alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit (11)
                                                     ------------

                 OWENS CORNING AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<S>                                              <C>             <C>

                                                    Quarter Ended
                                                      March 31,
                                                      ---------
                                                 2000           1999
                                                 ----           ----
                                              (In millions of dollars,
                                                 except share data)
Basic:
-----

Net income                                   $    48        $      44
                                             --------       ---------

Basic weighted average number of common
shares outstanding (thousands)                54,590           53,932

Basic per share amount                       $   .88        $     .81
                                             ========       =========

Diluted:
-------

Net income                                   $    50        $      46
                                             ----------     ---------

Weighted average number of shares
outstanding (thousands)                       54,590           53,932
Weighted average common equivalent shares
(thousands):
  Deferred awards                                576              563
  Stock options using the higher of average
    market price or market price at end of
    period                                        22              205
  Shares from assumed conversion of
    preferred securities                       4,566            4,566
                                             ----------     ---------
Diluted weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding and common equivalent
  shares (thousands)                          59,754           59,266
                                             ===========    ==========

Diluted per share amount                     $   .84        $     .77
                                             ===========    ==========
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

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

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  the  undersigned  President  and  Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company certifies that, to his knowledge:

      1.    The Company's  Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the
            "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Dennis L. Bergquist
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Dennis L. Bergquist
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           Dated: May 19, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  /s/ David C. Mannon.

David C. MannonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Erline WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY., Inc., Defendant and Appellant.†

No. 14779.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 28, 1934.

Porteous, Johnson & Humphrey and F. Carter Johnson, Jr., all of New Orleans, for appellant.

J. I. McCain and Herman L. Midlo, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, Judge.

The question involved here is identical with that discussed by us in the matter entitled Succession of Frank Watson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 156 So. 29, decided by us this day, except that in this case it is admitted that the paid-up value of the policy‘was-tendered to plaintiff.

For the reasons given by us in that case, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is amended by reducing the amount thereof to $16.10, with interest at 6 per cent.

All costs to be paid by plaintiff.

Judgment amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,682,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,796,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   204,000
<INVENTORY>                                 16,705,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,422,000
<PP&E>                                     118,278,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              37,405,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             127,549,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,807,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,915,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  87,619,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               127,549,000
<SALES>                                     59,217,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            59,217,000
<CGS>                                       43,444,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               57,964,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (3,010,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,982,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,621,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,969,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,757,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                              10,330,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,573,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.88


</TABLE>
#### The Colonizers’ Realty Company of Brooklyn, N. Y., Respondent, v. *N*ahum J. Shatzkin, Appellant, Impleaded with Alexander Braunstein and Others, Defendants.

(No. 1.)

Second Department,

December 30, 1908.

Pleading — verbiage stricken out.

Complaint in an action by a corporation against its officers to compel them to account for secret profits made on a sale of real estate to the corporation examined, and useless verbiage stricken out.

Appeal by the defendant, Rahum J. Shatzkin, from an order of theRupreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 23d day of April, 1908, denying the said defendant’s motion to strike out certain allegations of the complaint.

*Louis B.*Boudin, for the appellant.

*Stone &*Chugerman, for the respondent.

Gaynor, J.:

The only cause of action that can be spelled out of this monstrosity of a complaint—and that only with the utmost difficulty, and pen in hand — is that the moving defendant, and four other defend, ants, each of whom is either an officer or a stockholder of the plaintiff, being appointed a committee by it to consider as to the purchase of real estate by it, recommended to the plaintiff and caused it to purchase a tract of land with the owner of which four of them had a contract that if they sold it for him they w'ere to have two thirds of the profit, which they did not disclose to the plaintiff, and of which it had no knowledge, and that a profit of $2,000 was so made and two thirds thereof divided among all of the said five defendants; the prayer being that they account for and pay the same to the plaintiff. All else of the complaint, vffiich covers 16 pages of the printed record, is mere useless verbiage, and should be struck out. Courts have of necessity to defend themselves in some way against such pleadings. The plaintiff should have a new complaint competently drawn— one that can be understood—and it *609will not exceed a page. The present complaint will be a source of useless litigation and expense to the plaintiff for probably a long time if it be not superseded, and in the end may prove fatal to the plaintiff’s case, for it will never serve any purpose except' to promote misunderstanding and confusion. A full analysis of the complaint will be found on an appeal from a judgment overruling a demurrer to this complaint which is decided herewith *(post,*p. 609).

The order should be reversed and the motion granted as to all of the complaint except the part stating the one cause of action.

Woodward, Jerks, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted as to all of the complaint except the part stating the one cause of action.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC form
10-QA and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              13
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      442
<ALLOWANCES>                                        17
<INVENTORY>                                        430
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,107
<PP&E>                                           3,322
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,767
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,107
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,044
<BONDS>                                          1,099
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           647
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,061)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,107
<SALES>                                            875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   875
<CGS>                                              652
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     7
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     58
<INCOME-TAX>                                        19
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 42
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        42
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .76
<FN>
<F1>Represents basic earnings per share as defined in FASB Statement No. 128.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Mildred E. Terry, Respondent, v. The Village of Perry, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred except Williams, J., who dissented upon the ground that the alleged defect was too slight to charge the defendant with negligence.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of nStor Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I,Thomas L. Gruber, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)        The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                                                                          /s/ Thomas L. Gruber

                                                                                                           Thomas L. Gruber                                                                                                           Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                           November 8, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000916230
<NAME> PROTECTION ONE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             573
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,296
<INVENTORY>                                      1,920
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,757
<PP&E>                                          21,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,686
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 369,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,591
<BONDS>                                        252,894
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           143
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   369,191
<SALES>                                         98,493
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                98,493
<CGS>                                           27,944
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   239
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,344
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,657)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,744)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,913)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,913)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.59)
        

</TABLE>
#### C. W. Williams v. State.

No. 24554.

January 11, 1950.

*139
      *Forrester Hancock,*of Waxahachie, for appellant.

*Stuart B. Lumpkins,*County Attorney, Waxahachie, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, ten years in the penitentiary.

This case grows out of the same transaction as Williams v. State, 153 Tex. Cr. R. 627, 224 S. W. 2d 478.

Deceased was the father of appellant. Approximately one hundred wounds were inflicted upon his body by the joint and combined attack of appellant, who used an ice pick, and his two brothers and a sister.

Self-defense from actual apparent attack and threats, and abuse and mistreatment of the mother of appellant by the deceased were the defensive issues.

A witness to the killing, as well as other witnesses arriving soon thereafter, testified as to the bloody condition of the body, the bed and bedclothes, and to the blood-spattered condition of the walls of the room.

To this testimony appellant objected as being irrelevant, immaterial, and highly inflammatory. It is his position that such description was inadmissible under the rule which prohibits the introduction in evidence of bloody clothing of the deceased when not material to any issue in the case. 18 Tex. Jur., p. 339, Sec. 210.

The rule mentioned is founded upon the proposition that the exhibition to the jury of the bloody articles has a tendency to inflame the minds of the jury. It is the demonstrative evidence or evidence which consists of the actual display of material articles that the rule contemplates, as distinguished from evidence consisting only of a narration of facts.

Here, none of the bloody articles were introduced in evidence or exhibited to the jury. To the contrary, the evidence consisted only of the narration by the witnesses as to what they saw.

So far as we have been able to ascertain, the bloody-eloth*140ing rule has not been extended to cover narrated facts, such as here presented. We are unwilling to now so extend that rule. Ordinarily, the physical facts and circumstances surrounding a killing are admissible in evidence as tending to throw light, on the transaction and to reveal its nature. Bennett v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. Rep. 70, 252 S. W. 790. Moreover, it is a matter of common knowledge, and the jury must certainly have known, that much blood would flow from a killing under the circumstances here shown.

Appellant objected to argument of state’s counsel wherein the killing was referred to as “a brutal — a savage killing; an assassination” as being inflammatory and prejudicial.

The trial court instructed the jury to disregard the argument wherein the killing was referred to as an assassination.

We think state’s counsel was within his rights in referring to the killing as savage and brutal, for such was a legitimate deduction from the state’s testimony.

The ten-year punishment assessed for the killing does not reflect that the appellant was prejudiced before the jury by reference to the killing as an assassination, notwithstanding its prompt withdrawal by the trial court.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1




Certifications
of CEO and CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Houston Wire & Cable Company (the
“Corporation”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Charles A. Sorrentino, as Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, and Nicol
G. Graham, as Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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
      Corporation.




/s/ Charles A.
Sorrentino


Charles
A. Sorrentino


Chief
Executive Officer




March 17,
2008




/s/ Nicol G.
Graham


Nicol G.
Graham


Chief
Financial Officer




March 17,
2008




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by Houston Wire &
Cable Company for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.
ex104.htm


Exhibit 10.4







April 23 2014








	
  

	
RE:

	
Closing Statement in connection with the Note Purchase Agreement between Omagine Inc. (“Company”) and YA Global Master SPV, Ltd. (“Investor”).












This letter shall constitute the Closing Statement agreed upon between the Company and the Investor regarding various payments and transfers to be made by the parties in connection with Note Purchase Agreement dated April 22, 2014 (“Subscription Agreement”).







The parties hereby agree that the Investor shall make the payments and transfers set forth below in accordance with the wire instructions to the account of each recipient as set forth on Schedule A attached hereto (or otherwise provided to the Investor):








	
Gross Proceeds to be paid to the Company:

	 	$	500,000.00	 
	  	 	 	 	 
	
Less:

	 	 	 	 
	
Commitment Fee to be paid to the Investor (or its designee):

	 	$	(39,000.00	)
	
Pre-Paid Interest (April 23, 2014 through April 30, 2014)

	 	$	(1,095.89	)
	
Repayment of balance of July 19, 2013 Note to the Investor:

	 	$	(110,680.35	)
	  	 	 	 	 
	
Net Proceeds to the Company:

	 	$	349,223.76	 












  





1











  











[SIGNATURE PAGE IMMEDIATELY TO FOLLOW]


 


 


 




  





2











  






 




	Omagine Inc.	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
By:/s/ Charles P. Kuczynski

	 	 	
 

	 
	
 
Name: Charles P. Kuczynski



	 	 	
 

	 
	
Title: Vice President

	 	 	
 

	 







 


 


  




	YA Global Master SPV, Ltd.	 	 	 	 
	By: Yorkville Advisors Global, LP	 	 	 	 
	Its: Investment Manager	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	    By: Yorkville Advisors Global, LLC	 	 	 	 
	    Its: General Partner	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
By: /s/ Mark Angelo

	 	 	
  

	 
	
 
Name: Mark Angelo



	 	 	
  

	 
	
 
Title: Managing Member



	 	 	
  

	 







  


 


 


 




  





3











  






 

















SCHEDULE A


ACCOUNT INSTRUCTIONS


















	
Omagine Inc.

	  
	
Omagine, Inc.


Account Number  610-98230-3


 


HSBC Bank


ABA # 021001088


Swift ID: MRMDUS33


 


Fifth Avenue Branch


452 Fifth Avenue


New York, N.Y. 10118


 


Bank Contact: Kevin O’Dea


Telephone: 212-525-4094


 

	  
	  	  










YA Global Master SPV Ltd and related







Instructions on file.


 


 


 


4
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of LILM, Inc. (the “Company”) on Amendment No. 2 to Form 10 KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,**George I. Norman, III**, Chief Executive Officer of            the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

| /s/ | **GEORGEI.NORMAN,III** |
|-----|------------------------|

 

**George I. Norman, III**

Chief Executive Officer

September 17, 2008

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange            Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.