die in service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2005

Ms. BERKLEY (for herself and Mr. FARR) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require a member 

of the Armed Forces to designate a person to be authorized to direct the disposition of the member’s remains 

if the member should die in service.

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

3 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

4 FORCES TO DESIGNATE A PERSON TO BE AU5 THORIZED TO DIRECT THE DISPOSITION OF 

6 THE MEMBER’S REMAINS. 

7 (a) DESIGNATION REQUIRED.—Section 655 of title 

8 10, United States Code, is amended—
2

•HR 2075 IH 

1 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub2 section (c); and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol4 lowing new subsection (b): 

5 ‘‘(b)(1) The Secretary concerned shall, upon the en6 listment or appointment of a person in the armed forces, 

7 require that the person specify in writing the person au8 thorized to direct the disposition of the person’s remains 

9 under section 1482 of this title. The Secretary shall peri10 odically, and whenever the member is deployed as part of 

11 a contingency operation or in other circumstances speci12 fied by the Secretary, require that such designation be re13 confirmed, or modified, by the member. Whenever a mem14 ber is required to make a designation under this sub15 section, the Secretary shall inform the member of the im16 plications of the designation. 

17 ‘‘(2) The current designation of a member under this 

18 subsection shall be maintained as part of the member’s 

19 Record of Emergency Data.’’. 

20 (b) CHANGE IN DESIGNATION.—Subsection (c) of 

21 such section, as redesignated by subsection (a)(1), is 

22 amended by inserting ‘‘or (b)’’ after ‘‘subsection (a)’’. 

23 (c) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO DIRECT DISPOSITION

24 OF REMAINS.—Section 1482(c) of such title is amended—
3

•HR 2075 IH 

1 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through 

2 (4) as paragraphs (2) through (5), respectively; 

3 (2) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so re4 designated, the following new paragraph (1): 

5 ‘‘(1) The person designated under section 

6 655(b) of this title.’’; and 

7 (3) in paragraph (5), as redesignated by para8 graph (1), by striking ‘‘clauses (1)–(3)’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘clauses (1)–(4)’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2062 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2062

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 57 West Street in Newville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Randall D. 
                    Shughart Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2005

  Mr. Shuster (for himself, Mr. Platts, Mr. Holden, Mr. Dent, and Mr. 
   Weldon of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 57 West Street in Newville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Randall D. 
                    Shughart Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. RANDALL D. SHUGHART POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 57 West Street in Newville, Pennsylvania, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Randall D. Shughart Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Randall D. 
Shughart Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Todd M. JACK, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Respondent.

No. 2006-3186.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 4, 2006.

Todd M. Jack, pro se.

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

ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

The court treats Todd M. Jack’s letter received on March 6, 2006 as a motion for reconsideration of this court’s previous rejection of his petition for review as untimely.

A petition for review must be received by the court within 60 days of receipt of the Board’s final decision or order. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). Jack argues that he timely placed his petition for review in the mail before the due date. However, to be timely filed, the petition must be received by this court on or before the date that the petition is due. *Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management,*931 F.2d 1544, 1546 (Fed.Cir.1991) (petition is filed when received by this court; court dismissed petition received nine days late).

Jack received the Board’s decision on December 19, 2005. Thus, his petition for review was due in this court on Friday, February 17, 2006, 60 days after Jack’s receipt of the Board decision. On Tuesday, February 21, 2006, the court received a document from Jack, which the court rejected as an untimely petition for review.

Because the petition for review was untimely, it must be dismissed. *Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin.,*735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir.1984) (the period for petitioning for review is statutory, mandatory, and jurisdictional); *Pinat,*931 F.2d at 1546 (deadline for fifing petition for review may not be waived).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion for reconsideration is denied and this petition for review is dismissed as untimely.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
#### Bamrung P. CHUMPIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES and Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education, Defendants-Appellees, and Michigan State University, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-1239.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 4, 2006.

Bamrung P. Chumpia, pro se.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Bamrung P. Chumpia responds to the court’s order directing him to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Chumpia sued the defendants and others in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, district court case no. 04-CV-02786. The district court dismissed the case on grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, immunity, abstention, and for failure to state a claim for relief. Chumpia filed appeals, including one seeking review by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and another seeking review by this court.

It appears that Chumpia’s case involves student loans and other personal financial matters. Chumpia has not shown that his complaint arose under statutes that would give this court jurisdiction over his appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1295. Thus, this appeal must be dismissed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2163 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2163

             To extend the duty suspension on cyclohexanol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2005

 Mr. Brown of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To extend the duty suspension on cyclohexanol.

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

SECTION 1. CYCLOHEXANOL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.05.03 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to cyclohexanol) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (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 the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00253-JD-PRC document 11 filed 07/30/15 page 1 of 3
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00253-JD-PRC document 11 filed 07/30/15 page 2 of 3
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00253-JD-PRC document 11 filed 07/30/15 page 3 of 3
#### Third Avenue Camera and Electronics, Inc., Respondent, v Admiral Insurance Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant. —

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Price, J.), entered May 1, 1984, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability, reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment is denied.

This is an action under an all risks insurance policy to recover the value of property allegedly lost in the course of a burglary. Although plaintiff’s premises were the subject of a burglary, it is clear, as acknowledged by Special Term, that a factual issue was raised with regard to the value of the property that was taken in the course of the burglary. Special Term did not appreciate, however, that the totality of the circumstances presents at least *613a factual issue as to whether plaintiff’s claim with regard to what was taken and its value was intentionally misstated. If it was intentionally misstated, a defense to any recovery under the policy would clearly be presented. Accordingly, it was error to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment with regard to liability. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Asch, Fein and Kassal, JJ.
#### MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. BARR et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 3, 1899.)

Action by Benjamin C. Montgomery against Joseph A. Barr and another.

No opinion. Judgment of the county court affirmed, with costs.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12562]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[MN30-1-6215b; FRL-5183-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In the Final Rules Section of the Federal Register, the USEPA 
is approving recodification of Minnesota's regulations, removal of 
certain redundant and unnecessary regulations from the SIP, and other 
minor revisions. USEPA is taking that action as a direct final rule 
without prior proposal because USEPA views the action as 
noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed 
rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no 
adverse comments are received in response to that direct final rule, no 
further activity is contemplated in relation to the proposal of that 
action. If USEPA receives adverse public comments, the direct final 
rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. USEPA 
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this action must be received by June 23, 1995.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Addresses and Supplementary Information are 
provided in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: March 20, 1995.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-12562 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[No. 20610-2-II.

Division Two.

September 12, 1997.]

#### Roger Hannum, *Appellant,*v. The Department of Licensing, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 94-2-02546-2, Richard A. Strophy, J., entered April 24, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Armstrong, JJ.