alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11.1

                          BROOKS FIBER PROPERTIES, INC.

              Statement Regarding Computation of Earnings Per Share
                          Year Ended December 31, 1996

Shares outstanding - January 1, 1996 ............................     1,152,800

Weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares
    issued (1) ..................................................    24,474,528
                                                                   ------------

Weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares
    outstanding - December 31, 1996 .............................    25,627,328
                                                                   ------------

Net loss ........................................................  $(43,845,000)
                                                                   ============

Pro forma loss per common and common equivalent shares ..........  $      (1.71)
                                                                   ============
---------------

(1) Common and common equivalent shares issued consist of certain effects of
    shares issued, stock options, warrants, and preferred stock. Common
    equivalent shares from convertible preferred stock (using the if converted
    method) and stock options and warrants (using the treasury stock method)
    have been included in the computation. Pursuant to the Securities and
    Exchange Commission rules, convertible preferred stock which will be
    automatically converted at the date of issuance is included even though
    inclusion may be anti-dilutive. Pursuant to the Securities and Exchange
    Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83, shares issued and stock options
    and warrants granted by the Company at prices below the public offering
    price during the twelve-month period preceding the date of the initial
    filing of the Registration Statement have been included in the calculation
    of common stock equivalent shares for the year ended December 31, 1996,
    using the treasury stock method, as if they were outstanding for the entire
    six month period ended June 30, 1996. Subsequent to this period, the
    weighted average number of shares was based on common stock outstanding and
    does not include common stock equivalents as their inclusion would be
    anti-dilutive.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4184

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemicals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1996

Mr. SPRATT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemicals.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) CAPROLACTAM BLOCKED METHYLENE.—Sub5 chapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Sched6 ule of the United States is amended by inserting in numer7 ical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.34.02 Caprolactam blocked methylene-bis-(4-phenylisocyanate)

(CAS No. 54112–23–1) (provided for in subheading

3402.90.30) ........................... Free No change No change On or before

December 31,

1999

’’.

8 (b) BETA HYDROXYALKYLAMIDE.—Subchapter II of

9 chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the Unit-
2

•HR 4184 IH

1 ed States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence

2 the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.38.24 N,N,N1,N1-tetrakis (2-

hydroxyethyl)-heaxane

diamide (Beta

Hydroxyalkylamide) (CAS

No. 6334–25–4) (provided for

in subheading 3824.90.90) .... Free No change No change On or before

December 31,

1999

’’.

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

4 this section applies to articles entered, or withdrawn from

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

6 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
174 La. 268

#### BYRD et ux. v. GALLMAN.

No. 31541.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 29, 1932.

George Wesley Smith, of Rayville, and Stirling Parlterson, of New Orleans, for plaintiffs-in error.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for defendant in error.

O’NIELL, C. J.

This is one of the cases referred to in the opinion handed down today in Pipes v. Gallman (No. 31539) 146 So. 40, the issues being the same as in Pipes v. Gallman (No. 31540) 140 So. 43.

The amount of the judgment rendered by the district court appears to be correct and is not especially contested. The young lady for whose use and benefit the court gave judgment for $2,000 was badly scarred about the face and head, and her beauty was to some extent blemished. The amount allowed for medical and surgical bills is in accord with the evidence.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is annulled, and the judgment rendered by the district court is reinstated and affirmed, at the cost of the defendant.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FIFTH THIRD BANK,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

 09-CV-13137

vs.

 PAUL D. BORMAN

PAUL G. SIEBEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendant.

_____________________/

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This is a breach of contract case. On November 30, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Summary Judgment seeking a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $3,242,832.02. See

docket entry 8. On December 8, 2009, the Court issued a briefing schedule in which it ordered that

Defendant’s response is due by December 21, 2009, and that Plaintiff’s reply is due by January 4,

2010. See docket entry 9. 

To date, Defendant, who is represented by counsel, has neither filed a response brief nor has

sought an extension of time to do so. The December 21, 2009, deadline for a response brief passed

more than two weeks ago. A hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is currently

scheduled for January 20, 2009, at 3:00 p.m.

The deadline for a response brief has expired. The Court is inclined to construe Defendant’s

failure to respond as a tacit acknowledgment that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief it seeks. Within

three days of today’s date, Defendant shall show cause why the Court should not summarily enter

judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Should Defendant fail to comply with this order, the Court will

2:09-cv-13137-PDB-MJH Doc # 11 Filed 01/07/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 185
2

cancel the upcoming hearing and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the

amount sought.

SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 7, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

January 7, 2010.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-13137-PDB-MJH Doc # 11 Filed 01/07/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 186
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00452-CR

Terence Danta Lavine

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 1

of Denton County (CR-2011-08330-A)

January 30, 2014

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v.JUAN JOSE DE LOS SANTOSOR OZC O, a .k.a . Jua

n De Los Sa

ntosOroz c o, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-10286

D.C . No. 4:14-c r-01536-R M M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R ose m ary M arque z , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 26, 2016 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , C ANB Y, a n d C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Jua n Jose De Los Sa

ntos-Oroz c o a

p pe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt and c ha lle nge s his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for re e ntry

of a re m o ve d a lie n, in viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd 

# FIL ED AUG 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).we a ffirm .

Santos-Oroz c o c onte nds tha t his guilty

ple a wa s not knowing a

nd volunta

ry be c a use he did not fully

c o m pre he nd the nature of ple a ding guilty without a ple a a gre e m e nt, ra

the r tha n a c c e p t ing theple a

a gre e m e nt offe re d by

the gove rnm e nt. W e re vie wde novo. Se eUnite d State s v . C arte r , 795 F.3d 947, 950 (9th C ir. 2015). There c ord re fle c ts tha t the distric t c ourt e xpla ine d to Sa ntos-Oroz c o the e ffe c t of ple a ding guilty both unde r the propose d ple a a gre e m e nt a

nd without the be ne fit of tha

t a gre e m e nt. C ontra

ry to Sa ntos-Oroz c o’ s c onte nt ion, his sta te m e nts at the he aring re fle c t tha

t his guilty

ple a wa s knowing a

nd volunta

ry . Se eUnite d State s v . K ac zy nsk i , 239 F.3d 1108, 1115 (9th C ir. 2001) (substa ntia l we ight is give n to de fe nda

nt’ s in-c ourt sta

te m e nts). AFFIRM E D.

1 5 - 1 0 2 8 6 2
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 1st Home
Buy & Sell Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March
31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Samuel J. Alderson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:
 
 (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.
  /s/ Samuel
      J. AldersonSamuel  J.
      Alderson
                Principal
      Financial Officer
                February
      27, 2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY BRIAN WILLIS-BEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case Number: 09-cv-13406

HON. AVERN COHN

UNKNOWN NAMED POLICE OFFICERS

OF THE CITY OF DETROIT,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER

I.

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis, is a state inmate currently housed at the Gus Harrison

Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan. Plaintiff is suing unnamed police officers from

the City of Detroit. He claims he was wrongfully prosecuted, that defendants lacked

probable cause for the prosecution, and that the prosecution was undertaken with

recklessness and malice. He seeks money damages. As will be explained, plaintiff

shall have thirty (30) days to identify the defendants or face dismissal of the complaint. 

II.

An inmate bringing a civil rights complaint must specifically identify each

defendant against whom relief is sought, and must give each defendant notice of the

action by serving upon him or her a summons and copy of the complaint. Where, as

here, a plaintiff is proceeding without having to pay the filing fee, the district court bears

the responsibility for issuing the plaintiff’s process to a United States Marshal, who must

2:09-cv-13406-AC-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 19
2

effectuate service upon the defendants once the plaintiff has properly identified them in

the complaint. 

Here, plaintiff names “Unknown Named Police Officers of the City of Detroit” as 

defendants. As it stands, the Court is unable to serve the defendants. Accordingly,

plaintiff shall within thirty (30) days identify the defendants so service upon them may be

effectuated. If plaintiff fails to do so, the complaint will be dismissed. See Eastern

District of Michigan Local Rule 41.2 (failure to prosecute). 

SO ORDERED.

 s/ Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 9, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Gregory Willis,

207545, Gus Harrison Correctional Facility, 2727 E. Beecher Street, Adrian, MI 49221 

the attorneys of record on this date, September 9, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary

mail.

 s/ Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-13406-AC-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 20
| 1.   | I      am Chief Financial Officer of Team Nation Holdings      Corporation. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Attached      to this certification is Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, a      periodic report (the “periodic report”) filed by the issuer with the      Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which contains      consolidated financial statements. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | I      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| a.   | The      periodic report containing the consolidated financial statements fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange      Act, and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| b.   | The      information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations      of the issuer for the periodspresented. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Case No. 09-12950

Plaintiff, Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

JOHN J. BRAVATA, RICHARD J. 

TRABULSY, ANTONIO M. BRAVATA,

BBC EQUITIES, LLC, BRAVATA 

FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, and SHARI A. 

BRAVATA,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER ESTABLISHING THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THE

RECEIVER’S MOTION TO ABANDON HUNTINGTON REAL PROPERTY

This matter is before the Court on the Receiver’s motion to abandon Huntington real

property and request to expedite the date by which any party must object to the requested relief. The

Receiver is moving to abandon certain real properties in favor of Huntingon National Bank, a

secured creditor, and is seeking a prompt response from the parties. The Court will accommodate

the latter request.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that any party wishing to object to the Receiver’s motion to

abandon Huntington real property must do so on or before Friday, December 11, 2009 at noon,

Eastern Standard Time.

 s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: December 7, 2009

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 170 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 1 of 2
-2-

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on December 7, 2009.

s/Teresa Scott-Feijoo 

TERESA SCOTT-FEIJOO

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 170 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 2 of 2
#### National Metal Edge Box Company, Respondent, v. Darwin B. Gotham, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Robson, J., on former appeal (125 App. Div. 101). All concurred.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

816 KA 11-02403 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DANIEL W. BROTZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (NEAL D. FUTERFAS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (DAVID P. DYS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), rendered October 23, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (six counts) and identity theft in the third degree (six counts).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of six counts each of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45 [2]) and identity theft in the third degree (§ 190.78 [1]), defendant contends that County Court violated CPL 380.50 (1) by not affording him an opportunity to speak at sentencing about the restitution portion of his sentence. Because defendant did not request an opportunity to be heard about restitution, the payment of which was contemplated by the plea agreement, and did not object to the order of restitution on that or indeed any other ground, his contention is unpreserved for our review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v McGinn , 96 AD3d 977, 978, lv denied 19 NY3d 998; People v Sharp , 56 AD3d 1230, 1231, lv denied 11 NY3d 900), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

Entered: July 19, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0087

IN THE MATTER OF

R.K.,

YOUTH IN NEED OF CARE

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to 

produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Elda L. Nichols is 

granted an extension of time to and including May 31, 2022, within 

which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. 

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court 

and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 13 2022

04/13/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0087
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------



|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sino Charter Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Bradley W. Miller, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |    



| | Dated this 12th day of July, 2007.
| | ----------------------------------

BRADLEY W. MILLERBradley W. MillerChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer






































---
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18376]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

P-13174-000]


Davis Hydro, LLC.; Notice of Application for Preliminary Permit 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 
Protests

August 4, 2008.
    On April 16, 2008, Davis Hydro LLC. filed an application, pursuant 
to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), to study the 
feasibility of Boca Power Project. The proposed project would be 
located on the Little Truckee River in Nevada County, California. The 
existing facilities are owned and operated by the Bureau of 
Reclamation.
    The proposed project using the existing Bureau of Reclamation Boca 
Power Project would consist of: (1) A proposed approximately eight-
foot-long 50-inch diameter penstock, (2) a proposed powerhouse, 
containing one generating unit with an installed capacity of 1.125 
megawatts, (3) a proposed 2,000-foot-long, 12 kilovolt transmission 
line, and (4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have 
an average annual generation of 5 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local 
utility.
    Applicant Contact: Richard D. Ely, Principal, Davis Hydro LLC., 
27264 Meadowbrook Drive, Davis, California 95618, (530) 753-8864, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aeeac7cdc5eecacfd8c7ddc6d7cadcc180cdc1c3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c08252f270c282d3a253f2435283e23622f2321">[email protected]</span></a>.
    FERC Contact: Jake Tung, (202) 502-8757.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13177) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-18376 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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