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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                  STATEMENT RE:
                       COMPUTATIONS OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,                SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                       ---------------------------                -------------------------
                                                        2003                 2002                 2003                 2002
                                                        ----                 ----                 ----                 ----
<S>                                                <C>                  <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Numerator:
    Numerator for basic and diluted loss
     per share
     NET LOSS                                      $  (2,105,755)       $  (1,413,955)       $  (3,570,610)       $  (2,985,484)
                                                   =============        =============        =============        =============

Denominator:
    Denominator for basic loss per share
    Weighted average shares                          162,357,550          146,659,453          162,201,058          134,182,700

     Effect of dilutive securities:
         Stock options and warrants                           --                   --                   --                   --

    Dilutive potential common shares                          --                   --                   --                   --
                                                   -------------        -------------        -------------        -------------

     Denominator for diluted earnings per
     share

        Adjusted weighted average shares and
        assumed conversions                          162,357,550          146,659,453          162,201,058          134,182,700
                                                   =============        =============        =============        =============

BASIC LOSS PER SHARE                               $       (0.01)       $       (0.01)       $       (0.02)       $       (0.02)
                                                   =============        =============        =============        =============
DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE                             $       (0.01)       $       (0.01)       $       (0.02)       $       (0.02)
                                                   =============        =============        =============        =============
</TABLE>

We incurred a net loss for the six months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002.
Therefore, we did not make adjustments for potentially dilutive securities, as
the adjustments would have been anti-dilutive.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADDED BY **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

| 1.     | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                         |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| 2.     | To                my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,                in                all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report. |

|                                     |   |   |   |                                                                          |
|------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                March 30, 2007 |   | By:    |   | /s/                Scott Newman.                                              |
|                                     |   |   |   | Scott                Newman                                                   |
|                                     |   |   |   | Chairman,                President and Chief Executive                Officer |

----
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: ANDREW CASCIO 

DOCKET NUMBER: 164 

DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1969 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 164 

Name: Andrew Cascio 

Effective On or about October 8, 1969 

Order 

Effective on the date of service of this order upon the respondent, Andrew 

Cascio, he shall, while engaged as futures commission merchant, cease and desist 

from failing to segregate and account separately for customers' funds as 

required by section 4d of the Commodity exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6d, Supp. IV, 

1969) and sections 1.20, 1.21 and 1.22 of the regulations thereunder (17 CFR 

1.20, 1.21, 1.22) and from failing to prepare and maintain reports and records 

pertaining to the transactions and positions of customers as required by section 

4g of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6g, Supp. IV, 1969) and sections 1.32 

and 1.35 of the regulations thereunder (17 CFR 1.32 1.35). 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

September 5, 1969 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3966

___________

Joseph Anthony Roberson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Judge Porter, Jr.; Michael O. Freeman, * District of Minnesota

Prosecutor; Hennepin County *

Government Center; State of Minnesota, * {UNPUBLISHED}

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: October 7, 1997

 Filed: November 14, 1997

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, and McMILLIAN and BEAM, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Anthony Roberson appeals from the final order of the United States

District Court for the District of Minnesota, dismissing Roberson&s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1

action against a state judge, prosecutor, government building, and the State of
-2-

Minnesota. We have carefully reviewed the entire record, and we conclude the district

court did not err in dismissing this action. In addition, Roberson is responsible for the

filing fee in the district court and on appeal. See In re Tyler, 110 F.3d 528, 529-30 (8th

Cir. 1997) (prisoner is responsible for filing fee at moment of filing civil action or

appeal). 

Accordingly, we affirm. Roberson&s motions on appeal are denied.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                                1,169,811
<SECURITIES>                                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         1,298,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             50,172
<INVENTORY>                                                           8,831,880
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     11,039,350
<PP&E>                                                                1,556,208
<DEPRECIATION>                                                          197,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                       13,394,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 9,864,286
<BONDS>                                                               1,337,785
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                                  4,203
<OTHER-SE>                                                            2,227,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                         13,394,455
<SALES>                                                              32,802,779
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     34,086,947
<CGS>                                                                26,642,263
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        34,226,117
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          3,068
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         48,964
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                      639,304
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        (139,170)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            (52,976)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                     (89,262)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                            (89,262)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                            (0.040)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                 0



</TABLE>
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 14a0074n.06

No. 13-5040

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO CLIFTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

TENNESSEE

BEFORE: GUY, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Antonio Clifton appeals his sentence. Clifton pleaded guilty to 

possessing with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The 

district court determined that Clifton’s base offense level was 37 because, by virtue of his crimes

and his prior controlled substance offenses in Tennessee, he was a career offender. The court 

subtracted two levels for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of 35. 

Based on the total offense level of 35 and a criminal history category of VI, Clifton’s guidelines 

range was 292 to 365 months of imprisonment. The court sentenced him to 292 months for the 

cocaine base offense, to be served concurrently to 120-month terms for the other offenses.

Clifton appealed. His counsel filed a brief, making two arguments: (1) the district court 

erred by concluding that Clifton was a career offender because his predicate convictions were 
No. 13-5040

United States v. Clifton

- 2 -

void under state law; and (2) the district court failed to properly weigh the statutory sentencing 

factors when determining Clifton’s sentence. 

The district court properly relied on Clifton’s prior convictions when determining that he 

was a career offender because the Tennessee courts have not declared the convictions void and 

Clifton could not challenge the convictions as void during his federal sentencing hearing. See 

United States v. Ruvalcaba, 627 F.3d 218, 222 (6th Cir. 2010). In addition, the district court’s 

sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable, because the district court identified 

and discussed the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the 

seriousness of the crimes, Clifton’s history and characteristics, and the need to promote respect 

for the law and protect the public, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the court gave 

improper weight to any factor. See United States v. Dudeck, 657 F.3d 424, 431-32 (6th Cir. 

2011). 

Accordingly, we affirm Clifton’s sentence.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY JOHN VALENTO,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 5047 9

D.C. No. 2:13

- cr

- 00784

- PA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Anthony John Valento appeals from the three

- month sentence imposed upon

revocation of supervised release with 33 months of supervision to follow . Pursuant

to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Valento’s counsel has f iled a brief

stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as

* 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

OCT 2 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 50479

counsel of record. We have provided Valento the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed.

O ur independent review of the record pursuant to P enson v. Ohio , 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7566

DONALD L. RICE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ZORO J. GUICE, JR., The Honorable,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-03-90-1-1-MU)

Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 8, 2003

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald L. Rice, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald L. Rice appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Rice v. Guice, No. CA-03-90-1-

1-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 17, 2003 & entered Sept. 22, 2003). 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.

DISMISSED
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1597 

Encouraging the United Kingdom to investigate British Petroleum (BP) for 

foreign corrupt practices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2010 

Mr. MAFFEI (for himself, Mr. LEE of New York, and Mr. MCMAHON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Encouraging the United Kingdom to investigate British 

Petroleum (BP) for foreign corrupt practices. 

Whereas Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was convicted for 

the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 

270 people, including 189 United States citizens; 

Whereas the Scottish courts released al-Megrahi from prison 

on August 20, 2009, under the understanding that he 

was suffering from terminal prostate cancer; 

Whereas the Scottish authorities have never clarified why alMegrahi could not receive humane treatment while still in 

captivity; 

Whereas al-Megrahi seems to have well outlived his original 

diagnosis; 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1597 IH 

Whereas it is very troubling that al-Megrahi received a hero’s 

welcome to his home country of Libya; 

Whereas British Petroleum (BP) admitted on July 15, 2010, 

that a delayed prisoner-transfer between Britain and 

Libya ‘‘could have a negative impact’’ on BP’s oil negotiations; 

Whereas there are allegations that BP inappropriately attempted to affect the Scottish Government’s decision and 

possibly even the doctor’s diagnosis; and 

Whereas al-Megrahi’s release sends an incredibly offensive 

message to the families that lost loved ones on Pan Am 

Flight 103: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives encour2 ages the United Kingdom to investigate British Petroleum 

3 (BP) for foreign corrupt practices. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
#### Paula A., Respondent, v Jose A., Appellant.

[876 NYS2d 361]

Orders, Family Court, Bronx County (Myrna Martinez-Perez, J.), entered on or about October 11, 2007, which granted petitioner and the parties’ son a five-year order of protection against respondent, and determined that respondent violated a temporary order of protection and committed him to the New York City Department of Corrections for a term of 30 days, and order, same court and Judge, entered on or about October 11, 2007, which awarded custody of the parties’ son to petitioner and directed that respondent’s access to the child must be court authorized, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded for a hearing on the family offense and custody petitions.

The court erred in issuing a custody order without the benefit of a hearing, where the best interests of the parties’ son could be fully considered *(see Matter of Linda J. v Nakisha P.,*10 AD3d 287, 288 [2004]; *Matter of Hudgins v Goodley,*301 AD2d 524 [2003]).

Similarly, the court erred in issuing a permanent order of protection without having held a fact-finding or a dispositional hearing *(see Matter of Shevlin v Minas,*253 AD2d 435 [1998]), and its finding that aggravating circumstances existed is not supported by the record *(see*Family Ct Act § 827 [a] [vii]).

Furthermore, the court improperly held respondent in civil contempt in the absence of an evidentiary hearing, and because neither petitioner nor the court filed a petition alleging a violation of the temporary order of protection *(see*Family Ct Act §§ 846, 846-a; *Matter of Janczuk v Janczuk,*305 AD2d 680 [2003]; *see also James W.D. v Sandra C.,*44 AD3d 423, 424 [2007]). “Inasmuch as enduring consequences potentially flow from an order adjudicating a party in civil contempt, an appeal from that order is not rendered moot simply because the resulting prison sentence has already been served” *(Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch,*87 NY2d 862, 863 [1995]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson and DeGrasse, JJ.
IV 

House Calendar No. 222 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1549 

[Report No. 111–555] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1264) to amend the National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide for the national flood insurance 

program to make available multiperil coverage for damage resulting from 

windstorms or floods, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 21, 2010 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1264) to amend 

the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide 

for the national flood insurance program to make available multiperil coverage for damage resulting from windstorms or floods, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 1264) to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 

4 to provide for the national flood insurance program to 

5 make available multiperil coverage for damage resulting 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HRES 1549 RH 

1 from windstorms or floods, and for other purposes. All 

2 points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 

3 except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 

4 The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 

5 against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 

6 question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 

7 passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 

8 of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 

9 ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 

10 Services; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

House Calendar No. 222 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1549 

[Report No. 111–555] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1264) 

and for other purposes. for damage resulting from windstorms or floods, program to make available multiperil coverage 1968 to provide for the national flood insurance to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 

JULY 21, 2010 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS