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



PROVIDENT AMERICAN CORPORATION                                        EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

(In thousands except per share data)                                      Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                                            1998             1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                        <C>           <C>    
Basic Earnings Per Share

NET INCOME APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK:                                     $ 2,636       $   778
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES:                                                    10,173        10,024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:                                                  $  0.26       $  0.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Diluted Earnings Per Share

NET INCOME APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK:                                     $ 2,636       $   778
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES:
   Common stock                                                             10,173        10,024
   Common stock equivalents applicable to stock options and warrants         1,614         2,096
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Total                                                                 11,787        12,120
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:                                                $  0.22       $  0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 61091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24512]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Notice of Availability of a Novel Dendrimer Based Detection 
Technology for Exclusive, Partially Exclusive or Non-exclusive Licenses

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announces the general availability 
of exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive licenses relative to 
a novel dendrimer technology as described in United States Patent 
<greek-i>6,716,450 entitled ``Enhancing Protein Activity Through 
Nanoencapsulation'', Yin, et al., issued April 6, 2004. Licenses shall 
comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael D. Rausa, U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory, Office of Research and Technology Applications, ATTN: 
AMSRD-ARL-DP-P/Bldg. 434, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425, 
Telephone: (410) 278-5028.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-24512 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF 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 Nayna Networks, Inc. (formerly ResCon
      Technology Corp.), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), the undersigned, Thomas Richtarich, Principal Financial Officer
      of
      the Company, herby 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, as amended; and





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




*Date:
                May 15, 2007*
            By:
            /s/ *Thomas
              Richtarich**Thomas
                Richtarich,*
              *Principal
                Financial Officer*
#### James R. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46353.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 20, 1972.

J. W. Brown, Amarillo, for appellant.

Tom Curtis, Dist. Atty. and Charles Hurd, Asst. Dist. Atty., Amarillo, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.

On July 15, 1971, the appellant waived trial by jury and entered a plea of guilty before the court to an indictment charging him with the offense of possession of marihuana. The punishment was assessed at six years but the imposition of the sentence was suspended and the appellant placed on probation subject to the following conditions :

> 

> 

> (4) Report to E. L. Booch, Courthouse, Potter County, Texas, who is hereby designated Probation Officer, as such officer may direct, but at least once each thirty days;

> 

> (7) Remain within the confines of Potter, Randall and Armstrong Counties of the State of Texas during the term of his probation except by written permission of this court, to be filed with the clerk of this court;

> 

*123On December 27, 1971, the State filed its motion to revoke probation alleging that appellant had violated the foregoing conditions of probation by failing to report since conviction to the probation officer and had travelled to the State of Illinois without written permission of the court.

On January 6, 1972, the court conducted a hearing on such motion after which probation was revoked on the grounds alleged. Sentence was subsequently imposed and notice of appeal given.

Appellant’s court appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief in which he has concluded the appeal is frivolous and wholly without merit. Aware of his duties under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and the procedure recommended in Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), he has served a copy of such brief on the appellant, who has filed a pro se brief. Such pro se brief admits there is “nothing wrong” with the brief filed by counsel and then proceeds to detail appellant’s past difficulties in explaining why he violated probation, etc.

The record reflects that at the revocation hearing the appellant admitted that a copy of the revocation motion had been served upon him; that it had been explained to him by his counsel; that he understood it, and that the allegations were true. Thereafter, a written stipulation was introduced into evidence showing such violations, and the appellant then took the stand and judicially confessed to the alleged violations.

After a careful examination of the record, we conclude that the appeal is wholly without merit.

No motion for rehearing will be filed by the clerk of this court unless leave of the court has first been obtained upon a showing of good cause.

The judgment is affirmed.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

CAE Inc. (the “Company”) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”).

I, Alain Raquepas, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(i)                                                   the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 

 

/s/ Alain Raquepas                              

Alain Raquepas

Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer 

 

Date: June 28, 2010

 

 

----
#### STATE v. ATKINS

No. 9A94-3

Case below: Buncombe County Superior Court

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Buncombe County, denied 27 March 2001.
#### Eugene BRUMMITT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ivy BRUMMITT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 9335.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.

Feb. 13, 1974.

No Appearance, for plaintiff-respondent.

Jay White, Rolla, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Child custody case. Defendant-mother appeals from the refusal of the Circuit Court of Dent County to modify the custody portion of a 1969 divorce decree.

Plaintiff-father was awarded principal custody of the parties’ then five-year-old daughter when the divorce was granted in May of 1969. The defendant was granted general visitation rights and custody of her daughter during summer vacation periods. In August of 1969 defendant sought principal custody of the child by a motion to modify and the court denied the motion the following October. Pursuant to the terms of the original decree the defendant took custody of the child in May of 1970 and filed the present motion to modify the following month. She failed to return the child to the plaintiff at the end of the 1970 summer vacation and following her disqualification of the regular judge a special judge heard the evidence and denied the motion.

We have reviewed the transcript and read defendant’s brief and the authorities cited therein. As we recently said in Kerns v. Kerns, 497 S.W.2d 655 (Mo.App.1973), we conclude “. . . (1) [T]hat posterity will not profit and present generations need not be disconcerted with a detailed recasting of the evidence in this case; (2) that the judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous; (3) that no error of law appears; and (4) that an opinion would have no precedential value.”

Pursuant to Rule 84.16, V.A.M.R. the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21



                     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE WISER OIL COMPANY



T.W.O.C., Inc.
The Wiser Oil Company of Canada
Wiser Delaware LLC
EXHIBIT 32

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 periodic report of Rancon Realty Fund V (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of
Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that I perform the functions of chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the Partnership, and that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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
Partnership at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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 with the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by
the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and
shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission



|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 17, 2006 |  | /s/ Daniel L. Stephenson             
|                        |  | Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner
|                        |  | Rancon Realty Fund V
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2298 

To provide for a lifetime National Recreational Pass for any veteran with 

a service-connected disability, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2014 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for a lifetime National Recreational Pass for 

any veteran with a service-connected disability, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Wounded Veterans 

5 Recreation Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2298 IS

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL RECREATIONAL PASSES FOR DISABLED 

2 VETERANS. 

3 Section 805(b)(2) of the Federal Lands Recreation 

4 Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6804(b)(2)) is amended as 

5 follows: 

6 (1) By inserting ‘‘and for the lifetime of the 

7 passholder’’ after ‘‘without charge’’. 

8 (2) By striking ‘‘charge, to’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘charge, to the following:’’. 

10 (3) By striking ‘‘any United States’’ and insert11 ing the following: 

12 ‘‘(A) Any United States’’. 

13 (4) By inserting after ‘‘residency.’’ the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(B) Any veteran with a service-connected 

16 disability, as defined in section 101 of title 38, 

17 United States Code.’’. 

18 (5) By striking the last sentence. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NO. 07-02-0106-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	MARCH 17, 2003

	______________________________

	RUDY MORENO, AND XAVIER HERNANDEZ,

	D/B/A MONTEREY AUTO SALES, APPELLANTS

	V.

	DAMON RAY DEATHERAGE, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 88,868-2; HONORABLE PAMELA C. SIRMON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellants Rudy Moreno and Xavier Hernandez, d/b/a Monterey Auto Sales, and appellee, Damon Ray Deatherage filed a Joint Motion to Vacate Default Judgment and Dismiss Appeal on February 24, 2003.

	Without passing on the merits of the case, the parties’ joint motion is granted to the extent that the trial court’s judgment is reversed.  The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1)

							Phil Johnson

						    	Chief Justice
EX-10.10



 THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN REDACTED AND IS THE SUBJECT OF A CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT 

REQUEST PURSUANT TO RULE 24b-2. REDACTED MATERIAL IS MARKED WITH [***] AND HAS 

BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. 

Exhibit 10.10 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 

CELLULOSE SPECIALTIES AGREEMENT 
 THIS
AMENDMENT is effective as of January 1, 2012, and is entered into by and between Nantong Cellulose Fibers Co., Ltd. (“Buyer”), and Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC (“Seller”), collectively, the “Parties.” 

WHEREAS, Buyer and Seller entered into a Cellulose Specialties Agreement with an effective date of January 1, 2012 (the “Agreement”);

 WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement to revise the parties respective purchase and sales volumes obligations; 

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to revise certain business terms in the Agreement. 

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows: 
  

	1.	Replace Article 3(a) in its entirety with the following: 

 (a) Buyer shall purchase and Rayonier
shall sell the following annual quantities: 
 2012 *** 

2013 *** 
 2014 *** 

Except as amended above, all remaining provisions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the day and year first above written. 

 

									
	NANTONG CELLULOSE FIBERS CO., LTD.	 		 	RAYONIER PERFORMANCE FIBERS, LLC
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Mao Jun
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Erin Byers

	Name:	 	 Mao Jun
	 		 	Name:	 	 Erin Byers

	Title:	 	 Deputy Gen. Mgr. Administration
	 		 	Title:	 	 VP Sales Market Research

	Date:	 	 11/1/11
	 		 	Date:	 	 11/1/11
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4065

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HERSHEL SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber, Chief

District Judge. (CR-04-122)

Submitted: October 17, 2005 Decided: November 1, 2005

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald L. Stennett, BREWSTER, MORHOUS, CAMERON, CARUTH, MOORE,

KERSEY & STAFFORD, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, John L. File,

Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Hershel Smith appeals his 70-month sentence pursuant to

a guilty plea for possession of 41.1 grams of pseudoephedrine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2) (2000). His sole argument on

appeal is that a remand is warranted because he was sentenced under

a mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines, in

violation of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We

affirm Smith’s sentence.

Because Smith did not object below to the mandatory

application of the guidelines, we review for plain error. United

States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir. 2005). To demonstrate

plain error, a defendant must establish that error occurred, that

it was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights. Id.

(citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)). If a

defendant establishes these requirements, the court has discretion

to correct the error, but “should not exercise . . . [that

discretion] unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness,

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In White, this court determined that imposing a sentence

under the guidelines as mandatory was error that was plain. White,

405 F.3d at 217. In determining whether this error affected the

defendant’s substantial rights, the court reasoned that “the error

of sentencing a defendant under a mandatory guidelines regime” was
- 3 -

not an error for which prejudice would be presumed. Id. at 221.

Rather, the defendant bears the burden of showing that this error

“affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Id. at

223 (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 734). We find that Smith fails to

meet this burden because he presents no non-speculative evidence or

argument demonstrating that he would have received a lower sentence

had the district court appreciated that the guidelines were not

mandatory. We therefore conclude that the district court’s error

of sentencing Smith under a mandatory guidelines scheme did not

affect his substantial rights. 

Accordingly, we affirm Smith’s sentence. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
524 A.2d 1074

#### In Re: Nomination Petitions for Michael Anthony Pinckney. John F. Street, Appellant.

*537Argued April 24, 1987,

before Judge Palladino, and Senior Judges Kalish and Narick, sitting as a panel of three.

*Carl E. Singley,*for appellant.

*William Austin Meehan, Jr.,*for appellee.

April 29, 1987:

Opinion by

Judge Palladino,

John F. Street and Alicia Allison (Appellants) appeal the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia (trial court) which dismissed Appellants’ challenge to the nomination petition of Michael Anthony Pinckney for lack of standing. We affirm the trial court and will consider the standing of each Appellant separately.

Pinckney is a candidate in the Republican party primary election for the office of Councilman for the Fifth Councilmanic District in the City of Philadelphia. Street is the Democrat incumbent in that office, and he *538alleges that his status as the incumbent candidate gives him standing to challenge Pinckney’s nomination petitions. We disagree.

An incumbent candidate has no right or expectancy of continued tenure in his office and has no greater standing than any other voter. Incumbency is irrelevant. *In Re Nominating Petition of Kevin Pasquay,*105 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 532, 525 A.2d 13 (1987).

Street, as a registered Democrat, is ineligible to vote in the Republican primary election, the election for which Pinckney is a candidate. For reasons fully set forth in *Pasquay,*we hold that because he is ineligible to vote in the Republican primary, a registered Democrat does not have standing to challenge the nomination petition of a candidate in the Republican primary election.

The official election records for the county show Allison to be a registered Democrat. She asserts that on April 19, 1985, she changed her name on her registration, intending to retain her party registration as Republican. Irrespective of her assertions, what appears on the official records is binding. The consistent and orderly administration of election procedures mandates this conclusion.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.

Order

And Now, April 29, 1987, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.

Senior Judge Kalish dissents.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellee

PROFESSIONAL COIN GRADING SERVICE , Counterclaim Defendant

- Appellee

v.

DUANE C. BLAKE, Defendant

- Appellant

______________________

2015

- 1296

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 8:14

- cv

- 0033 3- AG

DFM, Judge Andrew J. Guil ford.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M ICHAEL L. M EEKS , Buchalter Nemer, PC, Irvine, CA, argued for plaintiff

- appellee and counterclaim defendant

appellee. Also represented by R OBERT M. D ATO

.

M ATTHEW C ARMINE P HILLIPS , Renaissance IP Law Group LLP, Portland, OR, argued for defendant

-appellant. Also represented by D UANE C. B LAKE , Blake Legal Advisors, Westwood, MA.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A D JUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE , B RYSON , and D YK , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 11, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
1 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

 Plaintiff and Appellee, 

 v. 

LUKE STROMMEN, 

 Defendant and Appellant.

No. DA-21-0086 

ORDER GRANTING 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

EXTENTSION OF TIME TO 

FILE OPENING BRIEF 

 Upon consideration of Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Opening Brief and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

that Appellant’s Opening Brief shall be filed on or before August 30, 2021. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

August 2 2021

08/02/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0086