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

                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)
<CAPTION>

                                                             Three Months Ended           Six Months Ended
                                                                  June 30,                    June 30,
                                                          -----------------------       ---------------------
                                                           1997            1996          1997          1996
                                                          -------         -------       -------       -------
<S>                                                       <C>             <C>           <C>           <C>   
Primary:
    Weighted average number of common shares
      outstanding .......................................  20,531          19,562        20,421        19,150
    Common equivalent shares of restricted stock                                                     
      subject to repurchase .............................     245             391           247           442
    Common equivalent shares assuming conversion                                                     
       of stock options .................................     968           1,628         1,271         1,600
                                                          -------         -------       -------       -------
    Shares used in computing per share amounts ..........  21,744          21,581        21,939        21,192
                                                          =======         =======       =======       =======
    Net income .......................................... $ 1,018         $ 1,262       $ 2,971       $ 2,130
                                                          =======         =======       =======       =======
    Net income per share (1) ............................ $  0.05         $  0.06       $  0.14       $  0.10
                                                          =======         =======       =======       =======
<FN>
(1)  There is no difference between primary and fully diluted net income per share.
</FN>
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 21


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     SUBSIDIARY                    JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION   OTHER NAMES UNDER WHICH
                                                                  SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS
--------------------------------   ----------------------------   --------------------------
<S>                                <C>                            <C>
American Plasma, Inc.              Texas
--------------------------------   ----------------------------   --------------------------
AVRE, Incorporated                 Nevada
--------------------------------   ----------------------------   --------------------------
BHM Labs, Inc.                     Arkansas
--------------------------------   ----------------------------   --------------------------
Binary Associates, Inc.            Colorado
--------------------------------   ----------------------------   --------------------------
SeraCare Acquisitions, Inc.        Nevada
--------------------------------   ----------------------------   --------------------------
SeraCare Technology, Inc.          Nevada
--------------------------------   ----------------------------   --------------------------
The Western States Group, Inc.     California                     Thera Source International
--------------------------------   ----------------------------   --------------------------
SeraCare Life Sciences             Delaware
--------------------------------   ----------------------------   --------------------------
</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2
                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-5570-LA and No. 333-43899 on Form S-3 and Form S-8, respectively, and in
Amendment No. 2 to Registration Statement No. 333-50385 on Form S-3 of our
report dated March 27, 1998 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of
Bristol Retail Solutions, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
----------------------------------------------
Costa Mesa, California
August 4, 1998
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Dorsey, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.), rendered April 20, 1983, convicting him of rape in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At the trial, the defense counsel sought to elicit of his expert witness, who had been qualified in the field of forensic serology, that the absence of sperm on the defendant’s undershorts indicated that he had not engaged in sex with the complainant, whom he was accused of raping. The court, however, limited counsel’s inquiries in this respect, determining that the question was one for the jury to resolve based upon its experience and common sense. We agree. The admissibility and bounds of expert testimony are questions primarily addressed to the sound discretion of the court *(People v Cronin,*60 NY2d 430; *Selkowitz v County of Nassau,*45 NY2d 97). Moreover, it is for the trial court in the first instance to determine when jurors are able to draw conclusions from the evidence based on their day-to-day experience, their common observation and their knowledge, and when they would be benefited by the specialized knowledge of an expert witness *(People v Cronin, supra).*At bar, the court properly concluded that the defense counsel’s inquiry of the expert involved a factual issue in the case to be resolved by the jury for which no special scientific testimony was necessary.

The defendant’s remaining contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to the trial court’s alleged improper questioning of the witnesses has not been preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Charleston,*56 NY2d 886). In any event, *587the record reveals that the trial court’s questions were proper and fair *(cf. People v Yut Wai*Tom, 53 NY2d 44; *People v Jamison,*47 NY2d 882). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 3 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 4 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 5 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 6 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 7 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 8 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 9 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 10 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 11 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 12 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 13 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 14 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 15 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 16 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 17 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 18 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 19 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 20 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 21 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 22 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 23 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 24 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 25 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 26 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 27 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 28 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 29 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 30 of 31
Case 3:15-cv-00096-MO Document 33 Filed 04/15/15 Page 31 of 31
EXHIBIT 99.1

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 on Form 10-K (the "Report") of PYR Energy
Corporation (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2002, each of
the undersigned D. Scott Singdahlsen, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Andrew P. Calerich, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the
undersigned's knowledge and belief: (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.


Dated: November 26, 2002.




/s/ D. Scott Singdahlsen
------------------------
D. Scott Singdahlsen, Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Andrew P. Calerich
----------------------
Andrew P. Calerich, Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eduardo Marte, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 712] —

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered on or about April 6, 2010, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1740 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit former Members of 

Congress from lobbying Members, officers, or employees of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2015 

Mr. BLUM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit former 

Members of Congress from lobbying Members, officers, 

or employees of Congress. 

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 ‘‘No Golden Parachutes 

5 for Public Service Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST LOBBYING OF CONGRESS 

7 BY FORMER MEMBERS. 

8 (a) SENATORS.—Section 207(e)(1)(A) of title 18, 

9 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘within 2 

10 years’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1740 IH

1 (b) MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE OF

2 REPRESENTATIVES.—Section 207(e)(1)(B)(i) of such title 

3 is amended by striking ‘‘within 1 year’’. 

4 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

5 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

6 respect to individuals who leave office on or after the date 

7 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Frank, Huff and Senior Judge Haley

ROCKINGHAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND SAFETY NAT IONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0615-14-3 PER CURIAM AUGUST 12, 2014 MAUREEN NORRIS

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Christopher M. Kite; Roberta A. Paluck; Lucas & Kite, PLC, on brief), for appellants. (Terry L. Armentrout; Armentrout & Armentrout, P.L.C., on brief), for appellee.

Rockingham Memorial Hospital and Safety Na tional Casualty Corporation (collectively “employer”) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commissi on (hereinafter “the commission”). On appeal, employer argues that the commission erred in finding Maureen Norris sustained an injury by accident on February 8, 20 11, arising out of and during the course of her employment, that she injured her left knee, neck, and back as a result of the accident, that her disability was causally related to her injuries, th at she adequately marketed her residual work capacity, and that her care with Dr. Terry L. Overby was author ized treatment. We have

reviewed the record and the comm ission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Norris v. Rockingham Mem’l Hosp., VWC File No. JCN VA00000419618 (Mar. 4, 2014). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affi rm because the facts and legal contentions are

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - adequately presented in the materials before th e Court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernest Desir, Appellant.

*743The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as found by a jury, that the defendant burglarized the apartment of Louisianna Millen and stole certain items of jewelry. The only evidence regarding the value of that jewelry was Ms. Millen’s testimony that she purchased two items for approximately $330. As conceded by the People, this did not establish that the value of the jewelry exceeded $250 and accordingly the convictions have been modified *(see, People v Jackson,*111 AD2d 253; *People v Womble,*111 AD2d 283). As the defendant has already served the maximum time to which he could be sentenced for petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, there is no need to remit for resentencing *(see, People v Giles,*121 AD2d 738; *People v Womble, supra).*

The sentence imposed for the conviction for burglary in the second degree was not excessive *(People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50543 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JUAN ANGEL MARTINEZ

- GONZALEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:13

- CR

- 7

- 1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Juan Angel Martinez

- Gonzalez ( Martinez ) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez has filed a response. To the extent that Martinez’s response reflects that he wishes to raise claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, th e record is insufficiently developed to allow

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50543 Document: 00512515745 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2014No. 13

- 50543

consideration at this time of Martinez’s claim s ; such claim s ge nerally are not resolved on direct appeal when they have not been developed in the district
court. See U nited States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected
ther ein, as well as Martinez ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities her ein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See
5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2.

2 Case: 13-50543 Document: 00512515745 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2014
#### Jorge Arteaga, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent. Michael Treacy, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 1.)

(Claim No. 2.)

— Mahoney, J.

Appeal, in claim No. 1, from an order of the Court of Claims, (Murray, J.), entered November 4, 1985, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Appeal, in claim No. 2 from an order of the Court of Claims (Koreman, P. J.), entered April 17, 1986, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim.

These appeals raise the issue of whether the State has *917waived its sovereign immunity with regard to claims arising out of the disciplining of inmates in the care and custody of the Department of Correctional Services. In each action, the claimant was an inmate at a State correctional facility when he was served with a misbehavior report which initiated formal disciplinary proceedings. Each claimant was confined in special housing unit pending resolution of the charges (7 NYCRR 251-1.6). In each case, the inmate was found guilty after a Superintendent’s proceeding and was disciplined by, *inter alia,*confinement to special housing unit. Each inmate sought administrative review and eventually won dismissal of the charges. The inmates then commenced these actions in the Court of Claims seeking money damages for, *inter alia,*malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and violation of statutory and regulatory rights. The claims were dismissed and these appeals ensued.

Court of Claims Act § 8 provides: "The state hereby waives its immunity from liability and action and hereby assumes liability and consents to have the same determined in accordance with the same rules of law as applied to actions in the supreme court against individuals or corporations, provided the claimant complies with the limitations of this article.” Thus, the State has waived its immunity with respect to those actions which are normally associated with private individuals and corporations. The State has not waived its cloak of immunity for any actions which are "completely sovereign in nature and completely foreign to any activity which could be carried on by a private person” *(Williams v State of New York,*90 AD2d 861, 862; *see, Abruzzo v State of New York,*84 AD2d 876, 877; *Bellows v State of New York,*37 AD2d 342, 344). If the acts complained of involve the exercise of discretion or judgment of a quasi-judicial nature, the waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply *(Abruzzo v State of New York, supra).*

The disciplining of inmates clearly is foreign to any activity which could be carried on by private persons or corporations. Further, the Legislature has vested a great deal of discretion in the Department of Correctional Services with regard to the disciplining of inmates *(see,*Correction Law § 112 [1]; § 137 [2]; *Matter of Baker v Wilmot,*65 AD2d 884, 885, *lv denied*46 NY2d 710). Thus, it is apparent that the disciplining of inmates is not an activity with regard to which the State has waived its sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the claims were properly dismissed.

*918Orders affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
FRYINGPAN RIVER AT MEREDITHLatitude: 39.362Longitude: -106.733Elevation: 7780

FRYINGPAN RIVER AT MEREDITH

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chapman Tunnel Site Page...



Chapman Tunnel

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Kiln Site Page...



Kiln

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Nast Lake Site Page...



Nast Lake
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1689 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1689

 To prohibit the provision of certain foreign assistance to countries 
   receiving certain detainees transferred from United States Naval 
                     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2015

  Mr. DeSantis (for himself, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Clawson of Florida, Mr. 
    Salmon, and Mr. Perry) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the provision of certain foreign assistance to countries 
   receiving certain detainees transferred from United States Naval 
                     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN FOREIGN ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES 
              RECEIVING CERTAIN DETAINEES TRANSFERRED FROM UNITED 
              STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

    (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
assistance may not be provided under any Act specified in subsection 
(b) to a foreign country if--
            (1) the country received an individual who was released or 
        transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
        Cuba, on or after February 1, 2015; and
            (2) after the date of such release or transfer, the 
        individual is included in a report under section 319 of the 
        Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32; 123 
        Stat. 1874; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) as described by subsection 
        (c)(4) of that section.
    (b) Covered Acts.--The Acts specified in this subsection are the 
following:
            (1) The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et 
        seq.).
            (2) The Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.).
    (c) Commencement of Applicability of Prohibition.--The prohibition 
in subsection (a) shall commence applying to a foreign country on the 
date of the first report described in subsection (a)(2) that includes 
any individual described in subsection (a)(1) who was received by the 
country on or after February 1, 2015.
    (d) Duration of Applicability of Prohibition.--The prohibition in 
subsection (a) shall cease with respect to a foreign country on the 
date that is five years after the date of the commencement of the 
applicability of the prohibition to the country under subsection (c).
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XIUMAN WAN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73549

Agency No. A075

- 759

- 065

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Xiuman Wan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BI A”) order denying her motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder , 597

* 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

MAY 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 73549

F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) , and we deny the petition f or review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Wan’s motion to reopen as

untimely where the motion was filed seven years after the BIA’s final order, see

8 C.F.R § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Wan failed to demonstrate changed country

conditions in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number

limitations for filing a motion to reopen

, s ee 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (ii) ; see also

Najmabad i

, 597 F.3d at 987

- 90 ( petitioner failed to show evidence was

“ qualitatively different ” to war rant reopening )

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.