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

                                                                    Exhibit 11.0

                                   OrCAD, Inc.
                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                              OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)


         Earnings per share for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996
were computed based on the weighted average number of common and dilutive common
equivalent shares outstanding.

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                            Year Ended December 31,                
                                                                 ----------------------------------------------    
                                                                     1998            1997             1996         
                                                                 -------------    ------------    -------------    
<S>                                                                <C>               <C>             <C> 
Basic earnings per share:                                                                                          
Net income ...................................................     $2,983            $3,904          $5,266        
Total weighted average number of common shares outstanding....      9,320             9,165           8,618        
Basic earnings per share .....................................     $ 0.32            $ 0.43          $ 0.61        
                                                                                                                   
Diluted earnings per share:                                                                                        
Net income ...................................................      2,983             3,904           5,266        
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding .........      9,320             9,165           8,618        
Common stock equivalents:                                                                                          
  Stock options ..............................................        199               281             428        
                                                                   ------            ------          ------        
Total weighted average number of common and common                                                                 
  equivalent shares outstanding ..............................      9,519             9,446           9,046        
Diluted earnings per share ...................................     $ 0.31            $ 0.41          $ 0.58         
</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

130609 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. STEVEN JAMES, Personal Representative Stephen J. Markman, of the Estate of MARJORIE JAMES, Justices Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130609 COA: 262622 Jackson CC: 03-006278-NH W. A. FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, and KHAWAJA IKRAM, M.D., Defendants-Appellees,

and

PHILLIP RICHARDS, M.D., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

YOUNG, J., concurs and states as follows:

I concur in the majority's decision to de ny leave to appeal. I write separately because I am disturbed by the analysis the Court of Appeals empl oyed in justifying its
decision to reverse the trial c ourt's summary disposition order. The statute at issue in this case, MCL 600.2912d(1), requires a medical malp ractice plaintiff to file an affidavit of merit with his complaint. In Roberts v Mecosta Co Ge n Hosp (After Remand) 1 , this

1 470 Mich 679 (2004)._______________________________________ __ 2

2 Court discussed the adequacy requirements fo r notices of intent u nder MCL 600.2912b. Despite the striking similarities between the notice of intent statute and the affidavit of merit statute, the Court of Appeals held th at differing "policy considerations" made an application of Roberts unwarranted. Indeed the panel made its "policy considerations" known by holding that "unlike the court in Roberts , we do not need to read additional requirements or limitations into the [affidav it of merit] statute to aid its rational application or workability."

Simply stated, the Court of Appeals erred by not applying Roberts to this case. 2 The panel did not provide ad equate justification for its decision to disregard Roberts , but merely relied on "policy considerations" as a subterfuge for its obvious disagreement
with Roberts . While the Court of Appeals is not required to agree with this Court's decisions, it is required to properly apply th ose decisions. However, because the Court of Appeals opinion is unpublished and has no precedentia l value, this Court's intervention is
unwarranted at this time.

Moreover, the Court of Appeals ig nored this Court's remand order in Mullaney v
Kistler , 471 Mich 932 (2004), where this Court re manded back to the Court of Appeals a case dealing with the suffi ciency of an affidavit of merit specifically instructing the Court of Appeals to reconsider the case in light of Roberts

.

l0723 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.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
#### BANK OF LEICESTER v. GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner.

(Filed 15 March, 1933.)

Appeal by defendant from *Clement, J.,*at July Term, 1932, of BuNcombe.

Civil action to establish preference, or alleged priority of plaintiff’s claim against funds in hands of liquidating agent of insolvent bank.

The Bank of Leicester had on deposit in the Central Bank and Trust Company the sum of $14,121.75. On 19 October, 1930, about an hour before the depository bank closed for the day, and failed to open again because of insolvency, the president of the plaintiff bank presented a check for the amount of its deposit. The president of plaintiff bank was informed in a private interview that the depository bank was not in condition to pay the check in currency, but that an effort would be made to obtain the money from some other bank in the city. The president of plaintiff bank thereupon waited in the lobby of the depository bank until after two o’clock at which time the depository bank closed for the day without cashing the check, and suspended business thereafter. At the time plaintiff’s check was first presented for payment the depository bank had $36,553.00 cash on hand.

From a judgment awarding the plaintiff a preference, the defendant appeals.

*C. JE. Blackstoch for plaintiff.*

*Johnson, Smothers & Rollins for defendant.*

Pee, Curiam.

Reversed on authority of *Morecock v. Hood, Comr.,*202 N. C., 321, 162 S. E., 730.

Reversed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1633

Crystal Mountain Products, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6052

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PETE NOBLE MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Pete Smith, a/k/a Jose,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (2:93-cr-00117-WO-1)

Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pete Noble Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pete Noble Muhammad seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying various motions Muhammad had filed 

regarding his term of supervised release. In denying Muhammad 

relief, the district court noted that the issues raised in 

Muhammad’s motions would be addressed during the course of his 

then-pending supervised release revocation proceedings. This 

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders. 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral 

orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen 

v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). 

The order Muhammad seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor 

an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, 

we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-10463

James Hardie Building Products, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1662

Pall Corporation:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5314]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Meeting of the DOD Advisory Group on Electron Devices

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Working Group A (Microwave Devices) of the DoD Advisory Group 
on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held at 0900, Tuesday and Wednesday, 21-22 
March 1995.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research 
Services, Inc., 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, 
Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Walter Gelnovatch, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to 
provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology, to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering 
(DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (ARPA) and the Military Departments in planning and 
managing an effective and economical research and development program 
in the area of electron devices.
    The Working Group A meeting will be limited to review of research 
and development programs which the Military Departments propose to 
initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. This 
microwave device area includes programs on developments and research 
related to microwave tubes, solid state microwave devices, electronic 
warfare devices, millimeter wave devices, and passive devices. The 
review will include details of classified defense programs throughout.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended, 
(5 U.S.C. App. IISec. 10(d) (1988)), it has been determined that this 
Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly, this meeting will be 
closed to the public.

    Dated: February 28, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-5314 Filed 3-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
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).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (3.02 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
EXHIBIT 99


<PAGE>


                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT







Board of Directors
Nittany Financial Corp.

We  have  reviewed  the  accompanying  consolidated  balance  sheet  of  Nittany
Financial  Corp.  and  subsidiaries  as  of  June  30,  2000,  and  the  related
consolidated statements of income for the three and six-month periods ended June
30, 2000 and 1999, and the  consolidated  statement of cash flows and changes in
stockholders'  equity  for the  six-month  period  ended  June 30,  2000.  These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with  generally  accepted  auditing  standards,  the  objective  of which is the
expression of an opinion  regarding the financial  statements  taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance  with generally  accepted  auditing
standards,  the  consolidated  balance  sheet as of December 31,  1999,  and the
related consolidated  statements of income,  changes in stockholders' equity and
cash  flows for the year then ended (not  presented  herein);  and in our report
dated  February  25,  2000  we  expressed  an   unqualified   opinion  on  those
consolidated financial statements



/s/ S.R.Snodgrass, A.C.
Wexford, PA
August 10, 2000
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 14

- 00749

- CR IN RE Steven Mitchell GARY Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 5, 2014
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED Relator Steven Mitchell Gary filed this pro se petition for writ of mandamus on October 27, 2014, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on pending motions in the underlying criminal proceeding . Relator has been appointed trial counsel to represent him in connection with the criminal charges pending against him. We conclude that any original proceeding on the issue rais ed should be presented by relator’s trial counsel. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absen ce of a right to hybrid representation means relator’s pro se mandamus petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review. See id .; see also Gray v. Shipley , 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.

— Houston

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014 CR2945, styled The St ate of Texas v. Steven Mitchell Gary , pending in the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary D. Roman presiding.04

- 14

- 00749

- CR
[1 st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03237]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging, Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Sensory Deficits in Osteoporotic Study.
    Date: March 15, 2016.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 
2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Isis S. Mikhail, DRPH, MD, MPH, National 
Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 
2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7704, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#367b7f7d7e777f7a7f767b777f7a18787f7e18717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="55181c1e1d141c191c1518141c197b1b1c1d7b121a03">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 11, 2016.
Melanie J. Gray,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-03237 Filed 2-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>