alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                             BUSINESS OBJECTS S.A.
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                   (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                          Three months ended             Nine months ended
                                                             September 30,                  September 30,
                                                          1997            1996           1997            1996
                                                        --------        --------        -------         -------
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Net income (loss)                                       $    196        $   (321)       $ 1,235         $ 3,349
                                                        ========        ========        =======         ======= 
Computations of weighted average shares and                             
  equivalent shares outstanding:
        Weighted average shares outstanding               16,683          16,276         16,570          16,226
        Equivalent shares attainable to options and
          warrants (treasury stock method)                   117               -            200             811
                                                        --------        --------        -------         -------
Shares used in computing net income (loss)
  per share and per ADS                                   16,800          16,276         16,770          17,037
                                                        ========        ========        =======         =======
Net income (loss) per share and per ADS                 $   0.01        $  (0.02)       $  0.07         $  0.20
                                                        ========        ========        =======         =======
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (no.
333-52005) on Form S-1 of U.S. Timberlands Company, LP of our report dated
February 1, 2002, except as to the final paragraph of Note 14, as to which the
date is March 15, 2002, relating to the consolidated financial statements of
U.S. Timberlands Company LP and subsidiaries which is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.

                                             Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP


New York, New York
April 15, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6634

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROGER LEE HARRELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-01-112)

Submitted: July 31, 2003 Decided: August 12, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Lee Harrell, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari,

James Brien Comey, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger Lee Harrell appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for reconsideration of a previous order denying his

motion to stay a state court proceeding. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United

States v. Harrell, No. CR-01-112 (E.D. Va. Apr. 8, 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.

AFFIRMED
Elizabeth S. BARNES and Kathryn Ann Clary v. Wanda Monical KOCHHAR, Anil Kochhar, Outcomes, Inc., Odis, LLC and Precision Abstractions, Inc.

No. 506P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 16, 2006.

J. Daniel Bishop, Joseph W. Moss, Jr., Charlotte, for Barnes, et al.

Dennis L. Guthrie, Charlotte, for Wanda Kochhar & Outcomes.

Kevin W. Tydings, Charlotte, for Kochhar, et al.

Arthur A. Vreeland, Greensboro, for Anil Kochhar & Odis.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 633 S.E.2d 474.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th day of September 2006 by Plaintiffs 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 16th day of November 2006."
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Monster
Worldwide, Inc
New York, New York

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference, in the previously filed open Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-81843, 333-63631,
333-50699, 333-18937, and 333-131899) of Monster Worldwide, Inc., of our reports dated February 22, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and the effectiveness of Monster Worldwide, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2006.

| |  | /s/BDO SEIDMAN, LLPBDO Seidman, LLP
| |  | -----------------------------------

New York, New York
February 22, 2007

---



QuickLinks
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2013 of 29 January 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 83/2013                     

# of 29 January 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 January 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00772- CV

Alan S. O wens , Appellan t

v. Shari B . Kasber g, Appellee

F ROM CO UNTY COURT AT LAW O F B URNET COUNTY NO. C3010 , H ONO RAB LE W. R. SAVAGE, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The cler k’s rec ord in this appea l was due for filing in this Court on J anuar y 7, 2014. On Fe bruar

y 13, 2014, Alan S. Ow ens was notified that no cler k’s rec ord had been filed due to his failure to pay or make arr ang ements to pay the county court cler k’s fee for prepa

rin g t h e cl erk’ s
rec ord. The notice reque sted that Owens make arr ang ements for the cler k’s rec ord and submit a status repor

t reg arding this appea l by Fe bruar y 24, 2014. Fur

ther, the notice advised Owens that his failure to comply with this reque st could result in the dismiss al of his appea l for want of prosec ution. To date, Ow ens has not filed a status report or

otherwise r esponded to this Court’s notice, and the cler k’s re cord ha s not been filed.

I f the trial court cler

k fails to f

ile the cler

k’s rec ord due to appellant’ s failure to pa y
o r m ake arr ang ements to pay for the cler k’s fee for prepa

ring the rec ord, the appellate co u rt m ay dismiss the appea l for want of prosec ution unless the appellant was en t i tled to proce ed withoutpay

ment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). I n this case , Owens has not established that he is entitled to proce ed without pay

ment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (providing proce dure for establishing indige nce on appea l). Be cause Owens has failed to pay or make arr ang ements to pay the cler k’s fee for pr epar ing the cler

k’s re cord, this appe al is dismis sed for want of pr osecution.

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Mar ch 28, 2014

2
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3084 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize certain aliens 

who have earned a master’s or higher degree from a United States 

institution of higher education in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics to be admitted for permanent residence and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2008 

Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. GREGG) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize 

certain aliens who have earned a master’s or higher 

degree from a United States institution of higher education in a field of science, technology, engineering, or 

mathematics to be admitted for permanent residence and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. UNITED STATES EDUCATED IMMIGRANTS. 

4 (a) ALIENS NOT SUBJECT TO DIRECT NUMERICAL

5 LIMITATIONS.—Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and 


erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3084 IS

1 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by add2 ing at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘(F) Aliens who have earned a master’s or 

4 higher degree from a United States institution of 

5 higher education (as defined in section 101(a) of the 

6 Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) 

7 in a field of science, technology, engineering, or 

8 mathematics and who have an offer of employment 

9 from a United States employer in a field related to 

10 such degree.’’. 

11 (b) PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING IMMIGRANT STA12 TUS.—Section 204(a)(1)(F) of the Immigration and Na13 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(F)) is amended— 

14 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ after ‘‘203(b)(2)’’; 

15 (2) by inserting ‘‘, or 201(b)(1)(F)’’ after 

16 ‘‘203(b)(3)’’; and 

17 (3) by striking ‘‘Attorney General’’ and insert18 ing ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Security’’. 

Æ 


erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
HAMBY v. PROFILE PRODUCTS, et al.

No. 507A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 22, 2007.

Joseph W. Moss, Charlotte, Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Sarah L. Buthe, Raleigh, for Profile Products.

*808G. Christopher Olson, Raleigh, for Hamby.

Gregory C. York, Charlotte, for Electric Service Group, Inc.

William G. Scoggin, Raleigh, H. Bryan Ives, III, Charlotte, for NCCBI and NCAI.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd day of January 2007 by NCCBI & NCAI for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 22nd day of January 2007."

Justice HUDSON recused.
STATE of North Carolina v. Alfred Jerome GLASCOE.

No. 332P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

Matthew Wunsche, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Alfred Jerome Glascoe.

Joseph Herrin, Special Deputy Attorney General, Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 20th day of June 2006 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 8th day of March 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of June 2006 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 8th day of March 2007."
IN RE C.M.H.

No. COA05-1263.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 5, 2006.

Certification Date September 25, 2006.

Appeal from Harnett (05J106, 05J107, 96J134).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
NUMBER 13-23-00476-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

WILLARD WILLIS BAUGH JR., Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 24th District Court 

of Victoria County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

This cause is before the court on appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal. 

Counsel for appellant and appellant signed the motion. We find the motion meets the 

requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) that appellant and attorney 

must sign a written motion to dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Without 

passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. 
2

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will 

be entertained.

JAIME TIJERINA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed on the

7th day of December, 2023.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,754
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,232
<INVENTORY>                                     46,872
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,566
<PP&E>                                         178,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 229,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,551
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           153
<OTHER-SE>                                     144,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   229,786
<SALES>                                        216,217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               216,217
<CGS>                                          184,935
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  184,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,342
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 831
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,109
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,501
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,608
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,608
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.69


</TABLE>
STATE v. Edwin Wayne JOYCE.

No. 194P03-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 14, 2006.

Robert Montgomery, William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of November 2006 by Defendant to Order Superior Court to hear case:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 14th day of December 2006."
MASOOD v. OIL COMPANY, et al.

No. 94A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 5, 2007.

Kathrine D. Fisher, for Erwin Oil Co., et al.

Leto Copeley, Raleigh, for Masood.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of March 2007 by Defendants for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendants (Erwin Oil Co., et al) shall have up to and including the 17th day of April 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of *597the Court in conference this the 5th day of March 2007."

Justice HUDSON recused.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 669/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 669/2013 of 12 July 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 669/2013                     

# of 12 July 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20439 Summary Calendar

GERALD PIETER ZWARST, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CV-3536

- - - - - - - - - - March 16, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gerald Pieter Zwarst, Texas prisoner # 485451, requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as time-barred. He argues that his § 2254 petition was timely filed because his second state habeas application, filed on April 24, 1997, served to toll the statute of limitations. Because the second state petition was filed within the grace period by virtue of being filed on April 24, 1997, IT IS ORDEREDNo. 98-20439 -2- that Zwarst’s request for a COA is granted and the case is REMANDED for further consideration. See Flanagan v. Johnson , 154 F.3d 196, 199-200 and n.2 (5th Cir. 1998)(grace period runs through April 24, 1997). We do not reach either of the other two grounds of dismissal asserted by Johnson as they did not form the basis of the district court’s decision. COA GRANTED; JUDGMENT VACATED; CASE REMANDED.