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

                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

             STATEMENTS REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                       For the Years Ended March 31,
                                                      1999         1998         1997
                                                      ----         ----         ----
                                                (In thousands, except per share amounts)
<S>                                                   <C>         <C>         <C>
Weighted Average Number of Shares
 of Common Stock Outstanding                          15,318      15,116      14,959
Net Effect of Dilutive Stock Options                      --          --          --
                                                    --------    --------    --------
Weighted Average Shares
  Outstanding                                         15,318      15,116      14,959
                                                    --------    --------    --------
                                                    --------    --------    --------

Net Loss                                            $(13,309)   $(11,830)    $(9,881)

Less Accrued Convertible Preferred Stock dividend     (1,980)       (541)         --
                                                    --------    --------    --------

Net Loss Attributable to Common Shareholders        $(15,289)   $(12,371)    $(9,881)
                                                    --------    --------    --------
                                                    --------    --------    --------

Net Loss Per Share
  Basic and Diluted                                 $  (1.00)   $  (0.82)    $ (0.66)
                                                    --------    --------    --------
                                                    --------    --------    --------

</TABLE>
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 715

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 15, 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation

AN ACT

To amend the Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enforcement

Act of 1992 to prohibit fishing in the Central Sea of

Okhotsk by vessels and nationals of the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sea of Okhotsk Fish5 eries Enforcement Act of 1995’’.
2

HR 715 RFS

1 SEC. 2. FISHING PROHIBITION.

2 The Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enforcement Act

3 of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 1823 note) is amended—

4 (1) in section 302, by inserting ‘‘and the

5 Central Sea of Okhotsk’’ after ‘‘Central Bering

6 Sea’’; and

7 (2) in section 306—

8 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3),

9 (4), (5), and (6) in order as paragraphs (3),

10 (4), (5), (6), and (7); and

11 (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the

12 following:

13 ‘‘(2) CENTRAL SEA OF OKHOTSK.—The term

14 ‘Central Sea of Okhotsk’ means the central Sea of

15 Okhotsk area which is more than two hundred nau16 tical miles seaward of the baseline from which the

17 breadth of the territorial sea of the Russian Federa18 tion is measured.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives March 14,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
Exhibit 21.1

Protection One, Inc.
Exhibit 21.1SUBSIDIARIES
December 31, 2009

Entity

JurisdictionProtection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc.

DelawareNetwork Multifamily Security Corporation

DelawareSecurity Monitoring Services, Inc. (d/b/a, CMS)

FloridaProtection One Data Systems, Inc.

DelawareProtection One Systems, Inc.

DelawareProtection One Alarm Monitoring of Mass., Inc.

MassachusettsIntegrated Alarm Services Group, Inc.

DelawareIntegrated Alarm Services, Inc.

DelawareCriticom International Corporation

New JerseyMonital Signal Corporation

New JerseyNational Alarm Computer Center, Inc.

Delaware


---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                          VENTURE HOLDINGS COMPANY LLC
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,

                                                2001          2000          1999          1998         1997
                                                ----          ----          ----          ----         ----
<S>                                         <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>          <C>
Net Earnings from continuing operations        1,003         9,082        (8,941)       13,568       11,523

  Add back:
    Taxes on Income                          (13,067)      (11,289)        8,227         2,489        3,830

    Fixed Charges                            106,412       113,156        80,072        40,651       34,204
    Amortization of previously
     capitalized interest                         --            --            --           224          295
  Deduct:
    Capitalized Interest                          --            --            --            --           --
                                            --------      --------      --------      --------     --------
Earnings available for fixed charges          94,348       110,949        79,358        56,932       49,852
                                            ========      ========      ========      ========     ========

Fixed charges of Venture Holdings
  Company LLC:
    Interest expense                          97,658       102,513        72,606        36,641       30,182
    Capitalized interest                          --            --            --            --           --
    Amortization of debt expense
     and debt discount                         4,854         6,378         4,572         2,160        1,934
    Interest  portion of rent expense          3,900         4,265         2,894         1,850        2,088
                                            --------      --------      --------      --------     --------


                                             106,412       113,156        80,072        40,651       34,204
                                            ========      ========      ========      ========     ========

Ratio of earning to fixed charges                  *             *             *          1.40         1.46
</TABLE>


*        Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges in the amounts of
         $12,064, $2,207 and $714 for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000
         and 1999, respectively.
In any event, contrary to the implication in the majority opinion, I doubt that we can claim that 1

this court has found that the “Anthony principles” apply in cases not involving kidnapping -- the crime that

is necessarily proven upon proof of such assaultive crimes as rape or robbery. As for the reference to

State v. Cornelius T. Luster, No. 02C01-9201-CR-00019, Shelby Co. (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 29,1992), the

majority opinion fails to note that the lead opinion’s application of Anthony apparently did not gain the

support of the other two members of the panel, one concurring in results only and the other expressly

rejecting the use of Anthony.

FILED

April 16, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE 

 OCTOBER 1994 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

)

Appellee, ) No. 03C01-9407-CR-00262

 )

) Sullivan County

v. ) 

) Hon. R. Jerry Beck, Judge 

)

PHILLIP S. ROBERTS, ) (Attempted Theft; Burglary)

) 

Appellant. )

 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

I concur with the affirmance of the one burglary, the attempted theft and

the possession of burglary instruments convictions. I dissent from the reversal and

dismissal of the remaining three burglary convictions. I believe that the evidence

justifies all of the convictions that the defendant received and that we need not

determine in this case whether State v Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991), applies

in any fashion to the offenses of burglary and attempted theft. The very fact that not 1

every attempted car theft involves a burglary -- a point conceded in the majority opinion

-- renders the reasoning in Anthony inapplicable to this case.

If we were confronted with a case in which the sole proof for an attempted

theft was the breaking into a car, then it might be worth considering an Anthony due

process analysis -- because, then, every burglary would necessarily prove the crime of

attempt to commit the felony or theft intended. But we are not. In each instance, the
2

defendant committed acts inside the cars that were unrelated to the breaking and

entering, but were evidence of attempted thefts. I would hold that the separate

convictions are justified.

 

 

Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
EXHIBIT 31.2



Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Gary N. Thompson, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc.;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: August 12, 2003



| |  | /s/  Gary N. Thompson                
| |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | Gary N. Thompson                     
| |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



35
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Moore Medical Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending September 28, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Linda M. Autore, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and member of the Board of Directors,
certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(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.





/s/ Linda M. Autore


Linda M. Autore


President and Chief Executive Officer


November 7, 2002
Exhibit 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

      We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Selected
financial data" and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-81044, 333-19753, 333-59902, 333-74197 and
333-86728) (pertaining to the 1991 Qualified Stock Option Plan, the Amended and
Restated 1993 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan, the 1995 Amended
and Restated Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan and the 1998 Non-Executive
Employee Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan) and Form S-3 (Nos.
333-95361, 333-33986, 333-37630, 333-45818, 333-49628, 333-59346, 333-63514,
333-99559, 333-99673, 333-106420, 333-110729, and 333-112611) of our report
dated November 22, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Arotech Corporation (f/k/a Electric Fuel Corporation) for each
of the three years included in the period ended December 31, 2003 included in
this amended Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2003.


                                        /s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kassierer
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kassierer
                                        A Member of Ernst & Young Global

Tel-Aviv, Israel
November 28, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       7,394,750
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,508,232
<ALLOWANCES>                                    94,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,193,114
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,307,139
<PP&E>                                       2,844,615
<DEPRECIATION>                                 625,008
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,692,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,989,463
<BONDS>                                      8,166,667
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,643,580
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,058
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,234,455)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,692,348
<SALES>                                      6,722,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,238,712
<CGS>                                        5,564,438
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,182,277
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,519,375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,096,903)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,096,903)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,096,903)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.61)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.47 Description of 2007 Incentive Compensation
Plan The
Compensation Committee (the Committee) of the Board of Directors of Remington
Arms Company, Inc. (the Company) approved the 2007 Annual Incentive
Compensation Plan (the 2007 Plan) on January 26, 2007. The 2007 Plan is a
cash bonus plan involving the Companys Named Executive Officers and certain
other employees. Under the 2007 Plan, participants are generally entitled to
receive a cash bonus if the Companys Adjusted EBITDA (earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization), as adjusted for certain
non-recurring or unusual transactions, exceeds certain target thresholds for
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. Each participant is generally
entitled to receive 5% of his target bonus for each 1% of Adjusted EBITDA
beginning at 81% of the Adjusted EBITDA threshold up to a maximum of 110% of
Adjusted EBITDA. In
connection with its approval of the 2007 Plan, on February 8, 2007 the
Committee approved a working capital holdback of 10% of the bonus for the Named
Executive Officers and certain other individuals if specific monthly goals
relating to working capital are not met.
EXHIBIT
32




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Mondo Acquisition I, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Jeffrey J. Fessler, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350 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.







Date:
      October 30, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Jeffrey
      J. FesslerJeffrey
      J. Fessler
              Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
#### Honoria Kelly, Respondent, v. Israel Mandel and Others, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed by default, with costs. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Burr and Rich, JJ., concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 160 (Monday, August 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 48245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19069]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


National Endowment for the Arts; Arts Advisory Panel

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of 
the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be 
held by teleconference from the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows (ending time is 
approximate):
    Literature (application review): August 27, 2008. This meeting, 
from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. DST, will be closed. This meeting has been 
scheduled on an emergency basis to address time sensitive issues.
    The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel 
review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial 
assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities 
Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to 
the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of 
February 21, 2007, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant 
to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
    Further information with reference to these meetings can be 
obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel 
Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or 
call 202/682-5691.

    Dated: August 13, 2008.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. E8-19069 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
#### Albert MONROE, Individually and on Behalf of his Minor Son, Lennox Monroe, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Mrs. Omar J. RUCH, Defendant and Appellant.*

No. 14472.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 27, 1933.

Wm. H. Talbot, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Johnston Armstrong, of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

 Rehearing denied March 13, 1933.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

The natural parent of Lennox Monroe, a thirteen year old negro boy, brings this suit against Mrs. Omar J. Ruch, alleging that his child was injured by the collapse of a shed on the premises leased by him from the defendant.

Liability is admitted; the sole controversy being with reference to the quantum.

We can find no evidence in the record of serious injury. While the doctor who treated Lennox Monroe testified that he thought there was a fracture of the inner table of the eighth rib when he first visited the patient, he does not claim that there was a fracture; nor is *171there any proof to that effect from any other source. The most that could have happened to the child was a few bruises and contusions. The shed which collapsed was not very high; according to the testimony, about six feet. We gather from the indefinite testimony on the subject that one would not expect serious consequences from such an accident to a young boy. The trial court awarded $250, and we think the amount somewhat excessive.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is amended by reducing the amount awarded plaintiff from $250 to $150, and, as thus amended, it is affirmed.

Amended and affirmed.