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


                                 EXHIBIT 11.1
                (in thousands except share and per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                   YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                              1996        1995         1994
                                          -----------  ----------   ----------
<S>                                       <C>          <C>         <C>
Net income                                $     1,630  $    1,275   $    2,817
                                        ======================================

Weighted average shares outstanding         9,382,816   7,003,442    6,569,858

Common shares attributable to
dilutive options and warrants                 657,821     692,686      372,168
                                        --------------------------------------
Fully diluted weighted average shares
 outstanding                               10,040,637   7,696,128    6,942,026
                                        ======================================
Fully diluted net income per share        $      0.16  $     0.17   $     0.41
                                        ======================================
Net income                                $     1,630  $    1,275   $    2,817
                                        ======================================
Weighted average shares outstanding         9,382,816   7,003,442    6,569,858
Common shares attributable to
dilutive options and warrants                 411,024     539,902      372,168

Primary weighted average shares
 outstanding                                9,793,840   7,543,344    6,942,026
                                        ======================================
Primary net income per share              $      0.17  $     0.17   $     0.41
                                        ======================================
</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6133 

To require the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to make available for 

public inspection all records of information submitted to the Food and 

Drug Administration in conjunction with authorizing the emergency use 

of, or licensing, a COVID–19 vaccine. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2021 

Mr. NORMAN (for himself, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. PERRY, Mr. ROY, 

Mr. GOOD of Virginia, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, 

Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. CAWTHORN, Mr. POSEY, Mr. BISHOP of North 

Carolina, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. BABIN, and Mrs. GREENE of 

Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to make 

available for public inspection all records of information 

submitted to the Food and Drug Administration in conjunction with authorizing the emergency use of, or licensing, a COVID–19 vaccine. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6133 IH

1 SECTION 1. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION SUB2 MITTED TO FDA FOR AUTHORIZING EMER3 GENCY USE OF, OR LICENSING, ANY COVID–19 

4 VACCINE. 

5 Not later than 100 days after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall 

7 make available for public inspection all records of informa8 tion submitted to the Food and Drug Administration in 

9 conjunction with authorizing the emergency use of, or li10 censing, a COVID–19 vaccine. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.8.3


   DESCRIPTION OF THE REINSURANCE AGREEMENT FOR 2004 BETWEEN ACIC AND GENERAL
                REINSURANCE CORPORATION EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2004

The Company, on behalf of American Compensation Insurance Company (ACIC), its
wholly owned subsidiary, entered into reinsurance contracts for the fiscal year
beginning January 1, 2004. The following summarizes the significant terms of
these reinsurance agreements.

LIABILITY OF THE REINSURER

The Reinsurers shall pay to ACIC, with respect to Workers' Compensation and
Employers' Liability Business, the amount of Net Loss for each Occurrence, as
defined in the contracts, in excess of ACIC's retention, but not exceeding the
Limits of Liability of the Reinsurer as follows:

<Table>
<Caption>
LOSS LAYER                        REINSURER                           COMMENT
------------------------------    -------------------------------     -------------------------
<S>                               <C>                                 <C>
$4,000,000 excess $1,000,000      General Reinsurance Corporation     Non Minnesota losses

$5,000,000 excess $5,000,000      General Reinsurance Corporation     Non Minnesota losses

$10,000,000 excess $10,000,000    General Reinsurance Corporation     Non Minnesota losses.
                                                                      Net loss for any one
                                                                      employee shall not exceed
                                                                      $10,000,000

Excess of $20,000,000                                                 100% retained by ACIC
                                                                      Non Minnesota losses
</Table>

COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION

The agreements shall apply to new and renewal policies of ACIC becoming
effective at and after 12:01 A.M., January 1, 2004, and to policies in force at
12:01 A.M., January 1, 2004, with respect to losses resulting from Occurrences
taking place at or after the aforesaid time and date.

Parties may terminate these agreements at any December 31st by sending to the
other, by registered mail to its principal office, not less than 90 days prior
written notice. The Reinsurer may also terminate the agreements in the event of
significant adverse events at ACIC or in the event of a change in control of
ACIC or RTW, Inc.

REINSURANCE PREMIUM

ACIC agreed to pay the reinsurers based on premiums earned for each Loss layer
as shown above. These rates are in excess of the rates that we paid in 2003.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0 683 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LYNDSEY MAE LALICKER ,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 2 9 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 22 2020

06/22/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0683
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00497- CV Unive r sity o f Te xa s Sy st e m , A ppe lla nt

v. Texas Workers’ Com pensation Comm ission and Mario O. Kapusta, M.D., Appellees F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN204598 , HO NORAB LE MARGARET A. COO P ER, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant Univer sity

of Texas Sy stem no longe r wishes to pursue its a ppeal and has fi le d a mot ion to w ith dr aw i ts a

pp e a l. T he Un ive rs ity ’s c e rtifi cat e of c on fe re nc e state s th at it confe rre d with counsel for appellee s Texas W orker s’ Compensation Commi ssion and Mario O. Ka pu sta , M .D ., who are un op pose d to the mot ion . We gra nt t he mot ion

and dis mis s th e a

pp e a l. Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) .

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Puryear Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: September

13, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated financial statements included in the Form 10-Q and is
qualified in its entiretly by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           387,881
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      83,196
<MORTGAGE>                                      10,068
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    3,325
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 514,156
<CASH>                                           7,143
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              18,871
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          32,235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 980,557
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                409,765
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            163,179
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 94,875
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,180
<OTHER-SE>                                     256,332
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   980,557
<PREMIUMS>                                      69,003
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              6,920
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               2,841
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                      46,301
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    (1,907)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            23,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,772
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,614
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,158
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0<F1>
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0<F1>
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0<F1>
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0<F1>
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0<F1>
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0<F1>
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>This amount is presented on an annual basis.  See 12/31/97 Form 10-K for the
most recent reported amounts.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-2882

_____________________________

JEFFERY WHITMAN CARMICHAEL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie Kinsey, Judge.

February 28, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROBERTS and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell Dixon, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
18327, 18340.

#### HAYDEN, Ordinary, *v.*VARNADORE *et al.;*and *vice versa.*

Submitted September 14, 1953

Decided October 14, 1953.

*125No appearance for plaintiff in error.

*R. E. Lawson,*contra.

Worrill, Justice.

1. Counsel for the plaintiff in error in the main bill of exceptions failed to argue their case orally in the Supreme Court, or to file any brief therein, and therefore the main bill must be dismissed. *Vann*v. *Wardlaw,*180 *Ga.*573 (3) (179 S. E. 726).

2. Irrespective of whether the present case falls within the general rule that, where the main bill of exceptions is dismissed for want of prosecution in the Supreme Court, the cross-bill will be dismissed (Code § 6-901; *Futch*v. *Olmstead, 172 Ga.*233 (2), 157 S. E. 277; *Alexander Lumber Co.*v. *Bagley,*184 *Ga.*352, 364 (2), 191 S. E. 446; *Church*v. *Purcell,*186 *Ga.*95, 196 S. E. 806), each of the judgments complained of was rendered on June 23, 1953, and the defendants in error did not file any exceptions pendente lite. The plaintiff in error filed a bill of exceptions based on the judgment granting an injunction, which was served on the defendants in error on July 2, 1953. In such circumstances, a cross-bill of exceptions filed by the defendants in *126error on July 15, 1953, assigning error on the judgment denying their motion to dismiss their petition, and on the judgment granting an injunction, though filed within 20 days' from the date of the service of the main bill of exceptions, presents no question for decision. This is true for the reason that one who files a cross-bill of exceptions is not relieved from the requirements, as to proper and timely exceptions pendente lite, which would have been imposed upon him if he had been the plaintiff in error in a main bill of exceptions. *Williams*v. *Ragsdale,*205 *Ga.*274, 279 (4) (53 S. E. 2d 339), and citations.

*Writs of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6071 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6071

 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
from retroactively reducing certain determinations under the Renewable 
                 Fuel Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 23, 2021

Mrs. Hinson (for herself, Ms. Craig, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. 
     Kind, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. 
Fortenberry, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, Mr. Bost, Mr. Feenstra, Mrs. Axne, Mr. 
  Baird, Mrs. Fischbach, Mr. LaTurner, and Mr. LaHood) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
from retroactively reducing certain determinations under the Renewable 
                 Fuel Program, 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 ``Defend the Blend Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST RETROACTIVE REDUCTIONS OF DETERMINATIONS 
              UNDER THE RENEWABLE FUEL PROGRAM.

    The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may not 
reduce any applicable volume determined under subsection (o)(2) of 
section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545), or any renewable 
fuel obligation or applicable percentage determined under subsection 
(o)(3) of such section, that has already been finalized for any 
calendar year.
                                 <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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. PR08-15-002] 

Take notice that on August 11, 2008, Energy Transfer Fuel, LP filed a Statement of Operating Conditions pursuant to section 284.123(e) of the Commission's regulations and to comply with the July 11, 2008, order issued in Docket Nos. PR08-15-000 and PR08-15-001. 

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Comment date is:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 22, 2008.                 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E8-19469 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
eex-ex10241_265.htm



Exhibit 10.24.1

EMERALD EXPOSITIONS EVENTS, INC.

2017 OMNIBUS EQUITY PLAN

 

AMENDMENT TO PERFORMANCE BASED SHARE AWARD AGREEMENT 

 

THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of December 6, 2019 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Emerald Expositions Events, Inc. (together with its successors, the “Company”) and the individual set forth on the signature page hereto (the “Recipient”).

WHEREAS, the Recipient and the Company entered into that certain performance-based share award agreement, dated as of June 3, 2019, by and among the Recipient and the Company (the “Award Agreement”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Award Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Recipient and the Company now wish to amend the Award Agreement as provided herein.

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

1.Vesting. The table included in Section 1(a) of the Award Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


		
	
60/90 Trading Day Closing Share Price (Vesting Thresholds)
	
Award Value

	
At least $18.00 per Share
	
$700,000

	
At least $20.00 per Share
	
$1,000,000

	
At least $22.00 per Share
	
$1,400,000

	
At least $24.00 per Share
	
$1,800,000




 

2.Except as expressly amended hereby, the Award Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its original terms. 

3.This Amendment may be executed by .pdf or facsimile signatures in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument.

 [signatures follow]

 

 



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date and year first above written.

 

EMERALD EXPOSITIONS EVENTS, INC. 

 

 

 

By:

Name: David Gosling

Title:  SVP, General Counsel and Secretary

 

 

 

RECIPIENT

 

 

/s/ Brian Field

Brian Field

 

 

 

 

 

[Signature Page to Amendment to Award Agreement]
#### Alfred Hein, an Infant, by Anton Simek, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. William R. Pitt Composite Iron Works, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed with costs. No opinion.
18556.

#### Hurt *v.*Balkcom, Warden.

Almand, Justice.

Curtis J. Hurt sought his release from R. P. Balkcom, Jr., Warden of the Georgia State Prison, by filing his petition for the writ of habeas corpus, wherein he alleged that he was being illegally restrained because, (a) he was arrested in the State of Kentucky in 1941 and brought to Georgia under extradition proceedings which failed to comply with the acts of Congress relative to such proceedings; and (b) he and Jack Mansfield, named in the extradition proceedings, were not one and the same person. The respondent warden in his answer admitted that the petitoner is in his custody, and asserted that he was holding the petitioner by virtue of two sentences imposed against him, in cases of the State of Georgia *v.*Jack Mansfield, by the Superior Court of Meriwether County, Georgia, in which the petitioner was sentenced on February 20, 1930, to serve from 15 to 20 years in each case, to be served consecutively. He further alleged that said Jack Mansfield escaped from the prison authorities in 1932 and was recaptured in 1941 and returned to prison. On the hearing, the petitioner testified: that he was not Jack Mansfield, had never been known as Jack Mansfield, and that under the name of Jack Mansfield he was extradited to Georgia in 1941; that he had never been in Georgia before, and had committed no crime therein; and that he objected to the extradition proceedings because they had not introduced fingerprints. He admitted tht he wrote a letter in 1949 to the Board of Corrections and signed it “Jack Mansfield.” He submitted no evidence as to any irregularity in the extradition proceedings. The respondent submitted evidence that Jack Mansfield and the petitioner were one and the same person, and that the petitioner was the same Jack Mansfield who was being held by the respondent under the two -aforesaid sentences; and that the petitioner, at the time he was extradited in 1941, voluntarily returned to Georgia without a hearing, and did not at that time deny his identity. *Held:*

The trial judge did not err in denying the petitioner’s application for the *578writ oí habeas corpus and in remanding him to the custody of the respondent.

Submitted Apbil 13, 1954

Decided May 11, 1954.

*Curtis J. Hurt,*pro se.

*J. T. Grice, Deputy Assistant Attorney-General,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*