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



           HOME HEALTH CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES

                COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE
                                        
              FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
                                        

The following calculation is submitted in accordance with the Securities Act of
1934:


<TABLE>    
<CAPTION>
 
                                               Three months ended                     Six months ended
                                                December 31, 1997                     December 31, 1997
                                       -----------------------------------    ----------------------------------
                                           Basic               Diluted             Basic             Diluted 
                                       --------------    -----------------    --------------    ----------------
                                                        (in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                                    <C>               <C>                  <C>               <C>
Net loss available to common
 stockholders                             $(23,856)           $(23,856)          $(21,828)            $(21,828)
                                       ==============    =================    ==============    ================      

Weighted average number of common
 shares outstanding during period            9,158               9,158              9,153                9,153 
                                                    
Weighted average number of common
 shares subject to exercise under
 outstanding stock options and                                  
 warrants, net of treasury shares                                    
 assumed repurchased (a)                         -                   -                  -                    -
                                       --------------    -----------------    --------------    ----------------
Weighted average number of common
 shares outstanding                           9,158                9,158             9,153                9,153
                                       ==============    =================    ==============    ================      
Net loss per share                           $(2.60)              $(2.60)           $(2.38)              $(2.38)
                                       ==============    =================    ==============    ================      

(a) No shares were assumed outstanding for the diluted calculation as such Shares were anti-dilutive and decreased the 
    loss per Share to $2.57 and $2.35 for the three and six months ended December 31, 1997, respectively.
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8530
ISZARD BALLARD, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARRIS GLENDENING, Governor of the State of Maryland; RICHARD LANHAM, SR., Commissioner of Corrections; EARL BESHEARS, Warden, E.C.I.; RALPH LOGAN, Assis tant Warden, E.C.I; LT. CORNELIUS; R. WHITE, Officer, CO II; 12 TO 8 SHIFT, LT., Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1955-JFM) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 31, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Iszard Ballard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Audrey J. S. Carrion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ballard v. Glendening , No. CA-95-1955-JFM (D. Md. Dec. 1, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel JIMENEZ-GAONA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-10210.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 20, 2007.

Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Manuel Jimenez-Gaona appeals from his 75-month sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jimenez-Gaona contends that it was impermissible for the district court to take into consideration the administrative benefits of the fast track immigration program *775when it determined his sentence. We disagree. *See United States v. Marcial-Santiago,*447 F.3d 715, 717-19 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that disparities resulting from the fast track program are warranted and do not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). Moreover, the district court did not place undue weight on the benefits served by the fast track program. We conclude that the district court properly considered the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the advisory Guidelines and policy statements, and the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the district court then imposed an individualized and reasonable sentence. *See United States v. Plouffe,*445 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 99.1



|Name:  |  | Nicholas J. Benson                   
|------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Sunterra Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nicholas J.
Benson, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



/s/    NICHOLAS J. BENSON




Dated:  April 14, 2003
#### ANNUS, Respondent, v. THEISS et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Action by Lena Annus against George Theiss and others.

No opinion. Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6124

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CARLTON BRONTA MAY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00331-FL-1; 5:12-cv-438-FL)

Submitted: May 29, 2018 Decided: August 6, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlton Bronta May, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlton Bronta May appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.* Our review of the record confirms that the district 

court properly concluded that May’s motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion but was, in 

substance, a successive § 2255 motion, over which it lacked jurisdiction because May 

failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)

(2012); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

Additionally, we construe May’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an 

application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 

motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by 

clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral 

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). May’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we 

deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

 * A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s 

jurisdictional categorization of a “Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 

[§ 2255 motion].” United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
3

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
#### Frank Kevin POOL, Plaintiff, v. Judge BRACKMAN, et al., Defendants.

No. 82-1160C(4).

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, E.D.

Dec. 20, 1982.

*302Frank Kevin Pool, pro se.

Jay White, Ronald D. White, Pros. Atty., Rolla, Mo., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

HUNGATE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the motions of defendants Jay White and Ronald White to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights have been violated because his state post-conviction proceeding has been pending for over two years. Defendants are the state judge to whom plaintiff’s post-conviction proceeding is assigned, the state prosecuting attorney, and plaintiff’s appointed counsel for the post-conviction proceeding.

Defendant Jay White moves to dismiss the complaint because he no longer represents plaintiff in the post-conviction proceeding.

Defendant Ronald White, prosecuting attorney of Phelps County, Missouri, moves to dismiss the complaint asserting, among other things, that most of the delay in the plaintiff’s post-conviction proceeding is due to plaintiff’s filing of numerous lawsuits against the judges and attorneys assigned to the case, which require the judges and lawyers to withdraw. Ronald White also asserts that no action can be taken by the trial court in the post-conviction proceeding until plaintiff’s newly appointed counsel amends his post-conviction motion as required by the mandate of the state appellate court.

The petition will be dismissed, without prejudice. Although the Court recognizes that a failure to act on a post-conviction motion might, over a substantial period of time, implicate the protections of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, *cf. Seemiller v. Circuit Court Clerk of St. Charles County,*640 F.2d 175 (8th Cir.1981), in the opinion of this Court, a bare allegation that a proceeding has been pending in the state court for over two years is insufficient. Surely if the proceeding has been pending for over two years not because of neglect or intentional disregard, but because of complicated questions, or appeals, or numerous pretrial motions, there is no deprivation of constitutional rights. Under the circumstances of this case, where the state post-conviction proceeding has included an appeal and a remand, and where plaintiff does not controvert the assertion that much of the delay is due to plaintiff’s own litigious nature, of which this Court is not unaware,1 the Court finds the complaint subject to dismissal, without prejudice. All other pending pretrial motions will be denied as moot.

1

. See *Pool v. Moore,*No. 79-0903C; *Pool*v. *Pasley,*No. 79-1020C; *Pool*v. *Northern,*504 F.Supp. 644; *Pool v. Ahrens,*No. 80-1409C; , *Pool v. Corrigan,*No. 80-1489C; *Pool v. Pasley,*No. 81-0171C; *Pool v. Pasley,*No. 81-0699C; *Pool v. Wyrick,*No. 81-0700C; *Pool v. Wyrick,*No. 81-1556C; *Pool v. White,*No. 82-1027C; *Pool v. Wyrick,*No. 82-1702C.
Order entered August 26, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 0037 3
- CR
CHARLES WILLIAM DOSS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12
- 58147
- Y



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appe llant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial cour t shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effectiv e representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This a ppeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
# L_2009229EN.01002901.xml

| 1.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 229/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 229/29

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 211 of 14 August 2009
  )

On page 49, Article 32 ‘Entry into force’:

for:

‘This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 3 September 2009.’,

read:

‘This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 3 March 2011.’.

---
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

      ( print page 49061)    
The National Science Board (NSB), pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference of the Committee on Strategy (CS) for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

# TIME AND DATE: 

Closed teleconference of the CS, to be held Thursday, September 9, 2021, at 2:00-2:30 p.m. EDT.

# PLACE: 

This meeting will be held by videoconference organized through the National Science Foundation.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Chair's remarks; review and discussion of proposed CS recommendation to the Board for NSF to transmit the National Science Foundation, NSB and Office of the Inspector General FY 2023 budget submissions to the Office of Management and Budget.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Point of contact for this meeting is: Chris Blair, (703) 292-7000,                         *cblair@nsf.gov.*                         You may find meeting information and updates at                         *https://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​meetings/​notices.jsp#sunshine.*

Chris Blair,

Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.

[FR Doc. 2021-19009 Filed 8-30-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Exhibit 32.0

# ANTARES PHARMA, INC. CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

Each
of the undersigned, Jack E. Stover and Lawrence M. Christian, the Chief Executive Officer
and the Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Antares Pharma, Inc. (the
Company), individually and not jointly has executed this Certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the
Report).

Each
of the undersigned hereby certifies 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.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Certification as of the 17th
day of March, 2005.

| | /s/ Jack E. Stover

Jack E. Stover
President and Chief Executive Officer
/s/ Lawrence M. Christian
Lawrence M. Christian
Vice President - Finance, 
 Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a102modificationtoloanag






DocuSign Envelope ID: A3403BF8-EA1A-4B35-B998-EA86A704B1EF                        FIRST MODIFICATION TO LOAN AGREEMENT                                                            This modification, dated effective May11, 2020, is entered into by and among The Bank of San            Antonio (“Lender”) and XPEL, Inc. (“Borrower”).                        Whereas  Lender and Borrower   executed that certain $8,500,000.00 Promissory Note and            Business Loan Agreement   and other related loan documents  (the “Revolving Loan”) for a            revolving line of credit dated November 5, 2019;                         Whereas Borrower has requested and Lender has approved to renew and extend the maturity            date of the Revolving Loan to May 5, 2022;                        Whereas  Borrower has requested and Lender has approved a new $6,000,000 Term Loan  as            evidenced by a Promissory Note and other loan documents of even date herewith (“2020 Term            Loan”);                        Lender and Borrower agree to the following:                        1.    The debt to worth requirement is hereby deleted and replaced with a Maximum Funded                  Debt to EBITDA Ratio requirement of 2.50x.    This ratio is defined as Total Funded Debt                  divided by EBITDA and shall be tested quarterly on a rolling 4 quarter basis.                              2.    The 2020 Term Loan will be incorporated into the Business Loan Agreement and will be                  subject to the requirements and provisions of the Business Loan Agreement, as modified                   herein.                        3.     The provisions of the Business Loan Agreement, as modified, shall remain in full force                   and effect and shall be applicable to all indebtedness owed by Borrower to Lender,                  whether existing or hereafter incurred.                                    Executed as of the date first written above.                                    THE BANK OF SAN ANTONIO          (“Lender”)                                                                                   5/11/2020           By:   _____________________________________________            Name: Robert S. Glenn            Title: Executive Vice President                                                XPEL, Inc.   (“Borrower”)                                                                                     5/11/2020           By:   _____________________________________________            Name: Barry R. Wood            Title: Chief Financial Officer and Director                                                                                        1
#### The Tonawanda Valley and Cuba Railroad Company et al., Respondents, *v.*The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, Appellant.

This case was argued and decided with *B., E.*& *C. R. R. Co.*v. N. *Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., ante,*page 316.
Overview of 2020 GCMRC Annual 

Report External Review

•Part of the Science Advisor role enshrined in the 

GCDAMP framework.
GCDAMP Framework

Science 

Advisors
Overview of 2020 GCMRC Annual 

Report External Review 

• First encounter with the GCDAMP for many 

reviewers:

• Some missed context, need for clarity, and opportunity 

for back/forth is expected.

• Future work: improved timing of review to better 

inform workplans, BAHG processes, annual reports, 

etc.

•Dawn Johnson, PhD of Wood PLC works under a 

large USFWS/DOI contract for external peer review 

services

• Performs this type of review regularly.