alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11

                              CURAGEN CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                      ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS


<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                        Year Ended December 31,
                                                          -------------------------------------------------
                                                                1996             1997             1998
                                                          ----------------  ---------------  --------------
<S>                                                       <C>               <C>              <C>
Net loss                                                        ($589,135)     ($7,222,010)   ($18,428,485)
Preferred dividends                                               (17,106)         (68,424)       (508,435)
                                                          ----------------  ---------------  --------------
Net loss attributable to common stockholders                    ($606,241)     ($7,290,434)   ($18,936,920)
                                                          ================  ===============  ==============
Basic and diluted net loss per share attributable                                            
   to common stockholders                                        $  (0.12)      $    (0.92)    $     (1.55)
                                                          ================  ===============  ==============
Weighted average number of shares used in                                                    
   computing basic and diluted net loss per share                                            
   attributable to common stockholders                          5,097,073        7,888,383      12,201,006
                                                          ================  ===============  ==============
</TABLE>
**SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION:**
 
 
 Exhibit
      32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350
 ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Certification
of CEO
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Sentry Technology Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I,
Peter L. Murdoch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 18 U.S.C. 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) and 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.
 
 By:
    /s/ PETER L.
  MURDOCHPeter L. MurdochPresident and Chief Executive
      OfficerApril 12, 2005
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-KSB pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
II

Calendar No. 291

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1567

To designate the United States courthouse located at 223 Broad Street

in Albany, Georgia, as the ‘‘C.B. King United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 8, 1999

Mr. COVERDELL (for himself and Mr. CLELAND) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

SEPTEMBER 29, 1999

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located at 223

Broad Street in Albany, Georgia, as the ‘‘C.B. King

United States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States courthouse located at 223 Broad

5 Street in Albany, Georgia, shall be known and designated

6 as the ‘‘C.B. King United States Courthouse’’.
2

S 1567 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

4 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

5 to be a reference to the ‘‘C.B. King United States Court6 house’’.

Calendar No. 291

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1567

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located

at 223 Broad Street in Albany, Georgia, as the‘‘C.B. King United States Courthouse’’.

SEPTEMBER 29, 1999

Reported without amendment
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1566 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1566

To direct the Administrator of General Services to convey certain land 
      to the United States Postal Service, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 8, 1999

 Mr. Coverdell (for himself and Mr. Cleland) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Administrator of General Services to convey certain land 
      to the United States Postal Service, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``St. Simons Island Lighthouse 
Preservation Act''.

SEC. 2. ST. SIMONS ISLAND, GEORGIA, EXCHANGE.

    (a) Termination of Lease.--
            (1) In general.--The United States Postal Service shall 
        terminate its lease on the property described in paragraph (2).
            (2) Description of property.--The property referred to in 
        paragraph (1) shall be the land described in the document 
        entitled ``Lease for Post Office Quarters'' entered into on 
        July 3, 1961, between the United States Postal Service and 
        Capital Properties Inc. for the lease of property for use as a 
        post office at St. Simons Island in Brunswick, Georgia.
    (b) Land Conveyance.--In consideration of termination of the lease 
under subsection (a), the Administrator of General Services shall 
convey to the United States Postal Service Federal property that is of 
equal value to the property subject to the lease described in 
subsection (a)(2).
    (c) Timing.--The lease termination under subsection (a) and 
conveyance under subsection (b) shall be completed not later than June 
1, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on March 10, 2010, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), High Definition Metrology and Process-2 Micron Manufacturing under ATP Award No. 70NANB7H7041 has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, MAG, Port Huron, MI, has been added as a party to this venture. Also, Superior Controls, Plymouth, MI, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this research project remains open, and High Definition Metrology intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On December 13, 2007, High Definition Metrology filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 10, 2008 (73 FR 12762).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 17, 2008. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 21, 2008 (73 FR 62542).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2010–10466 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M
<PAGE>




Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Gentlemen:

We were previously the independent accountants for Access Anytime Bancorp,
Inc. and on January 31, 2001, we reported on the consolidated financial
statements of Access Anytime Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31,
2000 and 1999, and for each of the three years in the period ended December
31, 2000. On January 31, 2001, we were notified that the Board of Directors
of Access Anytime Bancorp, Inc. retained other accountants as external
auditors for the year ending December 31, 2001. We have read statements
included under Item 8 of Access Anytime Bancorp, Inc.'s Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2000, and we agree with such statements.




/s/ Robinson Burdette Martin Seright & Burrows, L.L.P.

Lubbock, Texas
March 2, 2001
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
Douglas R. Young, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge, the Annual Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended January 25, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of NeoMagic Corporation. This written
statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an
exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed original of this statement has been provided
to NeoMagic and will be retained by NeoMagic and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Date: May
11, 2009




By: /s/ Douglas R.
Young


Name:
Douglas R. Young


Title:
Chief Executive Officer
##### 



(PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LETTERHEAD)

EXHIBIT A

May 15, 2003

Consent of Independent Accountants

We hereby consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Fairmont
Hotels & Resorts Inc. of our Auditors Report and our Comments by Auditors on
Canadian-United States Reporting Differences dated January 30, 2003 relating
to its consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2002, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our Auditors Report and
our Comments by Auditors on Canadian-United States Reporting Differences
dated January 30, 2003 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the
year ended December 31, 2002 in the Registration Statements: F-9 no.
33-62424, F-9 no. 333-11456 and S-8 no. 333-13960 of Fairmont Hotels &
Resorts Inc.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chartered Accountants

PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to the Canadian firm of
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and other members of the worldwide
PricewaterhouseCoopers organization.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00135-CV

In re Matinee Media Corporation, Magnolia Radio Corporation, 

Rick Deitrick, and Greg Shapiro

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 9, 2012

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND MOTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF ARE

DENIED

On March 2, 2012, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relators are not 

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, relators’ motion for temporary relief and the petition 

for writ of mandamus are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. DC 11-322, styled Eugenio Falcon, Antonio Falcon, Eloy Vera, Juan D. 

Posada, Jose Vasques, Karina Mascorro, and William Smith v. Matinee Media Corp., Magnolia Radio Corp., Rick 

Deitrick, and Greg Shapiro, pending in the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas, the The Honorable 

Ana Lisa Garza presiding.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6037 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6037

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain rules 
   related to the determination of unrelated business taxable income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2018

 Mr. Conaway introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain rules 
   related to the determination of unrelated business taxable income.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Nonprofits Support Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT THAT UNRELATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME BE 
              COMPUTED SEPARATELY FOR EACH TRADE OR BUSINESS ACTIVITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 512(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking paragraph (6).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in section 13702 of Public Law 115-97.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF INCREASE OF UNRELATED BUSINESS TAXABLE INCOME BY 
              CERTAIN DISALLOWED FRINGE BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 512(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking paragraph (7).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in section 13703 of Public Law 115-97.
                                 <all>
```
### The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern 1 

### District of Iowa. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-8080

___________ Serafin Flores, * * Petitioner, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa * United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: August 20, 1997 Filed: August 26, 1997

___________ Before BEAM, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Se rafin Flores, a federal prisoner, appeals from a district court 1 order dismissing a second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion because Flores had not soug ht certification from this court prior to filing the motion. W e reverse and remand. Ajury found Flores guilty of conspiracy to distribut e methamphetamine. While

### Flores maintains that he did not authorize the filing of the first § 2255 motion. 2 Flores & s direct appeal was pending before this court, a 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion was filed in the district cour t on behalf of Flores. Finding that 2 it lacked jurisdiction to review the § 2255 moti on while the direct appeal was pending, the dist rict court dismissed the motion without prejudice to Fl ores & s right to file a § 2255 motion if his conviction was affirmed
. Subseq uently, this court dismissed the direct appeal as untimely filed
. United States v. Flores , No. 95-3123, 1996 W.L. 102420 (8th Cir. March 11, 1996) (unpublished per curiam). After the Anti-terrorism and Effectiv e Death penalty Act was enacted, Flores filed the second § 2255 motion in th e district court. The court dismissed the second motion because Flores had not sought certification from this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 2255 and 2244(b). We hold that a habeas petition which is filed after a prior petition has been dismissed without prejudice does not qualify as “second o r successive” habeas application within the meanin g of § § 2255 and 2244(b). See McWilliams v. Col orado , ___ F.3d ___, 1997 WL 452575 at *2 (10th Cir. August 11, 1997) (collecting cases holding that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habea s petiti on filed after prior petition was dismissed without prejudice fo r failure to exhaust state remedies is not “second or successive” petition within meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)). Accordingly, we reverse th e decision of the district court and remand for further proceedings.

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 11



MIDWESTONEFINANCIAL GROUP

AND SUBSIDIARIES

STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



|                                                                                                        |  |                            |           |                          |   |           |  |      |           |  |   |          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------ | - | --------- |  | ---- | --------- |  | - | ---------
|                                                                                                        |  | Three Months EndedJune 30, |           | Six Months EndedJune 30,
|                                                                                                        |  | 2004                       |           | 2003                     |   | 2004      |  | 2003
|Earnings per Share Information:                                                                         |  |                            |           |                          |   |           |  |      |           |  |   |          
|Weighted average number of shares outstanding during the period                                         |  |                            | 3,806,385 |                          |   | 3,873,037 |  |      | 3,802,626 |  |   | 3,893,492
|Weighted average number of shares outstanding during the period including all dilutive potential shares |  |                            | 3,909,806 |                          |   | 3,966,383 |  |      | 3,914,982 |  |   | 3,989,193
|Net earnings                                                                                            |  | $                          | 1,448,780 |                          | $ | 1,386,434 |  | $    | 3,006,995 |  | $ | 2,725,562
|Earnings per share - basic                                                                              |  | $                          | 0.38      |                          | $ | 0.36      |  | $    | 0.79      |  | $ | 0.70     
|Earnings per share - diluted                                                                            |  | $                          | 0.37      |                          | $ | 0.35      |  | $    | 0.77      |  | $ | 0.68
Exhibit 99.1

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

     In connection with the Annual Report of New Jersey Mining Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President of the Company, certify to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 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 result of operations of
     the Company.


/s/ Fred W. Brackebusch
----------------------
Fred W. Brackebusch
President
March 25, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 87 (Thursday, May 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24968-24969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10691]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-1070A (Review)]


Crepe Paper Products From China Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) 
determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on crepe 
paper from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of material injury to an industry in the United States within a 
reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this review on December 1, 2009 (74 FR

[[Page 24969]]

62815) and determined on March 8, 2010 that it would conduct an 
expedited review (75 FR 13779, March 23, 2010).
    The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the 
Secretary of Commerce on April 30, 2010. The views of the Commission 
are contained in USITC Publication 4148 (April 2010), entitled Crepe 
Paper Products from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1070A (Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 3, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10691 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P