alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11.1
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                                                       Years Ended December 31,
                                                      1996       1995      1994
                                                      ----       ----      ----
(In thousands, except per share amounts)

PRIMARY

    Average shares outstanding                        12,890    11,528    10,671

    Net effect of dilutive stock options--
       based on the treasury stock method
       using average market price                        505       473       229
                                                     -------   -------   -------

                                            TOTAL     13,395    12,001    10,900
                                                     =======   =======   =======

Net income                                           $ 9,042   $ 8,499   $ 5,940
                                                     =======   =======   =======

Net income per share                                 $   .68   $   .71   $   .54
                                                     =======   =======   =======

FULLY DILUTED

    Average shares outstanding                        12,890    11,528    10,671

    Net effect of dilutive  stock  options--
       based on the treasury  stock method
       using the year-end market price,
       if higher than the average market
       price                                             507       496       229
                                                     -------   -------   -------

                                            TOTAL     13,397    12,024    10,900
                                                     =======   =======   =======

Net income                                           $ 9,042   $ 8,499   $ 5,940
                                                     =======   =======   =======

Net income per share                                 $   .68   $   .71   $   .54
                                                     =======   =======   =======


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The  Computation  of Per Share  Earnings  for all periods  has been  restated to
reflect  the  acquisition  of  Florida  Telephone  Systems,  Inc.  in May  1996,
accounted for as a pooling of interests,  in which 48,193 shares of common stock
were issued.
                                       28
#### STATE v. McCASKILL

No. 17.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 730.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 1 June 1976.
# L_2007244EN.01003001.xml

| 19.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 244/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 244/30

---

Corrigendum to Guideline of the European Central Bank of 31 May 2007 amending Guideline ECB/2004/15 on the statistical reporting requirements of the European Central Bank in the field of balance of payments and international investment position statistics, and the international reserves template

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 159 of 20 June 2007
  )

On page 50, Annex I, table 2:

for:

‘Monthly national contributions to the euro area balance of payments’,

read:

‘Quarterly national contributions to the euro area balance of payments’

---
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

February 25, 2014

Hon. Scott M. Ellison

Law Offices Of Scott M. Ellison

410 Peoples Street

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

Hon. Mark Skurka

District Attorney

901 Leopard Street, Room 205

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

Hon. Nanette Hasette

28th District Court

901 Leopard St., Suite 803

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

Hon. Patsy Perez

District Clerk

901 Leopard, Suite 313

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

Re: Cause No. 13-14-00116-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 13-CR-1257-A

Style: In Re David Alvarez

Dear Sir/Madam:

Enclosed please find a copy of an order issued by this Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.
#### In re: Martell WHITAKER, Petitioner.

No. 05-6118.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2005.

Decided April 5, 2005.

Martell Whitaker, Petitioner pro se.

Before MOTZ, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Martell Whitaker filed a petition for writ of mandamus alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling on his motion for reconsideration of that court’s order denying relief on Whitaker’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The district court ruled on the motion on February 3, 2005. Accordingly, the mandamus petition is now moot. Therefore, although we grant Whitaker’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for mandamus relief. 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. The motion to expedite consideration of this petition is denied as moot.

*PETITION DENIED*
Case 1:07-cr-00351-DAB     Document 9      Filed 10/18/2007     Page 1 of 1
U.

DiOc

How Tort AffeRighEEOBen

A guide survivor

W

Occupational Illness Compensation 

Division of Energy Employees

U.S. Department of Labor

ashington, D.C. 20210

Address Correction Required The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) names eight specific companies as beryllium vendors, without further limitation or definition of specific

locations or facilities owned or operated by thesefirms:

1. Atomics International2. Brush Wellman, Inc., formerlyknown as: Brush Beryllium Company3. General Atomics4. General Electric Company5. NGK Metals Corporation, formerly

known as:Kawecki-BerylcoCabot CorporationBerylCoBeryllium Corporation of America

6. Nuclear Materials and 

Equipment Corporation

7. StarMet Corporation, formerly

known as: Nuclear Metals, Inc.

8. Wyman Gordan, Inc.

The Department of Energy designated numerousadditional beryllium vendors and published a listof those vendors in the Federal Register 

(66 FR 31218, dated June 11, 2001).For specific questions about your entitlementcircumstances, call the Division of EnergyEmployees Occupational Illness Compensationdistrict office with jurisdiction for the area inwhich the last covered employment occurred:Jacksonville, Florida (877) 336-4272Cleveland, Ohio (888) 859-7211Denver, Colorado (888) 805-3389Seattle, Washington (888) 805-3401

What is a "Beryllium Vendor"?
If... you are a covered employee or an eligible survivor of a deceased employee...

AND you filed a tort action (law suit) against a beryllium vendor (see definition on reverse side of this paor injuries arising out of an exposure to beryllium, the following rules govern your entitlement to benefits the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA)...

If the lawsuit was filed:

...if you dismiss the suit prior toDecember 31, 2003...

BEFORE October 30, 2000...FROM October 30, 2000through December 28, 2001...AFTER December 28, 2001...

You are eligible forEEOICPA benefits:

...if you dismiss the suit before thelater of...

a) April 30, 2003 ORb) 30 months from the date you 

became aware of the employment-related condition...

...if the suDecembedismiss it ... if you dthe later 

a) b) 

y

...if a finaentered a

You are nofor EEOICP

...if no final court decision is or hasbeen entered AND......you dismiss the suit before the later of...

a) April 30, 2003 ORb) 30 months from the date you 

became aware of the employment-related condition.

NOTE: While tort suits terminated before December 28, 2001 do not effect EEOICPA benefit eligibility, sums recovered in those su

be offset against compensation awarded under the EEOICPA. Similar rules apply to suits against atomic weapons employer
#### STATE v. FOX

No. 139 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 523.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1973.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND WORKER

HEALTH

+ + + + +

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE SITE EXPOSURE MATRICES (AREA #1)

+ + + + +

SUMMARY MINUTES

+ + + + +

TUESDAY,

JANUARY 16, 2018

+ + + + +

The Subcommittee met telephonically at 1:00 p.m. Eastern 

Time, Laura S. Welch, Chair, presiding.

MEMBERS

SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY:

JOHN M. DEMENT

MARK GRIFFON

MEDICAL COMMUNITY:

LAURA S. WELCH, Chair

CLAIMANT COMMUNITY:

KIRK D. DOMINA

DURONDA M. POPE

GARRY M. WHITLEY

OTHER ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:

FAYE VLIEGER
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:

CARRIE RHOADS
Call to order and introductions:

Ms. Rhoads called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Eastern Time. The 

above-listed board members were in attendance. Chair Welch said that 

the subcommittee would be reviewing responses to comments that the 

board received from OWCP. One response was to the recommended 

revisions of the OHQ and the other is the COPD presumption. 

Recommendation #4:

Revisions of the Occupational History Questionnaire (OHQ)

Member Griffon kicked-off the discussion by asking about memory 

triggers. Member Dement said that there is a respectable list of 

tasks for construction workers but not for production workers. The 

issue with memory triggers is that, as with the BTMed list, if the 

tasks are listed the workers are more likely to remember doing them 

than if they are simply given a blank sheet and asked to list their 

tasks. In the first round of recommendations, the subcommittee didn't 

really describe memory triggers, but it did discuss how a worker may 

not know the names of all the materials he used or the tasks he 

performed. But the task alone can give the industrial hygienist a 

sense of what exposures occurred and then additional questions need 

to be asked. 

Member Griffon noted that there have been a number of campaigns at 

the sites over the years and if a list of these campaigns were 

available to workers, it may trigger memories of what substances they 

were exposed to during that campaign. It would be helpful to have a 

list of tasks along with a list of campaigns. 

Member Griffon said that NIOSH has a lot of information in its site 

profile documents that could also be helpful as background 

information. Chair Welch said that DOL added a directory to the 

linked work processes out of HazMap. Member Griffon said that in 

addition to tasks, projects should be added to the OHQ. 

Member Vlieger added that she would like to see an interactive form 

that looks at the databases because the resource center workers are 

only as good as their memories. 

Recommendation #3:

Causal Link Between COPD and VGDF (vapors, gases, dust, and fumes)

Chair Welch said that she took the old recommendations on COPD and 

altered them slightly in trying to be responsive to OWCP's comments. 

The response she put together was that the enabling language doesn't 

need to include specifics and that there are many examples of where 

OWCP has been using complex mixtures and accepting claims from those.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40970

Summary Calendar

 

DOUGLAS JAMES DURHAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:96-CV-431

- - - - - - - - - -

April 18, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Douglas J. Durham, Texas inmate # 574899, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires a prisoner appealing

in forma pauperis to pay the full filing fee, $105. Durham has

insufficient funds to pay the full fee. Durham shall pay to the

Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas an

initial partial filing fee of $3.82 which is 20 percent of his
No. 96-40970

- 2 -

average monthly balance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A). 

Additionally, Durham is required to make monthly payments of

twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his

account until the full filing fee is paid. See § 1915(b)(2). 

The agency having custody of Durham shall collect the remainder

of the $105 filing fee and forward payment to the Clerk of the

District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) each time the amount in Durham’s

account exceeds $10, until the full $105 filing fee is paid. 

To establish his failure-to-protect claim, Durham must have

shown that he was “incarcerated under conditions posing a

substantial risk of serious harm and that prison officials were

deliberately indifferent to his need for protection.” Neals v.

Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995). Durham’s own

allegations show that prison officials have twice transferred him

to different units and placed him in segregated portions of those

units for his protection. These efforts to protect Durham were

not only reasonable, but they were effective as Durham had not

been assaulted for over six months prior to the hearing held in

this matter. This appeal is without arguable merit and thus

frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

IFP GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

entries is an appealable order. Accordingly, we conclude that we lack 

jurisdiction, and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.' 

Parraguirre 

ChS2..4t , J. 

111 

Cherry 

cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge 

Victor Tagle 

David Hermonson 

Donna Tenny 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude 

that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent 

that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance 

(0) 1947A aex. 

2
Case 1:07-cv-03301-SAS Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03301-SAS Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03301-SAS Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03301-SAS Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03301-SAS Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03301-SAS Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03301-SAS Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03301-SAS Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03301-SAS Document 1 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 9 of 9
Exhibit 23
  
  Consent of Independent Auditors    
  
  
  
  
  
  The Board of Directors
  Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.:
  
  We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statements No.
  33-51617 on Form S-8 and No. 333-02025 on Form S-8 of Petroleum
  Helicopters, Inc. of our report dated June 19, 1997, relating to the
  consolidated balance sheets of Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. and
  subsidiaries as of April 30, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated
  statements of earnings, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of
  the years in the three-year period ended April 30, 1997, and the related
  schedule, which report appears in the April 30, 1997 annual report on
  Form 10-K of Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.
  
  
                          
                                        KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                                       /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
  
  New Orleans, Louisiana
  July 23, 1997
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.22 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Case 1:06-cv-14952-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.3





CERTIFICATION





I, David J. Mazzo, PhD, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Caladrius Biosciences, Inc.; and





2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.








Date: April 29, 2016





/s/ David J. Mazzo, PhD


Name: David J. Mazzo, PhD


Title: Chief Executive Officer of Caladrius Biosciences, Inc.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been provided to Caladrius Biosciences, Inc. and will be retained by Caladrius Biosciences, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE v. YOUNG

No. 147 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 576.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1973. .
# Exhibit 32.2

# Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350

Solely for the
purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Interstate Power and Light Company (the Company), hereby
certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|/s/ Erroll B. Davis, Jr.            
|------------------------------------
|Erroll B. Davis, Jr.                
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                                    
|/s/ Eliot G. Protsch                
|Eliot G. Protsch                    
|Chief Financial Officer             
|                                    
|August 6, 2004
#### LAND CORP. v. STYRON

No. 1 PC.

Case below: 7 N.C. App. 25.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 3 February 1970.
# C_2007062EN.01000401.xml

| 16.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4495 — ALFA Acciai/Cronimet/Remondis/TSR GROUP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 62/05)

On 6 February 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4495. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4495. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### ROBIN THOMAS WHITE, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7255

April 11, 1974

520 P.2d 959

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Robert L. Stott,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Roy A. Woof-ter,*District Attorney, and *Charles L. Garner,*Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

*150OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Indicted for involuntary manslaughter by the Clark County Grand Jury, appellant sought pretrial habeas relief in the district court. In this appeal from the order denying that relief the central contention is that under NRS 178.562(1) he is not subject to prosecution by indictment because the same charge had previously been dismissed in the justice court.

The controlling issue in this case was discussed at length and resolved by our recent decision in McNair v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 434, 514 P.2d 1175 (1973); therefore, for the same reasons stated in that opinion, we reverse the order of the district court.1 Appellant shall be discharged from custody forthwith.

1

This appeal originated and appellant’s brief was filed prior to our decision in *McNair.*