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

EXHIBIT 11

                      APPLIED MICROSYSTEMS CORPORATION

                     COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                          1997             1996
                                                    --------------  ----------------
<S>                                                 <C>              <C>
Average shares outstanding                                   6,798       6,523
Net effect of dilutive stock warrants and options 
  based on the treasury stock method using average 
  market price                                                 595         605
                                                            ------      ------
Total                                                        7,393       7,128
                                                            ======      ======
Net Income                                                  $1,012        $967
                                                            ======      ======
Per share amount                                             $0.14       $0.14
                                                            ======      ======
<CAPTION>
                                                    NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                          1997             1996
                                                    --------------  ----------------
<S>                                                 <C>              <C>
Average shares outstanding                                   6,749       6,468
Net effect of dilutive stock warrants and options 
  based on the treasury stock method using average
  market price                                                 524         629
                                                            ------      ------
Total                                                        7,273       7,097
                                                            ======      ======
Net Income                                                  $1,701      $2,665
                                                            ======      ======
Per share amount                                             $0.23       $0.38
                                                            ======      ======
</TABLE>

                                       -15-
<PAGE>
<TABLE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                         BRISTOL RETAIL SOLUTIONS, INC.

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
<CAPTION>

                                                                                       INCEPTION
                                                                YEAR ENDED        (APRIL 3, 1996) TO
                                                               DECEMBER 31,          DECEMBER 31,
                                                                   1997                  1996
                                                           ------------------     ------------------
<S>                                                        <C>                    <C>
BASIC LOSS PER SHARE

     Net loss                                              $      (4,968,607)     $        (106,625)
                                                           ==================     ==================
     Weighted average number of common shares
       outstanding during the period
                                                                   5,198,156              3,319,738
                                                           ==================     ==================
     Basic loss per share                                  $            (.96)     $            (.03)
                                                           ==================     ==================
DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE

     Net loss                                              $      (4,968,607)     $        (106,625)
                                                           ==================     ==================
     Weighted average number of common shares
       outstanding during the period
                                                                   5,198,156              3,319,738
     Effect of stock options and warrants
       treated as common stock equivalents
       under the treasury stock method                                    --                     --
                                                           ------------------     ------------------
          Total shares                                             5,198,156              3,319,738
                                                           ==================     ==================
     Diluted loss per share                                $            (.96)     $            (.03)
                                                           ==================     ==================
</TABLE>
#### Mallory, Respondent, *v.*Schermerhorn, Appellant.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

July 1, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered before another referee, costs to abide event.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS.

AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          34,155
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,494
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,686
<PP&E>                                           4,631
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,801
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,213
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,096
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,801
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,001
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,031
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (389)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,961
<INCOME-TAX>                                       792
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,169
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,169
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 99(a)**

 

**ASSISTED HOUSING FUND L.P. I**

 

Certification of the President of the General Partner

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,Robert K. Stump, the President of Murphey Favre Properties, Inc., GeneralPartner of Assisted Housing Fund L.P. I, does hereby certify that this reporton Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and theresults of operations of the Investor Partnership.

 

42

----
<PAGE>





                                                                      Exhibit 21

                                  Subsidiaries:

         Intelligroup Asia Private, Ltd., a corporation formed pursuant to the
laws of India and 99.8% owned and wholly-controlled subsidiary of Intelligroup,
Inc.

         Empower, Inc., a Michigan corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Intelligroup, Inc.

         Intelligroup Europe Limited, a corporation formed pursuant to the laws
of the United Kingdom and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Intelligroup, Inc.

                  CPI Resources, a corporation formed pursuant to the laws of
                  the United Kingdom and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
                  Intelligroup Europe Limited.

                  CPI Consulting Limited, a corporation formed pursuant to the
                  laws of the United Kingdom and 70% owned by CPI Resources and
                  30% owned by Intelligroup Europe Limited.

         Intelligroup Japan, Ltd., a corporation formed pursuant to the laws of
Japan and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Intelligroup, Inc.

         Intelligroup Nordic AB, a corporation formed pursuant to the laws of
Sweden and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Intelligroup, Inc.

         Intelligroup Nordic A/S, a corporation formed pursuant to the laws of
Denmark and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Intelligroup, Inc.

         Intelligroup de Venezuela, C.A., a corporation formed pursuant to the
laws of Venezuela and wholly-owned subsidiary of Intelligroup, Inc.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

Title XII Section 1202(b)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act (SSA) provides that a state may defer payment of three-fourths of interest due on outstanding advances to state unemployment trust funds under Title XII Section 1201 SSA on or before September 30 of a given year if the state's rate of insured unemployment (IUR) during the first six months of the prior calendar year equaled or exceeded 7.5 percent. Title XII Section 1202(b)(3)(C)(i) and 20 CFR 606.41(c) provide that a qualifying state must pay at least 25 percent of the amount due on or before September 30 of the taxable year, and must pay at least one-third of the remaining amount on or before September 30 in each of the following three years. 20 CFR 606.41(d) further clarifies that the timely and full payment of one-fourth of the interest due prior to October 1 is a precondition to approval of this deferral.

The New York State Department of Labor applied for this deferral prior to the July 1, 2021 deadline. Pursuant to 20 CFR 606.41(e)(2) the Employment and Training Administration has confirmed that the state's rate of insured unemployment exceeded the 7.5 percent threshold during the first 6 months of calendar year 2020. As such New York's application for the high unemployment deferral has been conditionally approved contingent on the timely payment of one-fourth of the interest due on or before September 30, 2021.

Lenita Jacobs-Simmons,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training.

[FR Doc. 2021-19176 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1924 

To provide for the establishment of a program by the National Science 

Foundation to support undergraduate science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics education at Hispanic-serving institutions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2015 

Mr. SERRANO (for himself, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N of New Mexico, Mr. MEEKS, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. GALLEGO, Ms. 

BROWN of Florida, Ms. HAHN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. VELA, Mr. TAKANO, 

Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. PIERLUISI, Mr. HASTINGS, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. RANGEL, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Ms. LEE, 

Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mr. SIRES, Mrs. TORRES, Mr. VEASEY, Mr. 

TED LIEU of California, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. POLIS, and 

Mr. GARAMENDI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To provide for the establishment of a program by the National Science Foundation to support undergraduate 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at Hispanic-serving institutions. 

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 ‘‘Hispanic Opportunity 

5 Program in Education and Science Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1924 IH

1 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM. 

2 Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment 

3 of this Act, the Director of the National Science Founda4 tion shall establish the program described in section 7033 

5 of the America COMPETES Act (42 U.S.C. 1862o–12) 

6 for Hispanic-serving institutions (as defined in section 502 

7 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101a)). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.41
 Amendment Number 1  To the  Settlement, Release and License Agreement Between  Transmeta Corporation and Intel Corporation
 Amendment Amendment No. 1 Effective
Date Transmeta Intel Party Parties
 Settlement
Agreement
 Technology
License Agreement
    I. Definitions.
 Amended Settlement Agreement
 II. Acknowledgement of Initial Payment.
 A.




---



##### 



III. Amendments to the Settlement Agreement.
 A.
    
    Revise and replace Section 4.1 (ii) of the Settlement Agreement with the following:(ii) a one-time non-refundable final cash payment of Eighty-Six Million Five-Hundred
Thousand U.S. Dollars (US $86,500,000.00) to Transmeta (Final Payment) within
five (5) business days of the Amendment No. 1 Effective Date. Payment by Intel of
the Final Payment will constitute full satisfaction of all of Intels payment obligations
under this Amended Settlement Agreement.
 B.
 For purposes of clarification, the total amount paid by Intel to Transmeta under this
Section 4.1 shall not exceed Two-Hundred Thirty-Six Million Five-Hundred Thousand
U.S. Dollars (US $236,500,000.00).
 C.
 Neither this Agreement nor any right or obligation hereunder shall be assignable or
assumable, whether in connection with a Change of Control, bankruptcy or otherwise, either
voluntarily, by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the
other Party, which consent may be withheld at the sole discretion of such other Party.
 D.

    All other terms of the Settlement Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and
effect.
  INTEL CORPORATION
    
    
    
    TRANSMETA CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ SUZAN A. MILLER
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ LESTER M. CRUDELESuzan A. Miller
    
    
    
    Lester M. CrudelePrinted Name
    
    
    
    Printed NameVP & Deputy General Counsel
    
    
    
    President & CEOTitle
    
    
    
    TitleSeptember 23, 2008
    
    
    
    September 22, 2008Date
    
    
    
    Date
WORK PLAN FOR RECLAMATION'S PA COMPLIANCE, FY01-03

FY01 FY02 FY03

PEP Recommendation, Work Project FY2001 BOR 01 GCMRC FY2002 BOR 02 GCMRC FY2003 BOR 03 GCMRC

1. Write HPP

 1a. NPS finish reports $20,000

 1b. HPP Introduction (contract) $40,000

 1c. Curation, archival, NAGPRA plans $25,000

2. Improve tribal involvement

 2a. Consultation plan, MOUs $9,000

3. Improve coordination, integration

 3a. BOR PA administration costs $80,000 $80,000 $80,000

4. Refine definition of APE

 4a. Determine costs, times, feasibility $40,000

5. Systematic assessment of properties

 5a. Research design contract $55,000 $75,000

 5b. Hopi tribal value study $30,000

6. Geomorphological research

 6a. Effect study-BOR contract? $130,000 $150,000

7. Redefine monitoring programs

 7a. Revise current protocols via memo

 7b. Current monitoring continue-GRCA $201,000 $201,000

 7c. Current monitoring continue-GLCA $27,500 $27,500

 7d. Write new monitoring plan $12,500 $25,000

 7e. Begin integrated monitoring program ? ?

8. Treatment plan

 8a. Contract for treatment plan $200,000

 8b. Treatments FY2004

9. Database plan

 9a. Initiate transfer, plan $40,000

 9b. Plan, transfer to GCMRC $12,500 $25,000

10. Public involvement plan $20,000 $10,000

11. Improve contracting

 11a. FAR training $500 $500

TOTAL $503,000 $75,000 $504,000 $50,000 $475,000 $10,000
#### Aldora SANFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of LOUISIANA, Department of Social Services; Terri Ricks, Individually and in her Official Capacity as the Undersecretary, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-31096

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 18, 2007.

Nelson D. Taylor, Sr., Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Wendell C. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Aldorá Sanford brought claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination Act, and state law claims against his former employer, the Louisiana Department of Social Services, and Terri Ricks. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Having received no response from Sanford, the district court eventually granted the motion, but invited Sanford to respond. Sanford filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 60(b) or alternatively for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). The court denied the motion. Because we agree with the district court that the complaint fails to state a claim, we affirm.

This court reviews de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). *Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit,*369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). Further, “[d]is-missal is proper if the complaint lacks an allegation regarding a required element necessary to obtain relief.” *Rios v. City of Del Rio,*444 F.3d 417, 421 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A plaintiff must assert more than general legal conclusions to avoid dismissal. *493
      *Jefferson v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, Inc.,*106 F.3d 1245, 1250 (5th Cir.1997). “[T]he complaint must contain either direct allegations on every material point necessary to sustain a recovery ... or contain allegations from which an inference fairly may be drawn that evidence on these material points will be introduced at trial.” *Campbell v. City of San Antonio,*43 F.3d 973, 975 (5th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).

After reviewing the briefs and relevant portions of the record, we agree with the district court that Sanford’s complaint is deficient. It alleges legal conclusions without alleging the facts necessary to support them. *See Jefferson,*106 F.3d at 1250. Further, it fails to allege facts on each required element of the various causes of action. *See Rios,*444 F.3d at 421. Consequently, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOSE SANTIAGO RIVERA VALLE, AKA Jose Santiago Rivera,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 50249

D.C. No. 8:13

- cr

- 00034

- AG

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020 **

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jose Santiago Rivera Valle appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 13

- month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.

We have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valle contends that th e district court procedurally erred by failing to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JAN 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 50249

consider his mitigating arguments and relying on a clearly erroneous fact regarding

his criminal history. The district court did not plainly err. See United States v.

Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 110 8 (9th Cir. 2010). The record shows that

the district court considered Valle’s arguments for a shorter sentence and expressly

discussed some of them. The court was not required to address specifically each of

Valle’s arguments. See Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 358

- 59 (2007). The

record does not show that the district court relied on a clearly erroneous fact when

,

in the course of explaining the basis for the sentence, it stated that past periods of

incarceration had not fully deterred Valle and protected the community from his

criminal activity. See United States v. Christensen

, 828 F.3d 763, 816 (9th Cir.

2016) (stating standard)

.

Valle also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 3 8,

51 (2007) . The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentenc ing factors and the totality of the circumstances , including

Valle’s immigration and criminal history. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51

.

AFFIRMED.
#### DUGAN, Respondent, v. HANLEY, Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

November 30, 1896.)

Action by Cornelius L. Dugan against John P. Hanley. Charles De Hart Brower, for appellant. Hennessy, Creeden & Rowan, for respondent.

CONLAN. P. J.

Appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendant, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The action was brought to recover on three checks, and for services rendered. No question of law arose on the trial, and the case went to the jury on the question of facts presented by the evidence. A careful reading of the appeal book satisfies us that the jury, reached the proper conclusion, and that the verdict should stand. The judgment and order are therefore affirmed, with costs.