alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 11.1 IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
RECONCILIATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except for share amounts) A reconciliation of basic and diluted earnings per share (EPS) is given in
the following table: SharesNet Income
    
    outstanding and
    
    Amount per(unaudited)
    
    equivalents
    
    ShareQuarter ended June 30, 2004Basic EPS
    
    $
    74,148
    
    
    
    48,274,276
    
    
    $
    1.54Diluted EPS
    
    $
    74,148
    
    
    
    48,354,678
    
    
    $
    1.53Quarter ended June 30, 2003Basic EPS
    
    $
    65,588
    
    
    
    48,187,912
    
    
    $
    1.36Diluted EPS
    
    $
    65,588
    
    
    
    48,281,119
    
    
    $
    1.36Six months ended June 30, 2004Basic EPS
    
    $
    147,776
    
    
    
    48,262,050
    
    
    $
    3.06Diluted EPS
    
    $
    147,776
    
    
    
    48,355,325
    
    
    $
    3.06Six months ended June 30, 2003Basic EPS
    
    $
    133,116
    
    
    
    48,183,858
    
    
    $
    2.76Diluted EPS
    
    $
    133,116
    
    
    
    48,270,385
    
    
    $
    2.76
 20
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 
**- 1389** 

XULI ZHANG ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

POLICE S. REGAN; POLICE PEC. M. GREEN ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Theresa C. Buchanan, Magistrate Judge . ( 1:10

- cv
- 01329

- TCB )

Submitted : July 10, 2012 Decided: July 18, 2012

Before MOTZ, KING , and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Xuli Zhang , Appellant Pro Se. Karen L. Gibbons , COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE , Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Xuli Zhan g appeals the magistrate judge’s order
denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to set aside the
magistrate judge’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(200 6 ) complaint. * We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accord ingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s

order. See Zhang v. Regan , No. 1:10

- cv
- 01329

- TCB (E.D. Va.

Mar. 20, 2012). We deny Zhang’s motion for a remand. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the material s before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
<PAGE>
                            ULTRATECH STEPPER, INC.
                                       
                                 EXHIBIT 11.1
                                       
            STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE


Shares used in the net income per common share computation are the weighted
average number of common shares outstanding plus dilutive common share
equivalents.

Shares used in the per share computation are as follows:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                 Three Months Ended         Six Months Ended
                                                --------------------      --------------------
                                                 Jun. 30     Jun. 30       Jun. 30      Jun.30
(in thousands, except per share amounts)          1997        1996          1997         1996
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                             <C>         <C>           <C>          <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding       20,451      20,026        20,410       19,947

Common share equivalents from stock options
   granted (using the treasury stock method)        991       1,253         1,102        1,306
                                                -------     -------       -------      -------

Number of shares used in per share calculation   21,442      21,279        21,512       21,253
                                                -------     -------       -------      -------
                                                -------     -------       -------      -------

Net income                                       $5,727      $9,276       $10,260      $17,917
                                                -------     -------       -------      -------
                                                -------     -------       -------      -------

Net income per share                              $0.27       $0.44         $0.48        $0.84
                                                -------     -------       -------      -------
                                                -------     -------       -------      -------

</TABLE>

                                    21
EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certification

         In connection with the Annual Report of Datastand Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 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 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 operation of
          the Company.

/s/ Nick Montesano
------------------------------------
NICK MONTESANO
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Nick Montesano
------------------------------------
NICK MONTESANO
Chief Financial Officer
CL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0409

WILLIAM CLARK,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including October 4, 2024, within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

September 3 2024

09/03/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0409
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 12/06/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      481,808
COMMITMENTS
  38,540   15,693  144,775  275,778  304,520  459,092  464,988   22,716   16,821

CHANGES FROM 11/29/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      7,431)
  -5,120   -3,132   -1,317   12,921   11,473    6,483    7,024      948      407

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     8.0      3.3     30.0     57.2     63.2     95.3     96.5      4.7      3.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      117)
      32       14       40       60       63      108      103
```

----

Updated December 9, 2011
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 12/13/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       40,184
COMMITMENTS
  14,306    1,606    2,355   14,182   25,512   30,843   29,473    9,341   10,711

CHANGES FROM 12/06/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,185)
    -395      -92      -42      739      303      302      169   -1,487   -1,354

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    35.6      4.0      5.9     35.3     63.5     76.8     73.3     23.2     26.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       47)
      13        4        8       21       17       38       29
```

----

Updated December 16, 2011
#### RUFUS C. JEFFERSON v. WILLIAM F. BRUNDAGE and Others.1

May 7, 1909.

Nos. 16,071—(54).

Action in the district court for Pine county to determine adverse claims to certain land. The case was tried before Stolberg, J., who made findings and as conclusion of law found that plaintiff was the owner in fee simple of the tracts of land and that defendants had no right therein. From an order denying defendants’ motion for an order amending the conclusions of law and for a new trial, the order being made in the absence of the moving attorneys, defendants appealed.

Affirmed.

*C. M. O’Neill*and *Albert B.*Allen, for appellant.

*Charles N. Ahers*and *Samuel Whaley,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 120 N. W. 1092.

Per Curiam.

The trial court, which filed the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this action to quiet title in plaintiff, concluded that plaintiff was the owner in fee simple, and that the defendants, including the *8appellant herein, had no adverse interest in the premises. Thereafter, and in due course, the defendants and appellants gave notice of motion to amend conclusions or for a new trial. Due service of this notice was made on attorneys for plaintiff. At the time and place fixed for hearing plaintiff appeared by counsel. No one appeared on behalf of defendants. Thereupon, on proof of service of notice upon attorneys for plaintiff, the court denied the said motion. This appeal was taken from that order. Under rule 9 of the Code of Rules for the District Court of this state (see 96 Minn. xxvii), the order was properly made. Defendants’ failure to appear in support of their motion precluded its success on this appeal.

Affirmed.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1674

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act with respect to civil actions against

public waters systems that are in compliance with national drinking

water regulations promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 4, 1999

Mr. GARY MILLER of California introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act with respect to

civil actions against public waters systems that are in

compliance with national drinking water regulations promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN CIVIL AC4 TIONS INVOLVING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part E of the Safe Drinking

6 Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j et seq.) is amended by adding

7 at the end the following section:
2

•HR 1674 IH

1 ‘‘PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN CIVIL ACTIONS

2 ‘‘SEC. 1459. In a civil action seeking relief on the

3 basis of the level of a contaminant in water in a public

4 water system, relief may not be provided by any Federal

5 or State court (whether the defendant is a public or a pri6 vate entity) if, as applicable (1) the level of the contami7 nant in such water is at or below the applicable maximum

8 contaminant level established in national drinking water

9 regulations promulgated by the Administrator under sec10 tion 1412; or (2) the public water system is using treat11 ment techniques in accordance with such regulations. This

12 section applies notwithstanding any other provision of

13 Federal or State law.’’.

14 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1414(e) of

15 the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300g–3(e)) is

16 amended by striking ‘‘Nothing in this title’’ and inserting

17 ‘‘Subject to section 1459, nothing in this title’’.

Æ
WILLIE C. FORD, JR.

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1485

____ _________________________/

Opinion filed July 23, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee County

. Paul S. Bryan , Judge

.

Willie C. Ford, Jr., pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURI AM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J

. , BENTON, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
```
 
 
IN DELIVERY MONTH EUA - GREEN EXCHANGE                               Code-006GEC
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 08/07/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1000 EUA)                              OPEN INTEREST:       87,135
COMMITMENTS
   9,566      283    3,938   73,631   82,914   87,135   87,135        0        0

CHANGES FROM 07/31/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        600)
    -400        0      250      750      350      600      600        0        0

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    11.0      0.3      4.5     84.5     95.2    100.0    100.0      0.0      0.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       20)
       3        3        4        9       13       14       18
```

----

Updated August 10, 2012
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **4 -**  **1476**

S. DOUGLAS TAYLOR, MD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HEALTH NET FEDERAL SERVICES , LLC , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, a t Wilmington

. Louise W. Flanagan , D istrict Judge. ( 7:11

- cv - 00268

- FL )

Submitted : December 8 , 2014 Decided: February 20, 2015

Before GREGORY and HARRIS , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by u n published per curiam opinion

.
Jeffrey S. Miller, Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Matthew L. Fesak, Assistant United Stat es Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee United States of America. Christopher Flynn, CROWELL & MORING LLP, Washington, D.C.; James R. Holland, Wilmington, North Carolina, Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, SMITH MOOR E LEATHERWOOD LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee Health Net Federal Services, LLC.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2

- PER CURIAM:
Dr. S. Douglas Taylor appeals the district court’s March 19, 2014 grant of the respe ctive motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, the United States and Health Net Federal Services, LLC. After carefully reviewing the district court’s opinion, the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm for the re asons set forth in the convincingly written opinion of the district court. Taylor v. United States , No. 7:11

- cv - 268

- FL (E.D.N.C. March 19, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process

.

AFFIRMED
Mark HANNA, petitioner, v. James M. LeBLANC, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al.

No. 18-7136.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
To  the  Board  of  Directors
GTC  Telecom  Corp.  and  Subsidiaries


We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration  Statements  on  Form  S-8  (File  Nos.  333-88521,  333-94969  and
333-37496)  of  our  report  dated September 21, 2000 (except for Note 14, as to
which  the  date  is  September 25, 2000) appearing in the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB  of  GTC Telecom Corp. and subsidiaries for the year ended June 30, 2000.



                                       /s/ Corbin & Wertz
                                        CORBIN  &  WERTZ

Irvine,  California
October  4,  2000
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 03/29/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       59,168
COMMITMENTS
  18,187    1,564    3,682   24,709   38,994   46,577   44,239   12,591   14,929

CHANGES FROM 03/22/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,202)
     302     -566     -422     -783     -200     -902   -1,188     -300      -14

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    30.7      2.6      6.2     41.8     65.9     78.7     74.8     21.3     25.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       70)
      24        6       14       29       25       58       43
```

----

Updated April 1, 2011
Jeffrey P. CORBIN, petitioner, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS, dba FedEx.

No. 18-5196.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Kevin GRIFFIN, petitioner, v. Thomas DiNAPOLI.

No. 18-5419.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Northern Border
Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
David L. Kyle, as Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, hereby certifies,
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
          section 15(d), as applicable, 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 Partnership.


Dated: May 4, 2006                      /s/ David L. Kyle
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        David L. Kyle
                                        Chief Executive Officer

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and
not for any other purpose.
Frederick E. BRAXTON, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 18-9260.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Division denied.
Exhibit 10.1

 



AMENDMENT TO   HARBORONE BANCORP, INC. 2017 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN A. The HarborOne   Bancorp, Inc. 2017 Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is   hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 3(a)(ii) of the Plan is hereby amended   and restated in its entirety as follows: "(ii) Limitations.   Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum number of shares of Stock that may   be delivered pursuant to the exercise of Stock Options is 1,483,984 shares   (all ofwhich may be granted as Incentive Stock Options), and the maximum   number of shares of Stock that may be issued as Restricted Stock Awards or   Restricted Stock Units is 593,593 shares. Subject to such overall   limitations, shares of Stock may be issued up to such maximum number pursuant   to any type or types of Award; provided, however, that the maximum number of   shares of Stock, in the aggregate, that may be subject to either (i) Stock   Options or (ii) Restricted Stock Awards and Restricted Stock Units granted to   any one employee may not exceed 25 percent of the respective maximum number   of shares that may be delivered pursuant to this Section 3(a)(ii)." B.   Except as amended herein, the Plan is confirmed in all other respects.   Approved by the Board of Directors on February 27, 2019. A true record. J   ACTIVE/98513743.1
Samuel KNOWLES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5202.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
COMPANY'S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,384
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                        35
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,131
<PP&E>                                          23,913
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,996
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,353
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,605
<SALES>                                         12,717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,717
<CGS>                                            9,760
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    38
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,336)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,336)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,336)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.86)


</TABLE>