alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>                                                            Exhibit 11
<TABLE>
                       AZTAR CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
             For the periods ended April 3, 1997 and March 28, 1996
         ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      (in thousands, except per share data)

<CAPTION>
                                                    First Quarter    
                                                  ------------------ 
                                                    1997      1996   
                                                  --------- -------- 
<S>                                               <C>       <C> 
Net income                                        $  2,677  $    769 
Deduct: preferred stock dividend and
  losses on redemption (net of income 
  taxes credited to retained earnings)                (174)     (160)
                                                  --------  -------- 

Net income applicable to computation              $  2,503  $    609 
                                                  ========  ======== 
Weighted average common shares 
  assuming no dilution                              45,005    38,286 
   Common equivalent shares
    Additional shares applicable to 
      stock options based on the 
      weighted average market price                    765       949 
                                                  --------  -------- 
Weighted average common shares 
  applicable to net income per 
  common and common equivalent share                45,770    39,235 

    Additional shares applicable to 
      stock options based on the market 
      close price at the end of the period              --        42 

   Conversion of preferred stock at 
    the stated rate                                    929       978 
                                                  --------  -------- 
Weighted average common shares 
  assuming full dilution                            46,699    40,255 
                                                  ========  ======== 

Net income per common and common 
  equivalent share                                $    .05  $    .02 

Net income per common share assuming 
  full dilution                                   $    .05  $    .02 
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 06-7689 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KEVIN EUGENE TEAGUE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (3:01-cr-152-2; 3:04-cv-00631)

Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 4, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Eugene Teague, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Eugene Teague seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Teague has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
Peter MANCUSO, petitioner, v. TDGA, LLC, et al.

No. 17-7541.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
# C_2011089EN.01000202.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/2

---

Order of the Court of 16 November 2010 — Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

(Case C-73/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Commission Decision relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC - Action for annulment - Time-limit - Action brought out of time - Reasons justifying derogation from the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Right of access to a court - Principles of legality and proportionality - Appeal clearly unfounded)

2011/C 89/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: A. Rinne, Rechtsanwalt, S. Kon and C. Humpe, Solicitors, and C. Vajda QC)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer and A. Biolan, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 30 November 2009 in Case T-2/09 Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities dismissing, as manifestly inadmissible, an action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 final of 15 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas) concerning a cartel on a part of the European market in bananas, or, in the alternative, annulling or reducing the fine imposed on the applicant — Time-limit for bringing an action — Lateness

Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. KG

Commission of the European Communities

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
Debon Derone SIMS, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5207.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

*228Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

EX-32.2 CERTIFICATION OF LEONARD F. BARKER

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 Quarterly Report of Unilens Vision Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                           
|---------------------------
|Date: December 28, 2010    
|                           
|/s/ Leonard F. Barker      
|Leonard F. Barker          
|Principal Financial Officer
Richard STERBA, et ux., petitioners, v. PNC BANK.

No. 17-423.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# C_2009244EN.01001102.xml

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/11

---

Action brought on 31 July 2009 — Tilda Riceland v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE)

(Case T-304/09)

2009/C 244/18

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Tilda Riceland Ltd (Gurgaon, India) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, D. Sills and N. Urwin, Solicitors)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Siam Grains Company Limited (Bangkok, Thailand)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 2009 in case R 513/2008-1; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 2009 in case R 513/2008-1; and

| — | Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay their own costs and those of the applicant |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay their own costs and those of the applicant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘BASMALI LONG GRAIN RICE RIZ LONG DE LUXE’, for goods in class 30

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: A non-registered trade mark of the word ’BASMATI” used for rice and a sign consisting of the word ‘BASMATI’ used in the course of trade designating a class of goods, namely rice

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly based its decision solely upon an interpretation of the provision which fails to take into account national rules and judicial decisions delivered in the Member State concerned; secondly, the Board of Appeal failed to apply the law of a Member State, namely the United Kingdom, in relation to the form of action known as the ‘extended form of passing off’; thirdly, the Board of Appeal erred in requiring that the applicant must hold proprietary rights to the sign ‘BASMATI’; finally, the Board of Appeal erred in holding that the word ‘BASMATI’ is generic.

Pleas in law:

---
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SS. 1350**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Technest Holdings, Inc.
        (the
“Company”) for the six-month period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
        undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
        do hereby certify, to their best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
        1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
 
 (1)
        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
        of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.
 
 
 
 **/s/
                  Robert Tarini**
              
              **/s/
                  Gino M. Pereira****Robert
                  Tarini**
              
              **Gino
                  M. Pereira****Chief
                  Executive Officer**
              
              **Chief
                  Financial Officer****Date:
                  September 28, 2005**
              
              **Date:
                  September 28, 2005**
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, 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 my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.



|                 |  |                            
|---------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:            |  |                            
|January 23, 2007 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                 |  |                            
|                 |  | Marc N. Teal               
|                 |  | Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Carston Carrell WOODSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8268.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 01-12]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of section 36(b)(1) arms sale notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 01-12 with attached transmittal and policy justification.

Dated: June 21, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 34162)          ( print page 34163)          ( print page 34164)    

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M

[FR Doc. 01-16035 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-C
# L_2006053EN.01006502.xml

| 23.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 53/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/65

---

Corrigendum to Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 91/2005 of 8 July 2005 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 306 of 24 November 2005
  )

On page 4, in recital 11, the footnote reference ‘(*)’ shall be added after ‘... Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 51/2005.’ The text of the footnote shall be: ‘(*) OJ L 239, 15.9.2005, p. 22.’

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABRAHAM RIOS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73579 

Agency No. A205-297-724 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 11, 2017**

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Abraham Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying administrative closure and 

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We 

dismiss the petition for review. 

 

* 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

JUL 19 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73579 

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of administrative closure. 

Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1118-20 (9th Cir. 2009). 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Rios’ unexhausted contentions that the IJ 

failed to apply mandatory presumptions in his favor and applied legally erroneous 

standards of proof. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010)

(“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s 

administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
<PAGE>



                                                                      Exhibit 12


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES We have calculated PBG's ratio of earnings
to fixed charges in the table by dividing earnings by fixed charges. For this
purpose, earnings are before taxes and minority interest, plus charges
(excluding capitalized interest) and losses recognized from equity investments,
reduced by undistributed income from equity investments. Fixed charges include
interest expense, capitalized interest and one-third of net which is the portion
of the rent deemed representative of the interest factor.


                                      PBG
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                ($ in millions)

<Table>
<S>                                                     <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
                                                                          FISCAL YEAR
                                                          2002      2001      2000      1999      1998
                                                        -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
NET INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE TAXES AND MINORITY
    INTEREST                                            $  700    $  482    $  397    $  209    $ (192)

Undistributed (income) loss from equity
    investments                                              -         -         -         -         5
Fixed charges excluding capitalized interest               221       217       222       227       245
                                                        -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
EARNINGS AS ADJUSTED                                     $ 921    $  699    $  619    $  436    $   58
                                                        =======   =======   =======   =======   =======

FIXED CHARGES:
    Interest expense                                    $  200    $  204    $  208    $  209    $  230
    Capital interest                                         -         1         1         1         1
    Interest portion of rental expense                      21        13        14        18        15
                                                        -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                                     $  221    $  218    $  223    $  228    $  246
                                                        =======   =======   =======   =======   =======

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                        4.17      3.20      2.78      1.91      (A)
</Table>

(A)  As a result of the losses incurred in the fiscal year ended December 26,
     1998 PBG was unable to fully cover the indicated fixed charges. Earnings
     did not cover fixed charges by $188 million in 1998.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
DECEMBER 31, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         112,303
<SECURITIES>                                    31,707
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                       543
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               169,372
<PP&E>                                         115,486
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,319
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 325,454
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,205
<BONDS>                                        125,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            92
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,369
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   325,454
<SALES>                                         35,513
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,513
<CGS>                                           39,809
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  136,638
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   401
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,193)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                103,318
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            103,318
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,318
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.95)


</TABLE>