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


                                  Exhibit 11.1

              Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings
               (In millions, except share and per share amounts )

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                             Quarter Ended                       Nine Months Ended
                                                             September 30,                         September 30,
                                                    --------------------------------    -----------------------------------
                                                        1998               1997            1998                  1997
                                                    ------------     ---------------    -------------     -----------------
<S>                                                 <C>              <C>               <C>                <C>
Net income ....................................       $    43.5         $    36.1         $    116.5        $      110.9


Weighted average number of common shares
outstanding during each year - basic ..........            78.5              72.3               73.3                76.8

Weighted average number of common shares
and common stock equivalents outstanding during 
each year -  diluted ..........................            81.0              76.4               76.0                80.9
                                                      ---------        ----------         ----------       -------------



Basic earnings per share ......................       $    0.55        $     0.50         $     1.59       $        1.44
                                                      ---------        ----------         ----------       -------------
                                                      ---------        ----------         ----------       -------------
Diluted earnings per share ....................       $    0.54        $     0.47         $     1.53       $        1.37
                                                      ---------        ----------         ----------       -------------
                                                      ---------        ----------         ----------       -------------



</TABLE>
In the Matter of PURPORTED WILL OF BARNES.

No. 262A03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 3, 2004.

Danny D. McNally, Greenville, Emma S. Holscher, for Riley S. Corddry (Heir at Law).

Myron T. Hill, Jr., Greenville, for Diane Graue (Heir at Law).

Stephen A. Dunn, Raleigh, Raymond E. Dunn, Jr., New Bern, for Lucy Tull (Heir at Law).

Ted Mackall, Jr., Rebecca Cameron Blount, for Caveators, Beneficiaries of the 1967 Will of Francis M. Barnes.

John Walter Bryant, Raleigh, Jeffrey A. Batts, Rocky Mount, for Propounders of 1989 Will.

Joseph L. Bell, Jr., Rocky Mount, Wendy P. Wilson, for Propounders of 1989 Will of Estate of Francis M. Barns.

Gregory S. Camp, Rocky Mount, for Church of the Advent.

Charles J. Murray, Special Deputy Attorney General, for ECU Athletic Fund.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of February 2004 by Caveator-Appellants for Additional Time for Oral Argument:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of February 2004."
Glenn I. HODGE, Jr. v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Norris Tolson, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

No. 28P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 1, 2004.

Randolph Palmer Sugg, Raleigh, for Hodge.

Robert O. Crawford, III, Special Deputy Attorney General, for NCDOT, Tolson.

Prior report: __ N.C.App. ___, 589 S.E.2d 737.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of January 2004 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of April 2004."
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANYS FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>						<C>
PERIOD-TYPE>				6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>				AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>				SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>				FEB-28-1999
<CASH>					22
<SECURITIES>				0
<RECEIVABLES>				0
<ALLOWANCES>				0
<INVENTORY>					0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>				22
<PP&E>					0
<DEPRECIATION>				0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>				22
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>			373
<BONDS>					0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>			0
<PREFERRED>					0
<COMMON>					143
<OTHER-SE>					(351)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>		22
<SALES>					0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>				0
<CGS>						0
<TOTAL-COSTS>				0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>				184
<LOSS-PROVISION>				0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>			0
<INCOME-PRETAX>				(184)
<INCOME-TAX>				0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>			(184)
<DISCONTINUED>				0
<EXTRAORDINARY>				0
<CHANGES>					0
<NET-INCOME>				(184)
<EPS-BASIC>				(.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>				(.01)


15


</TABLE>
Antonio HUDSON, Petitioner v. Denise Page HOOD, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, et al.

No. 19-5117

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
Pamela Jean BARBOUR, Employee v. Raj RATHORE d/b/a Luxury Inn, Employer, Non-Insured.

No. 625P03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2004.

Rajendra S. Rathore, Pro Se.

Robert Lucas, for Pamela Jean Barbour.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 2nd day of December 2003 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the Order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."
**Exhibit 32.1**

**WRITTEN STATEMENT**

**OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER**

The undersigned hereby certify that the Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2007 filed by TNS, Inc. with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in the report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

Dated:August 9, 2007
| /s/ HENRY H. GRAHAM, JR.                                         |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Henry H. Graham, Jr.                                        |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer                                          |   |   |
|                                                             |   |   |
| Dated: August 9, 2007                                       |   |   |
|                                                             |   |   |
| /s/ DENNIS L. RANDOLPH, JR.                                      |   |   |
| Dennis L. Randolph, Jr.                                          |   |   |
| Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer  and Treasurer |   |   |

 

 

----
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1410 

AN ACT 

To prohibit gaming activities on certain Indian lands in 

Arizona until the expiration of certain gaming compacts. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1410 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keep the Promise Act 

3 of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

5 The Congress finds as follows: 

6 (1) In 2002, the voters in the State of Arizona 

7 approved Proposition 202, the Indian Gaming Pres8 ervation and Self-Reliance Act. 

9 (2) To obtain the support of Arizona voters to 

10 approve Proposition 202, the Indian tribes within 

11 Arizona agreed to limit the number of casinos within 

12 the State and in particular within the Phoenix met13 ropolitan area. 

14 (3) This Act preserves the agreement made be15 tween the tribes and the Arizona voters until the ex16 piration of the gaming compacts authorized by Prop17 osition 202. 

18 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

19 For the purposes of this Act— 

20 (1) the terms ‘‘Indian tribe’’, ‘‘class II gam21 ing’’, and ‘‘class III gaming’’ have the meanings 

22 given those terms in section 4 of the Indian Gaming 

23 Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703); and 

24 (2) the term ‘‘Phoenix metropolitan area’’ 

25 means land within Maricopa County and Pinal 

26 County, Arizona, that is north of latitude 33 de-
3 

•HR 1410 EH

1 grees, 5 minutes, 13 seconds north, east of longitude 

2 113 degrees, 20 minutes, 0 seconds west, and west 

3 of longitude 110 degrees, 50 minutes, 45 seconds 

4 west, using the NED 1983 State Plane Arizona 

5 FOPS 0202 coordinate system. 

6 SEC. 4. GAMING CLARIFICATION. 

7 (a) PROHIBITION.—Class II gaming and class III 

8 gaming are prohibited on land within the Phoenix metro9 politan area acquired by the Secretary of the Interior in 

10 trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe after April 9, 2013. 

11 (b) EXPIRATION.—The prohibition in subsection (a) 

12 shall expire on January 1, 2027. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 

2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1410 

AN ACT 

To prohibit gaming activities on certain Indian 

gaming compacts. lands in Arizona until the expiration of certain
Melba L. FORD, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-644

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Hezekiah WHITFIELD, Petitioner v. Deanna BROOKHART, Warden

No. 19-6051

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
STATE of North Carolina v. Marcus Jovan CLARK.

No. 659P03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2004.

Marilyn Ozer, Chapel Hill, for Clark.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 588 S.E.2d 66.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 22nd day of December 2003 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of December 2003 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 29, 2011 

t0726 

Order 

 

July 29, 2011 

141838 

TARIEN A. HATCHER and MARKQUITA 

FREDERICK, Co-Personal Representatives of 

the Estate of Kimora N. Hatcher, Deceased, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

and 

TARIEN A. HATCHER, Individually, 

MARKQUITA FREDERICK, Individually, 

TARIEN A. HATCHER, as Next Friend of 

Latariea Hatcher, a Minor, YVETTE HATCHER, 

ISABEL L. KUHLMAN, and JOSEPH EARLE, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v SC: 141838 

 COA: 289208 

Macomb CC: 2007-001452-NO 

SENIOR HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 19, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The plaintiffs 

have failed to show that the defendant had a legal duty to them separate and distinct from 

its contractual obligations. Fultz v Union Commerce Assoc, 470 Mich 460, 467 (2004). 

Although a contracting party’s assumption of contractual obligations does not extinguish 

or limit separately existing common-law or statutory tort duties owed to noncontracting 

third parties in the performance of a contract, Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition 

Co, LLC, 489 Mich ___ (Docket No. 141168, decided June 6, 2011), the plaintiffs have 

not shown that the defendant had any such separate duty to them. The defendant, as the 

provider of a nondefective product to a customer, did not thereby acquire a duty to all 

unknown third parties who might be injured by the customer’s misuse of the product. 

 CAVANAGH, MARILYN KELLY and HATHAWAY, JJ., would vacate the judgment of 

the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the Macomb Circuit Court for further 

proceedings consistent with this Court’s opinion in Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & 

Partition Co, LLC, 489 Mich ___ (Docket No. 141168, decided June 6, 2011).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEXANDER Mc LAREN; et al.,

Appellants,

v.

PETER H. ARKISON; et al.,

Appellees. No. 15

- 35849

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 00575

- TSZ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017 **

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Alexander McLaren appeals pro se from the di strict court’s judgment

dismissing for failure to prosecute his appeal of a bankruptcy court order . We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Al

Torki v. Kaempen , 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996)

. We affirm.

* This disposi tion 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

AUG 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 35849

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed McLaren’s

appeal for failure to prosecute because McLaren had failed to file the opening brief

more than 17 months after the appeal was filed. See id. at 1384

- 85 (discussing

factors to be c onsidered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute); Ferdik v.

Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh

penalty, the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and

firm conviction” tha t it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to McLaren’s contention , the district

court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his untimely motion for an

extension of time to file the opening brief because McLaren failed to establish

extraordinary circumstances. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc. , 624 F.3d

1253, 1258

- 62 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and factors to be

considered before denying an untimely motion for an extension of a deadline).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied McLar en’s

motion for reconsideration because McLaren failed to demonstrate any grounds for

relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v . ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255,

1262 (9th Cir. 1993) ( setting forth standard of review and identifying

circumstances when reconsideration is appropriate).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of GREEN ENERGY HOLDING CORP. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof(the "Report'), Robert A. Hildebrand, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:





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





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





Dated: NOVEMBER 13, 2008/s/ Robert A. HildebrandRobert
      A. Hildebrand, Chief
      Financial Officer
IN RE James LARRY, Petitioner.

No. 19-5704

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of habeas corpus 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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

Hybrid meeting: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12TH floor) and virtual.

*Note:*                         For those attending the meeting in person, current COVID-19 safety protocols for visitors, which are based on the CDC COVID-19 community level in Washington, DC, will be updated on the commission's contact page by the Monday before the meeting. See the contact page at                         *https://www.fec.gov/​contact/​.*                         If you would like to virtually access the meeting, see the instructions below.                    

# STATUS:

                        This meeting will be open to the public, subject to the above-referenced guidance regarding the COVID-19 community level and corresponding health and safety procedures. To access the meeting virtually, go to the commission's website                         *www.fec.gov*                         and click on the banner to be taken to the meeting page.                    

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Draft Advisory Opinion 2022-05: DSCC

Draft Advisory Opinion 2022-03: Democracy Engine, LLC

Draft Advisory Opinion 2022-06: Hispanic Leadership Trust

Proposed Final Audit Report on UtePAC (A19-07)

Management and Administrative Matters

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer. Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

*Authority:*                         Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Acting Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

Laura E. Sinram,

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2022-13176 Filed 6-15-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
10F-3 REPORT

           SMITH BARNEY INVESTMENT FUNDS INC.
           SMITH BARNEY SMALL CAP VALUE FUND

      November 1, 2001 through March 31, 2002

                    Trade                                     % of
Issuer              Date       Selling Dealer  Shares  Price  Issue(1)

Maxtor Corp.   	    10/3/01    Bear, Stearns   240,000  4.00   1.55%A
IStar Financial	    10/30/01   Merrill Lynch   489,300  23.30  5.02B

(1) Represents purchases by all affiliated funds; may not exceed
    25% of the principal amount of the offering.

A - Includes purchases of $1,360,000 by other Smith Barney Mutual Funds.
B - Includes purchases of $17,055,600 by other Smith Barney Mutual Funds.
<PAGE>


                                                              January 16, 2004



EarlyBirdCapital, Inc.
600 Third Avenue
33rd Floor
New York, New York 10016

                  Re:      Chardan China Acquisition Corp.

Gentlemen:

     This letter will confirm the agreement of the undersigned to purchase
warrants ("Warrants") of Chardan China Acquisition Corp. ("Company") included in
the units ("Units") being sold in the Company's initial public offering ("IPO")
upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. Each Unit is comprised of one
share of Common Stock and two Warrants. The shares of Common Stock and Warrants
will not be separately tradeable until 90 days after the effective date of the
Company's IPO unless EarlyBirdCapital, Inc. ("EBC") informs the Company of its
decision to allow earlier separate trading.

     The undersigned agrees that this letter agreement constitutes an
irrevocable order for EBC to purchase for the undersigned's account following on
the date separate trading of the Warrants commences up to 1,000,000 Warrants at
market prices not to exceed $0.65 per Warrant ("Maximum Warrant Purchase"). EBC
(or such other broker dealer(s) as EBC may assign the order to) agrees to fill
such order in such amounts and at such times as it may determine, in its sole
discretion. EBC further agrees that it will not charge the undersigned any fees
and/or commissions with respect to such purchase obligation.

     The undersigned may notify EBC that all or part of his respective Maximum
Warrant Purchase will be made by an affiliate of the undersigned (or another
person or entity introduced to EBC by the undersigned (a "Designee")) who (or
which) has an account at EBC and, in such event, EBC will make such purchase on
behalf of said affiliate or Designee; provided, however, that the undersigned
hereby agrees to make payment of the purchase price of such purchase in the
event that the affiliate or Designee fails to make such payment.

     The undersigned agrees that neither he nor any affiliate or Designee shall
sell or transfer the Warrants until after the consummation of a merger, capital
stock exchange, asset acquisition or other similar business combination with a
which has its primary operating facilities located in the People's Republic of
China and acknowledges that, at the option of EBC, the certificates for such
Warrants shall contain a legend indicating such restriction on transferability.

                                Very truly yours,

                                /s/ Dr. Richard D. Propper
                                --------------------------
                                Dr. Richard D. Propper