alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Fairport Baptist Homes, Petitioner, v Richard F. Daines, M.D., Commissioner of Health, State of New York, Respondent.

[875 NYS2d 399]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County [Harold L. Galloway, J.], entered March 28, 2008) to annul a determination of respondent. The determination found that respondent properly reclassified certain salary costs as skilled nursing facility costs.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination that *1357respondent properly reclassified the salary costs of household resident assistants (HRAs) as skilled nursing facility costs *(see*10 NYCRR 455.37), rather than as activities costs *(see*10 NYCRR 455.14), as reported by petitioner. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination is supported by a rational basis and is not unreasonable. Indeed, it is well settled that “the interpretation given to a regulation by the agency which promulgated it and is responsible for its administration is entitled to deference if that interpretation is not irrational or unreasonable” *(Matter of Gaines v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*90 NY2d 545, 548-549 [1997]; *see generally Matter of Blossom View Nursing Home v Novello, 4*NY3d 581, 594-595 [2005]). Here, the record establishes that many duties of the HRAs expressly fall within the category of “expenses associated with providing skilled nursing care” (10 NYCRR 455.37). We reject petitioner’s further contention that the reclassification by respondent violated the State Administrative Procedure Act. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, respondent did not thereby adopt a new rule. Rather, we agree with respondent that he merely applied the existing regulations to the duties performed by the HRAs in reclassifying their salary costs. Present — Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.
#### Abdul NEDAB, Appellant v. Barbara LITTEN.

No. 05-5058.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 March 23, 2006.

Filed June 19, 2006.

*262Abdul Nedab, Marienville, PA, pro se.

Laura S. Irwin, Office of United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, for Barbara Lit-ten.

Before: FUENTES, VANANTWERPEN and ROTH *, Circuit Judges.

*

 Judge Roth assumed senior status on May 31, 2006.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Abdul Nedab appeals from a District Court order dismissing his case as “legally frivolous in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).” ** The Appellee has filed a motion for summary action. Because no substantial question is presented, we will grant the Appellee’s motion and summarily affirm. L.A.R. 27.4.

In his complaint, Nedab alleges that several guards at SCI-Forest, along with a local officer, beat him on March 3, 2005, injuring him severely.*** He claims that the incident was recorded on the prison’s video system. He seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief against the Tionesta District Attorney, Barbara Lit-ten, on the grounds that she failed to investigate his private criminal complaint against the guards, and that she failed to bring criminal charges against them. Adopting a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, the District Court dismissed the complaint holding that Litten’s activities are intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process and, thus, receive absolute immunity. This appeal followed.****

We agree with the District Court that Litten is entitled to absolute immunity for all claims related to her decision not to prosecute. *Imbler v. Pachtman,*424 U.S. 409, 420, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). To the extent that Nedab’s complaint can be read to allege violations connected to investigatory or administrative functions, he cannot maintain a section 1983 suit because the facts of his complaint do not demonstrate that any constitutional right has been violated. *See Saucier v. Katz,*533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001); *Wright v. City of Phila.,*409 F.3d 595, 599-600 (3d Cir.2005).

**

We assume that the District Court intended to cite 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

***

 In the past year, Nedab has filed several lawsuits in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, all relating in part to the alleged beating. *See Nedab v. Neal,*Civ. No. 06-CV-00007 (W.D.Pa); *Nedab v. Lencer,*Civ. No. 06-cv-00054 (W.D.Pa.); *Nedab v. Beard,*Civ. No. 05-cv-00405 (W.D.Pa.); and *Nedab v. Beard,*Civ. No. 06-cv-00035 (W.D.Pa.) (naming well over 100 defendants).

****

 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise plenary review. *See Tourscher v. McCullough,*184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir.1999).
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.                  

###### Overseas Private Investment Corporation

# Time and Date:

2 p.m. Thursday, June 14, 2001.

# Place:

Office of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

Hearing OPEN to the Public at 2 pm.

# Purpose:

In conjunction with the quarterly meeting of OPIC's Board of Directors, to afford an opportunity for any person to present views regarding the activities of the Corporation.

# Procedure:

                        Individuals wishing to address the hearing orally must provide advance notice to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 pm, June 13, 2001. The notice must include the individual's name, organization, address, and telephone number, and a                               ( print page 30769)                            concise summary of the subject matter to be presented.                    

Oral presentations may not exceed ten (10) minutes. The time for individual presentations may be reduced proportionately, if necessary, to afford all participants who have submitted a timely request to participate an opportunity to be heard. 

Participants wishing to submit a written statement for the record must submit a copy of such statement to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 pm, June 13, 2001. Such statements must be typewritten, double-spaced and may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.

Upon receipt of the required notice, OPIC will prepare an agenda for the hearing identifying speakers, setting forth the subject on which each participant will speak, and the time allotted for each presentation. The agenda will be available at the hearing.

A written summary of the hearing will be compiled, and such summary will be made available, upon written request to OPIC's Corporate Secretary, at the cost of reproduction.

# Contact person for Information:

Information on the hearing may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438, via facsimile at (202) 408-0297, or via email at cdown@opic.gov.

Dated: June 4, 2001.

Connie M. Downs,

OPIC Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-14432  Filed 6-4-01; 4:59 pm]

BILLING CODE 3210-01-M
# Exhibit 99.03

# Woodhead Industries, Inc.
EPS Analysis
For the fiscal years 2005 and 2006

|                                                                           | 2005 |  | 2006
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- |  | ----
|
|Reported EPS                                                               |      |  | $   
|                                                                          
|Specific Non-recurring and/orNon-operating Items(Included in Reported EPS) |      | 
|Foreign Exchange                                                           |      |  |     
|Tax Rate                                                                   |      |  |     
|Legal Settlement                                                           |      |  |     
|AMCO Product Line Sales                                                    |      |  |     
|                                                                           |      |  |     
|Total                                                                      |      |  |     

---
H. Res. 1058 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 26, 2010. 

Whereas the civil rights movement helped to better the lives 

of millions of people and secured equality, civil rights, 

and human rights for all people in the Nation; 

Whereas in 1999, California public high school teacher Jeff 

Steinberg combined a civil rights history lesson and a 

field trip to civil rights movement landmarks to create 

the educational program Sojourn to the Past; 

Whereas Sojourn to the Past takes high school students on 

a 10-day excursion along the path of the civil rights 

movement in the Southern United States, engaging them 

with historical sites and talks with prominent veteran 

leaders of the civil rights movement; 

Whereas the goal of Sojourn to the Past is to inspire students to become civic leaders with a duty and ability to 

unite people in the communities in equality and justice, 

through knowledge, understanding, and compassion; 

Whereas Sojourn to the Past is the longest running civil 

rights education and outreach program in the United 

States; 

Whereas Sojourn to the Past has conducted 55 sojourns and 

introduced over 5,000 high school juniors and seniors to 
2 

•HRES 1058 EH 

the lessons, locations, and leaders of the civil rights 

movement; 

Whereas Sojourn to the Past teaches high school students 

how the history of the civil rights movement is relevant 

to ending discrimination, violence, hatred, bigotry, and 

inequity in schools and communities; 

Whereas Sojourn to the Past’s mission of making the civil 

rights movement relevant for younger generations 

strengthens society in the United States by promoting 

civil rights and equality; and 

Whereas Sojourn to the Past continues to teach younger generations of people in the United States about the civil 

rights movement and challenges young people to define 

and defend individual conceptions of justice in communities and classrooms: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes the 10th anniversary of the founding 

Sojourn to the Past; and 

(2) honors and praises Sojourn to the Past on the 

occasion of its anniversary, and for its work in educating 

the next generation of people in the United States about 

the civil rights movement and the importance of social 

justice. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
AMENDING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENTmade as of the 1st day of December, 2004.  AMONG:  STELLAR INTERNATIONAL INC.  (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation")  - and -  LMT FINANCIAL INC.  (hereinafter reffer to as the "Advisor")  RECITALS WHEREAS:  A. The parties to this agreement entered into a fiscal advisory and consulting agreement dated January 1, 2003 (the "Agreement").  B. The parties are desirous of entering into this agreement to amend the consideration provisions of the Agreement.   NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this agreement and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged), the parties hereto agree as follows:   1. Section 5(ii) of the Agreement will be deleted and restated as follows:  (ii) pay to the Advisor, for an additional and third year of the agreement, an annual fee of $72,000 (plus GST thereon), which shall be satisfied in full by the issuance by the Corporation to the Advisor of a cheque for $6,000 (+ GST) monthly to be issued at the end of each month;  2. Section 5(iv) will be added to the agreement and will state as follows:  (iv) there are no stock options to be issued within this agreement.  2. In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain unamended and in full force and effect.  3. This agreement may be signed in counterparts and each such counterpart shall constitute an original document and such counterparts, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.   4. This agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.  LMT Agreement Amendment  04Dec1 Page 1 of 2      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement.   STELLAR INTERNATIONAL INC.By:/s/ Peter Riehl .
Authorized Signing OfficerLMT FINANCIAL INC.By: /s/ Arnold Tenney 
Authorized Signing Officer    LMT Agreement Amendment  04Dec1 Page 2 of 2
#### Judy SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; James B. Peake, Secretary of Affairs; Eric K. Shinseki, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-1953.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 26, 2012.

Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.

Judy Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Binkley, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Judy Smith appeals the district court’s order accepting the report of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Defendant in this employment discrimination action. The district court referred this ease to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2011). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Smith that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Smith has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1566

JESSIE W. DICKERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KINGSTON METALS SOUTH CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-1722-3-17BD)

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 20, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessie W. Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard James Morgan, Bernie

Wellington Ellis, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting the

Defendant's motion for summary judgment in Appellant's employment

discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Dickerson v. Kingston Metals South

Corp., No. CA-95-1722-3-17BD (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 1997). 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
```

[Federal Register: June 2, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 35331]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jn00-46]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Thursday, June 29, 2000.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Rule Enforcement Review.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-14035 Filed 5-31-00; 3:47 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
III 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 934 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 16, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To convey certain submerged lands to the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands in order to give that 

territory the same benefits in its submerged lands as 

Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have 

in their submerged lands. 

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


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 934 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN SUBMERGED LANDS 

2 TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN 

3 MARIANA ISLANDS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first section of Public Law 

5 93–435 (48 U.S.C. 1705) is amended by inserting ‘‘the 

6 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,’’ after 

7 ‘‘Guam,’’ each place it appears. 

8 (b) REFERENCES TO DATE OF ENACTMENT.—For 

9 the purposes of the amendment made by subsection (a), 

10 each reference in Public Law 93–435 (48 U.S.C. 1705) 

11 to the ‘‘date of enactment’’ shall be considered to be a 

12 reference to the date of the enactment of this section. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 15, 2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

By ROBERT F. REEVES, 

Deputy Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                           BTG, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                  (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)





<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         FISCAL YEARS ENDED
                                                                                MARCH 31,
                                                            ----------------------------------------------
                                                              2001                2000             1999
                                                            ---------           --------         ---------

<S>                                                        <C>                 <C>              <C>
Income from continuing operations                           $   2,677           $  4,555         $   2,761
                                                            =========           ========         =========


Weighted average common stock shares
     outstanding during the period (used in the
     calculation of basic per share results)                    8,955              8,853             8,774

Dilutive effect of common stock options and
     common stock purchase warrants                                74                182                53
                                                            ---------           --------         ---------

Weighted average common stock and potentially
     dilutive securities outstanding during the period
     (used in the calculation of diluted per share
     results)                                                   9,029              9,035             8,827
                                                            =========           ========         =========




Basic earnings per share
     from continuing operations                             $    0.30           $   0.51         $    0.32
                                                            =========           ========         =========

Diluted earnings per share
     from continuing operations                             $    0.30           $   0.50         $    0.32
                                                            =========           ========         =========
</TABLE>










                                       46