alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 25 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 25 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit __._

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE



First Ecom.com
Year ended 31 December 1999
Computation of loss per share

                                              No of days      Weighted average
Date                     Shares issued        outstanding     No. of shares



1-Jan-99                  4,000,000            365             4,000,000
28-Jan-99                 8,000,000            338             7,408,219
28-Jan-99                    40,000            338                37,041
3-Mar-99                    500,000            304               416,438
8-Sep-99                    166,667            115                52,512
26-Nov-99                 1,000,000             36                98,630
23-Dec-99                 1,250,000              9                30,822

Total (Basic)            14,956,667                           12,043,662


Loss for the year                                            $ 6,788,885

Loss per share - basic                                             $0.56
Case 1:07-cv-03413-LAP Document 23 Filed 12/19/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03367-RPP Document 6-6 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15124-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. CHRISTOPHER

No. 595PA82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 788.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 7 December 1982.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 15





REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


To the Shareholders of HEI, Inc.:

We have audited the balance sheet of HEI, Inc. as of August 31, 1997, and the
related statements of operations, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash
flows for the years ended August 31, 1997 and 1996. These financial statements
are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of HEI, Inc. as of August 31,
1997, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years ended
August 31, 1997 and 1996, in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 26, 1997
#### HEATER v. HEATER

No. 304 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 101.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 October 1981.
Argued and submitted January 15,

appeal dismissed April 14, 1999

#### CHRIS PETERSON, *Respondent, v.*Dan JOHNSON, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, *Appellant.*

(97-06-28930M; CA A101477)

979 P2d 773

Christine Chute, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Bob Pangburn argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge,* and Edmonds, Judge.

*578LANDAU, P. J.

*

 Deits, C. J., *vice*Rossman, S. J.

*579LANDAU, P. J.

In this habeas corpus case, the state appeals, seeking reversal of the trial court’s decision that plaintiff was entitled to release from prison on the ground that the Board of Parole had erred in determining that plaintiff suffered from a present severe emotional disturbance that rendered him a danger to the health and safety of the community. Pursuant to the trial court’s order, plaintiff was paroled from prison. The state has filed a motion notifying the court that, since the trial court’s judgment, plaintiff has violated the terms of his parole and that his parole has been revoked. We treat the state’s motion as a motion to determine jurisdiction and conclude that the appeal must be dismissed as moot.

Plaintiffs original habeas corpus petition challenged the deferral of his parole for a two-year period; the state’s appeal of the trial court’s decision pertains solely to the propriety of an order concerning that two-year period. It is beyond dispute that plaintiff is not now, and will never again be, subject to detention under the challenged order. Given the circumstances, the question is whether a decision on the merits of this case could have any practical effect.

The state suggests that it could be argued that, although plaintiff has been reincarcerated, “an appellate court order voiding the circuit court’s release order might eliminate [plaintiffs] ability to challenge the board’s subsequent orders revoking parole and denying rerelease.” We do not believe that that is the type of collateral consequence that can create a justiciable controversy in what otherwise would be a moot case. *See Brumnett v. PSRB,*315 Or 402, 405, 848 P2d 1194 (1993); *Barnes v. Thompson,*159 Or App 383, 977 P2d 431 (1999).

Appeal dismissed.
---

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the
40-F) of Platinum Group Metals Ltd. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended
August 31, 2011 to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the Annual Information Form (the AIF) and Managements Discussion
and Analysis(MD&A) of the Company for the year then ended, which
are incorporated by reference therein.

Each of the undersigned hereby consents to the references to,
and the information derived from, the report titled Updated Technical Report
(Updated Feasibility Study) Western Bushveld Joint Venture (Elandsfontein and
Frischgewaagd) dated November 20, 2009 and to the references, as applicable, to
the undersigneds name in the 40-F, the AIF and the MD&A.

Turnberry Projects (Pty) Ltd. Name: Gordon
Cunningham Title: Principal Engineer & Managing Director

/s/ Gordon CunninghamGordon I.
CunninghamDate: November 21, 2011

Turnberry Projects (Pty) Ltd. Name: Timothy Spindler
Title: Principal Mining Engineer

/s/ Timothy SpindlerTimothy Spindler
Date: November 21, 2011

---
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15152-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### MOYE v. EURE

No. 84 PC.

Case below: 21 N.C. App. 261.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 June 1974.
Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 17 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 17 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-03327-DC Document 17 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 21
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 Jurisdiction of Incorporation
    
    PercentSubsidiaries of the Registrant
    
    or Organization
    
    Ownership*American Azide Corporation
    
    Nevada
    
    
    100
    %American Pacific Corporation
    
    Nevada
    
    
    100
    %Ampac Farms, Inc.
    
    Nevada
    
    
    100
    %Ampac-ISP Corp.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Energetic Additives Inc., LLC
    
    Nevada
    
    
    100
    %Ampac ISP UK Westcott Limited
    
    England & Wales
    
    
    100
    %Ampac Fine Chemicals LLC
    
    California
    
    
    100
    %Ampac ISP Holdings Limited
    
    Ireland
    
    
    100
    %Ampac ISP Dublin Limited
    
    Ireland
    
    
    100
    %Ampac ISP UK Cheltenham Limited
    
    England & Wales
    
    
    100
    %
 
 *
    
    Ownership is either direct or indirect depending on the specific entity
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 2 of 20
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 3 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 5 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 6 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 7 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 8 of 20
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 9 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 10 of 20
EXHIBIT C

Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 11 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 12 of 20
EXHIBIT D

Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 14 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 16 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 17 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 18 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 19 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03238-AKH Document 18 Filed 06/04/2007 Page 20 of 20
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15153-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
Exhibit 32.2

KINDER MORGAN, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 
OF THE 
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kinder Morgan, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, 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 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:  May 6, 2005 |  | /s/ Kimberly J. Allen                                       
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  | Kimberly J. Allen
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





---

---
#### MILLS v. J. P. STEVENS & CO.

No. 12 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 341.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 October 1981.
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD     Document 104      Filed 07/11/2008     Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------------x

Viviana Vergara and Verter Vergara

Plaintiffs,

- against -

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA INC. and

NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

et al. (see Defendants’ List)

Defendants.

Index No.: 06-cv-15116-AKH

(AKH)

NOTICE OF THE NOMURA

PARTIES’ ADOPTION OF

ANSWER TO MASTER

COMPLAINT

_________________________

1:21-MC-00102

----------------------------------------------------------------x

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants NOMURA PARTIES (Nomura

Holding America Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc.) as and for their responses to

the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) related to

the Master Complaint filed herein and applicable to the above captioned matter hereby

adopts all of the responses and all of the affirmative defenses contained in the Answer

to the Master Complaint dated, filed and served July 31, 2007, In re World Trade Center

Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC102 (AKH). The responses to all of the

allegations in the Master Complaint are adopted herein and are applicable to the CheckOff Complaint served and filed herein.

Case 1:06-cv-15116-AKH Document 17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 3
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES,

reserves the right to serve and file an amended answer and specifically reserves the

right to interpose a cross claim against any and all co-defendants.

PLAEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, also

adopts all affirmative defenses and the jury demand therein.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, demands judgment dismissing

the above captioned action against it along with the costs and disbursements of this

action.

Case 1:06-cv-15116-AKH Document 17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 2 of 3
Dated: September 17, 2007

New York, New York

Yours, etc.

STRONGIN ROTHMAN & ABRAMS, LLP

s/ Dror M. Bikel

________________________________

Dror M. Bikel, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendant

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA, INC.

50 Broadway, Suite 2003

New York, NY 10004

(212) 931-8300

Case 1:06-cv-15116-AKH Document 17 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
               CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of
Biomet, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that to his knowledge on
the date hereof:

(a)  The Form 10-K of the Company for the Fiscal Year Ended May 31, 2002 filed
     on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
     "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                          /s/ Dane A. Miller
                                          ----------------------
                                          Dane A. Miller, Ph.D.
                                          August 16, 2002

                                          /s/ Gregory D. Hartman
                                          ----------------------
                                          Gregory D. Hartman
                                          August 16, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1759 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 122
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1759

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 456 North Meridian Street in Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ``Richard 
                    G. Lugar Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 10, 2019

 Mr. Braun (for himself and Mr. Young) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                             June 19, 2019

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 456 North Meridian Street in Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ``Richard 
                    G. Lugar Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. RICHARD G. LUGAR POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 456 North Meridian Street in Indianapolis, Indiana, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Richard G. Lugar Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Richard G. 
Lugar Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 122

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1759

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 456 North Meridian Street in Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ``Richard 
                    G. Lugar Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 19, 2019

                       Reported without amendment
```
##### 



Exhibit 23.1 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
ARTISTdirect, Inc.: 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-122027, No.
333-53208, No. 333-38104, No. 333-63572 and No.333-68396) on Forms S-8 of ARTISTdirect, Inc., of
our report dated March 1, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of ARTISTdirect,
Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2003 and 2004, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders equity (deficiency) and
cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2004 Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of ARTISTdirect, Inc. 
 Our report indicates a change in method of accounting for the Companys investment in its record
label joint venture, ARTISTdirect Records, LLC, as of December 31, 2003. Our report dated March 1, 2005 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has
incurred substantial operating losses and negative cash flows from operations to date, which raises
substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial
statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. /s/ GUMBINER SAVETT INC. 
 Santa Monica, California
July 26, 2005 
 113
Exhibit 23  LOGO March 2, 2020 San Juan Basin Royalty Trust BBVA USA, Trustee 2200 Post Oak Blvd., Floor 18 Houston, Texas 77056 Ladies and Gentlemen: Cawley,
Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the oil and gas reserve information in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2019 and in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2019 based on reserve reports prepared by Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. and dated March 2, 2020.  Sincerely,LOGOCAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Argued and submitted April 22, 1998,

affirmed April 14, 1999

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Barbara Johnson, Claimant. Barbara JOHNSON, *Petitioner, v.*EASTERN OREGON STATE COLLEGE and SAIF Corporation, *Respondents.*

(WCB Nos. 95-07224, 95-05888; CA A98381)

978 P2d 451

Dale C. Johnson argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Malagon, Moore, Johnson & Jensen.

David L. Runner, Special Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge, and Wollheim,* Judge.

PER CURIAM

*

 Wollheim, J., *vice*Riggs, P. J., resigned.

*664PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board reversingan administrative law judge’s (AL J) order awarding claimant permanent total disability for her work-related condition. She assigns error to the Board’s holding that the ALJ erred in considering vocational expert testimony and claimant’s testimony regarding her motivation to seek work on the ground that the evidence had not been offered in the reconsideration proceeding before the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS). ORS 656.283(7).

Claimant’s first contention, that the procedure set forth in ORS 656.283(7) violates her right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, has been addressed and rejected in *Koskela v. Willamette Industries, Inc.,*159 Or App 229, 978 P2d 1018 (1999). Claimant failed to preserve her second assignment of error before the Board that *retroactive*application of ORS 656.283(7) violated her federal constitutional right to due process. Accordingly, we do not address it.

Affirmed.
#### PRICE v. DEPT. OF MOTOR VEHICLES

No. 203 PC.

Case below: 36 N.C. App. 698.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 29 August 1978. Motion for Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 29 August 1978.
#### HOOPER v. HOOPER

No. 675P82.

Case below: 59 N.C. App. 309.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 March 1983.
_______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ _____________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

131364-5 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver ALEXANDER PRINCE, LLC, Marilyn Kelly Plaintiff-Appellant, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. and Stephen J. Markman,
Justices CAROLYN A. PRINCE and THEODORE LINDSEY, Plaintiffs,

v SC: 131364 COA: 259448 Wayne CC: 02-230424-CH METWEST MORTGAGE SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee,

and

OCWEN FEDERAL BANK, FSB, Defendant.

ALEXANDER PRINCE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, and

CAROLYN A. PRINCE and THEODORE LINDSEY, Plaintiffs,

v SC: 131365 COA: 260021 Wayne CC: 03-311111-CH WESTERN UNITED LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee,

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0918 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 26, 2006

Clerk
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 1-10 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 1-10 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 2 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 1-10 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 3 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 1-10 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 4 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 1-10 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 5 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 1-10 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 6 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 1-10 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 7 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 1-10 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 8 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 1-10 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 9 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 1-10 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 10 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 1-10 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 11 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-03258-VM Document 1-10 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 12 of 12