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

 

**EF JOHNSON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ANDSUBSIDIARIES**

 

**COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PERSHARE**

** (in thousands, except share and per sharedata)**

 
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **Three Months Ended** | ** ** | **Six Months Ended** | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------|------------|----------------------|------------|
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **June 30,**      | ** ** | **June 30,**    | ** ** |
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **2009**               | ** ** | **2008**             | ** ** | **2009** | ** ** | **2008** | ** ** |
| ** **                                            | ** ** | ** **             | ** ** | **(as restated)**    | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | **(as restated)** | ** ** |
| Net income (loss)                                     |       | $                      | 1,128      |                 | $          | 1,257 |   | $ | (130 | ) | $ | (759 | ) |
|                                                  |       |                   |       |                 |       |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average common  shares – Basic          |       | 26,540,418             |       | 26,082,124           |       | 26,462,612 |   | 26,072,017 |   |
| Net income (loss) per  share – Basic             |       | $                      | 0.04       |                 | $          | 0.05 |   | $ | — |   | $ | (0.03 | ) |
|                                                  |       |                   |       |                 |       |   |   |   |   |
| **Net  income (loss) per share - Diluted:**           |       |                   |       |                 |       |   |   |   |   |
| Shares used in  computation:                          |       |                   |       |                 |       |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average common  shares – Basic          |       | 26,540,418             |       | 26,082,124           |       | 26,462,612 |   | 26,072,017 |   |
| Dilutive effect of  shares under employee stock plans |       | 2,021                  |       | 10,725               |       | — |   | — |   |
| Weighted average  restricted stock grants and units   |       | 466,143                |       | 314,040              |       | — |   | — |   |
| Weighted average common  shares – Diluted        |       | 27,008,582             |       | 26,406,889           |       | 26,462,612 |   | 26,072,017 |   |
|                                                  |       |                   |       |                 |       |   |   |   |   |
| Net income (loss) per  share – Diluted           |       | $                      | 0.04       |                 | $          | 0.05 |   | $ | — |   | $ | (0.03 | ) |

 

----
15

A.10. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Size of LoaPercent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 t

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,000 $24,000 $49,000 $99,000 $249,000 

Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 346,496 36,262 53,188 46,479 60,162 75,19

Number of loans 16,832 10,314 3,535 1,410 885 51

Weighted average maturity (months)1 62.10 12.93 14.63 14.75 12.48 44.5

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 14.40 5.81 6.97 5.91 4.20 15.0

Weighted average risk rating3 2.58 2.40 2.51 2.60 2.47 2.8

Weighted average interest rate4 6.53 7.07 6.75 6.50 6.47 6.4 Standard error5 .15 .17 .10 .19 .24 .2

 Interquartile range6

 75th percentile 7.49 7.64 7.41 7.25 7.12 7.5

 25th percentile 5.62 6.30 6.00 5.61 5.91 5.6

 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.20 7.26 6.99 6.76 5.94 6.6

 Other livestock 7.05 7.70 7.74 7.51 6.81 5.8

 Other current operating expenses7 6.46 7.08 6.54 6.20 6.46 6.2

 Farm machinery and equipment 6.98 6.82 6.93 6.97 6.84 7.1

 Farm real estate 6.41 6.91 7.29 6.73 6.37 5.9

 Other8 6.61 6.62 7.07 5.96 6.08 7.2

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 55.43 49.89 44.38 52.58 56.38 59.1

 Under commitment 40.09 55.20 53.10 38.19 60.41 42.0

 Callable 15.21 19.07 21.08 20.06 23.68 14.6

 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 10.28 3.78 8.14 10.44 8.16 12.4

 Other livestock 6.48 4.00 9.48 5.74 17.64 3.5

 Other current operating expenses7 44.13 78.32 70.58 51.21 50.82 36.7

 Farm machinery and equipment 9.22 8.87 8.48 18.06 9.37 13.5

 Farm real estate 19.20 1.68 2.04 8.53 4.40 20.0

 Other8 10.70 3.36 1.28 6.02 9.61 13.5

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 32.40 8.51 10.39 16.14 10.35 33.8

 Other 64.34 83.51 84.58 76.28 85.97 66.1

 Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 99-60002

Summary Calendar

_________________

THOMAS W BOOZER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the Decision

of the United States Tax Court

(9328-97)

August 23, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Boozer appealsthe Tax Court’s decision holding him liable for addition to tax based

on his failure to file income tax returns. See 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1).

We review the Tax Court’sfindings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.

See Stanford v. CIR, 152 F.3d 450, 455 (5th Cir. 1998). In this case, where the parties have

stipulated to the facts, the matter of whether or not the taxpayer’s failure to file is a question of law

subject to de novo review. See id. (case arising under 26 U.S.C. § 6652). 

Boozer says that he was not required to file a tax return until the Government obtained a

court order requiring him to file. This argument hinges on the assumption that 26 U.S.C. § 6012's

directive to “make” a tax return is not a requirement to “file” a tax return. Boozer maintains that the
-2-

Tax Court’s rejection of this assumption and holding that he was required to file a tax return despite

the absence of a court order directing him to file contravened the Fourth Amendment. 

Boozer’s argument lacks merit. We have construed § 6012's requirement to “make” a tax

return as a requirement to “file” a tax return. See Moore v. CIR, 722 F.2d 193, 196 (5th Cir. 1984)

(observing that the taxpayer has an “obligation to file established by26 U.S.C. § 6012"); Steinbrecher

v. CIR, 712 F.2d 195, 198 (5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (“Section 6012(a) . . . provides that

individuals meeting certain requirements shall file income tax returns.” (emphasis deleted)); see also

In re Ripley, 991 F.2d 440, 444 n.15 (5thCir. 1991) (indicating that § 6651(a) is a sanction for failing

to comply with § 6012(a)). Additionally, we have rejected as “without merit” the contention that

requiring the filing of a tax return violates the Fourth Amendment. Hallowell v. CIR, 744 F.2d 406,

408 (5th Cir. 1984). “[T]he amendment was not intended to prevent the ordinary procedure . . . of

requiring tax returns to be made, often under oath.” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 175,

31 S. Ct. 342, 358, 55 L. Ed. 389, ___ (1911); see also White v. CIR, 72 T.C. 1126, 1130 (1979)

(“It is further established that the requirement for filing ordinary and reasonable returns and

respondent’sinspection thereof, does not violate a taxpayer’s protection against unreasonable search

and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.”).

Accordingly, we hold that the Tax Court did not err in finding Boozer liable for additions to

tax pursuant to § 6651(a)(1), and affirm.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-56-01-SM

Raymond Cole

O R D E R

Defendant Raymond Cole has filed a motion to continue the final pretrial

conference and trial (document no. 70). Trial has been rescheduled for the July

2009 trial period. Defendant Cole shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than June 15, 2009. On the filing of such waiver, the continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: July 6, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. 

Jury Selection: July 21, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:08-cr-00056-SM Document 71 Filed 06/05/09 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

June 5, 2009

cc: Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00056-SM Document 71 Filed 06/05/09 Page 2 of 2
#### CALLOWAY v. SERVICE CAB CO. et al.

No. 4971.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1935.

Chas. L. Mayer, of Shreveport, and A. Milgs Coe and Hugh M. Wilkinson, both of New Orleans, for appellants.

John B. Files, of Shreveport, for appellee.

MILLS, Judge.

Plaintiff, a negro man 45 years of age, is claiming damages in the sum of $10,000 and $250 medical expenses, because of injuries received by being struck by a cab of the Service Cab Company, shortly after midnight on the morning of November 20, 1933, on Texas avenue at its intersection with Wilson street in the city of Shreveport.

Plaintiff and his one eyewitness testify that he had walked slowly out of Wilson street into the center of Texas avenue, where he stopped between the street car tracks for defendant’s cab, coming out Texas avenue at a speed of from 30 to 35 miles per hour, to pass him; that the cab did not slow up or change its course, but drove directly into him, knocking him to the curb, breaking the bones of his right leg below the knee, tearing the ligaments of.the kneejoint, and breaking the pelvis bone.

The driver of the taxi tells the story that he was going 30 miles per hour; that he saw plaintiff stop and considered that action as an invitation to proceed, which he did without slowing down, but that just as he reached plaintiff the latter ran suddenly in front of the car, making the resulting collision unavoidable. Unfortunately for defendants’ case, this testimony is not only- contrary to that of plaintiff and his witness, but is thus contradicted by Ernest Merritt, tendered by. defendants, who was riding with the driver on the front seat of the taxi. He says: “At the time that the accident occurred I was partially, half asleep, and when I looked out the man was wrapped up between the lights and fender, and the driver did not know what he had hit and said what did I hit and I says a man, and ha stopped and we ran to the man and picked him up and the first car that came along he was put in it and took him away.”

Texas avenue is a main, well-lighted thoroughfare.

The finding of liability by the trial judge is not only not manifestly erroneous, but, we think, is supported by the clear preponderance of the testimony.

*849In the first judgment rendered plaintiff was awarded $3,194.50. A new trial was granted, at which it was shown that since thedate of the first trial plaintiff had gone hack to his former employment, doing the same work — that of porter — that he had done before, though receiving a smaller wage. It was also shown by medical *testimony*that the only permanent injury, that to the ligaments of the knee, was not so serious-as indicated on the first trial. The district judge accordingly, and, we think, with ample justification, reduced the amount to $2,194.50, with interest and costs.

Defendants appealed, and plaintiff answered, praying that the judgment be increased to $5,000.

As we find no error in the judgment appealed from, it is affirmed.
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 Quarterly  Report of Manchester  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal  quarter ended October 31, 2003, as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Barry R. Steinberg,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) 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: December 11, 2003                 /S/    BARRY R. STEINBERG
                                        -------------------------
                                          Barry R. Steinberg
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kermit Ceasar

v. Civil No. 07-196-JD

United States of America

O R D E R

Defendant has filed a motion to enforce a plea agreement in

Case No. 02-cr-22-01-JD. He is seeking to withdraw his plea or

to be resentenced in accordance with his understanding of the

plea agreement.

This motion is in effect a petition brought pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. On February 17, 2004, the defendant filed a §

2255 petition in Case No. 04-cv-58-JD in which he claimed that

the government breached the plea agreement and his counsel was

ineffective in Case No. 02-cv-22-01-JD. That petition was

dismissed by order of the court dated May 12, 2004, a copy of

which is attached hereto. The court declined to issue a

certificate of appealability and on appeal his request for a

certificate was denied on February 9, 2005 (Court of Appeals

Docket #04-1885).

Case 1:07-cv-00196-JD Document 2 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2

Ceasar v. USA Doc. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
2

The instant motion is a second or successive petition and

must be filed in the Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

June 29, 2007

Attachment

cc: Kermit Ceasar, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00196-JD Document 2 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
FILED

May 21, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, 

AT JACKSON

_______________________________________________________

)

NANCY KNIGHT, ) Carroll County Chancery Court

) No. 97-DR-215

 Plaintiff/Appellee. )

)

VS. ) C.A. No. 02A01-9804-CH-00094

)

HENRY KNIGHT, )

)

 Defendant/Appellant. )

)

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER 

______________________________________________________________________________

The opinion and judgment of this Court filed on March 18, 1999 are withdrawn.

____________________________________

FARMER, J.

____________________________________

CRAWFORD, P.J.,W.S.

____________________________________

LILLARD, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Walter Norton

v.

Cross Border Initiative Task Force, et al.

No. 06-fp-490

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $18.00 is due no later than

February 15, 2007. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s

income credited to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the U.S.

Penitentiary Canaan when the amount in the account exceeds $10.00

until the sum of $350.00 has been paid. Failure to pay the fee

as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted.

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-490-PB.

SO ORDERED.

______________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 11, 2007

cc: Walter Norton, pro se

Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

U.S. Penitentiary Canaan, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:06-cv-00490-PB Document 5 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 1
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 on Form 10-K of CoJax Oil and Gas Corporation, a Virginia corporation (the “Company”), for the year ended December 31, 2022, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey J. Guzy, Chief Executive 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.  Date: November 17, 2023By/s/Jeffrey J. GuzyName:Jeffrey J. GuzyTitle:Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 04-181-PB

Kenneth Knight

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the October 4, 2005

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

engage in plea negotiations or prepare for trial. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement or properly prepare for trial, the

court will continue the trial from October 4, 2005 to January 4,

2006. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds

pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated

reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a continuance

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial.

Case 1:04-cr-00181-PB Document 31 Filed 10/03/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 3, 2005

cc: Stephen Jeffco, Esq.

Mark Howard, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:04-cr-00181-PB Document 31 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
10.1


 


Eighth Amendment to Lease


 


This Amendment to Lease dated
this 1st day of February, 2004 shall further amend the terms of a lease dated
February 3, 1993, as amended, (“Lease”) by and between Jaytee Properties
(“Landlord”) and Republic Bank & Trust Company (“Tenant”) at Republic Bank
Place and any other amendments to such lease.


 


Landlord and Tenant agree that
the following terms of the Lease shall be amended to increase the Tenant’s
square footage by approximately 3,996 square feet.  Tenant shall be responsible for all Tenant Improvement costs
associated with the additional square footage referenced herein.  The Tenant’s rent shall be increased by
$5,661.00, ($17.00 per square foot) per month effective February 1, 2004 and
continue in accordance with the terms of that original lease, as amended,
referenced herein.


 


ARTICLE I.  PREMISES


 


SECTION 1.  Tenant leases from Landlord and Landlord
leases to Tenant the following additional premises (hereinafter called the
“Premises”):


 


Being an additional approximate
3,996 square feet of office space located on the second floor in the Republic
Bank Building (hereinafter called “the Building”) located at Hurstbourne
Parkway and Stone Creek Parkway in Jefferson County, Kentucky, for a total
approximate square footage of 30,969.


 


ARTICLE II.  TERM


 


The Term of this lease, as
amended, shall remain in effect through 6/30/08.


 


ARTICLE III.  RENT AND OPERATING EXPENSES


 


SECTION 1.  Tenant shall pay to Landlord, at Landlord’s
office in the Building or at such place as Landlord may from time to time
designate, as monthly rental for the Premises as of the effective date of this
Amendment, the sum of $43,872.75.


 


 


	
  JAYTEE
  PROPERTIES

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Steve Trager

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  REPUBLIC
  BANK & TRUST COMPANY

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Michael A. Ringswald

  	
   

  



 


1
39

C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm Loans

Percent

Other operating Intermediate non-real- Long-term real

Quarter loans1estate loans estate loans

 Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2001: Q2... 9.3 9.1 8.5

 Q3... 8.8 8.7 8.1

 Q4... 7.9 7.7 7.2

2002: Q1... 7.4 7.5 7.0

 Q2... 7.2 7.2 6.8

 Q3... 6.8 6.7 6.4

 Q4... 6.7 6.6 6.3

2003: Q1... 6.5 6.4 6.1

 Q2... 6.3 6.2 5.9

 Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2001: Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a.

2002: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a.

 Q2... 7.7 7.6 7.1

 Q3... 7.5 7.4 6.9

 Q4... 7.2 7.0 6.6

2003: Q1... 7.0 6.9 6.4

 Q2... 6.9 6.8 6.3

 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and

feeding of livestock (including poultry).

 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District.

 n.a. Not available.

 Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.