alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                 EXHIBIT 11.1
                    TECHFORCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK
 FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND JUNE 30, 1996 AND THE THREE MONTHS
                     ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND JUNE 30, 1996

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                Quarter Ended  Quarter Ended    Six Months Ended    Six Months Ended
                                                                June 30, 1997  June 30, 1996     June 30, 1997       June, 30 1996
                                                                ------------   --------------   --------------      ------------
<S>                                                             <C>            <C>              <C>                 <C> 
Primary: 
    Weighted average shares outstanding ................           8,027,174       7,905,500          8,003,929           7,905,500
    Net effect of dilutive securities, based on the
      treasury stock and if-converted methods ..........             267,056               0            291,776             488,647
                                                                ------------  --------------     --------------        ------------
Total Shares used in computation  ......................           8,294,230       7,905,500          8,295,705           8,394,147

Net Income  ............................................        $    933,000  $     (508,000)    $    1,893,000        $    399,000

Net income per common and common equivalent share ......        $       0.11  $        (0.06)    $         0.23        $       0.05


Fully diluted:
    Weighted average shares outstanding ................           8,027,174       7,905,500          8,003,929           7,905,500
    Net effect of dilutive securities, based on the
      treasury stock and if-converted methods ..........             312,953               0            326,793             488,647
                                                                ------------  --------------     --------------        ------------
Total Shares used in computation  ......................           8,340,127       7,905,500          8,330,722           8,394,147

Net Income  ............................................        $    933,000  $     (508,000)    $    1,893,000        $    399,000

Net income per common and common equivalent share ......        $       0.11  $        (0.06)    $         0.23        $       0.05

</TABLE>
CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




To the
Board of Directors of


Senesco
Technologies, Inc.




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Numbers 333-157417,
333-140238 and 333-104105 on Form S-8 and Registration Numbers 333-148779,
333-146691 and 333-138405 of our report dated September 26, 2007 on the
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows of
Senesco Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiary for the year ended June 30, 2007,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30,
2009.  Our report dated September 26, 2007 relating to the
consolidated financial statements includes an emphasis paragraph relating to an
uncertainty as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going
concern.






/s/
GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP


New York,
New York




October
27, 2009
Exhibit 32.2

         Certification of Chief Financial Officer of FirstBank NW Corp.
  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 accompanying Annual Report on From 10-KSB of FirstBank NW
Corp. ("the Company") for the year ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Larry
K. Moxley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 19
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

          o    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)
               and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
               and

          o    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the Company's financial condition and results
               of operations.


/s/ LARRY K. MOXLEY
-------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  June 9, 2004
NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0463n.06 No. 08-1260 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

TERRANCE L OMBA RD, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,

v. UAW I NTERNATI ONAL

UNI ON, L ocal 174, Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B e fo re : B OG GS, Chi e f Jud g e ; B AT CH EL DE R and CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. COOK, Circuit J udg e. Terr ance L ombard a ppeals the de cision of the district cour t to enter summary judgme nt for the UA W I nternational Union and i ts L ocal 174 chapter . L ombard sued the de fe nd a nts -a

pp e lle e s f

or br e a c hin g the ir

du ty of fa ir re pr e se ntat ion

in a g ri e va nc e a g a ins t hi s employ er, Chrome Craft Corporation. After r eviewingthe re cord, the applicabl e l aw , and the part ie s ’ b r ie f

s , w e f in d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c a r e f u ll y a n d c o r

r e c tl y s e t f

o rth th e f acts a nd the g overninglaw. This cour t’s issuance of

a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be duplicative, a

nd so we aff

irm the g rant of summary judgme nt, a dopting the r easoningof the district court’s opinion of F ebrua ry 7, 2008.
#### I. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Charles Saul.

(No. 3434.)

Appeal from Williamson County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§716, *Cost .of transcript on appeal; how adjudged; case stated.*On a former day we reversed and rendered the judgment in this cause adjudging the costs of the appeal against the appellee. It appears that this is a second appeal from judgments rendered in the cause by the county court. The first appeal was prosecuted by appellant from a judgment by default, and the judgment was reversed and cause remanded because service of citation, had not been had upon appellant. On the second appeal the judgment was reversed because it was excessive. In reversing the judgments on each appeal the costs of the appeal were adjudged.against the.appellee. *629In reversing the judgment on the last appeal this court proceeded to render such judgment as should have been rendered in the court below; that is, for the amount that appellee was entitled to recover up to that date, to wit, the principal damages, interest, and all costs of the suit, except the costs which accrued on the former appeal, at the same time adjudging against appellee the costs of the last appeal. Appellee having been in the wrong in both instances in the lower court, thereby" occasioning the appeals, it is but just that he should pay all the costs thus occasioned. These costs justly include the clerk’s fees in the lower court for making out the transcripts in both appeals. In our opinion whenever a judgment on appeal to this court is reversed and rendered, and the costs of the appeal are adjudged against the appellee, such costs include the cost of the transcript. In this case the transcript contains a bill of all the costs, including both transcripts, and the motion of appellant to tax the cost of both appeals, including the cost of the two transcripts, against appellee, is sustained, and judgment rendered accordingly.

May 20, 1885.

Motion to retax costs sustained.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                      TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT RESTAURANT CORP.
                      REPORT ON FORM 10-K DECEMBER 31, 2002

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

     The undersigned, Chief Financial Officer of Total Entertainment Restaurant
Corp. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to the best of my knowledge, that the
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Annual
Report") accompanying this certification fully complies with the requirements of
the Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. The foregoing certification is incorporated solely
for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended to be used for any other purpose.




     Date     March 28, 2003                     /s/ James K. Zielke
          ----------------------                 ----------------------------
                                                 James K. Zielke
                                                 Chief Financial Officer,
                                                 Secretary and Treasurer











                                      -41-
**Exhibit21.1**

*** ***

***LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES***

 

 

 

 

1.             On StageProductions, Inc., a Nevada corporation

2.             On Stage Events,Inc., a Nevada corporation

3.             On Stage CasinoEntertainment, Inc., a Nevada corporation

4.             On StageMerchandise, Inc., a Nevada corporation

5.             On Stage Theaters,Inc., a Nevada corporation*

6.             Fort Liberty, Inc.,a Nevada corporation

7.             On Stage TheatersSurfside Beach, Inc., a Nevada corporation

8.             Blazing Piano’s,Inc., a Nevada corporation

9.             King Henry’s, Inc.,a Nevada corporation

10.           Legends in Concert,Inc., a Nevada corporation

11.           On Stage Marketing,Inc., a Nevada corporation

12.           Wild BillsCalifornia, Inc., a Nevada corporation

13.           On Stage TheatersNorth Myrtle Beach, Inc., a Nevada corporation

14.           On Stage Theaters Branson, LLC, aNevada limited liability company

15.           Branson On Stage, LLC, a Nevadalimited liability company

16.           Country Tonite Branson, LLC, a Nevadalimited liability company

17.           Legends in Concert Hawaii, LLC, aNevada limited liability company

 

 

*On Stage Theaters, Inc. does business as On Stage Dinner Theaters,Inc. in California.

 

 

----
**Exhibit 32**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

I, Paul Clewlow, Principal Executive Officerand Principal Financial Officer of Arazu Incorporated (the “Company”) certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form10-K of the Company;

 

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

 

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

 

Date: September 19, 2018

 

/s/ Paul Clewlow	

Paul Clewlow

Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3Number 333-116940, as amended, and Form S-8 Number 333-123060 previouslyfiled by iVow, Inc. of our report, dated March 20, 2006, on theconsolidated financial statements of iVOW, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31,2005 and 2004 and for the years then ended, which report includes anexplanatory paragraph related to the ability of iVOW, Inc and Subsidiary tocontinue as a going concern and appears in this annual report on Form 10-KSBfor the year ended December 31, 2005.

 
| /s/ J. H. COHN LLP    |   |   |
|-----------------------|--------|--------|
| San Diego, California |   |
| March 31, 2006   |   |

 

----
Exhibit 10.4
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
  RECITALS
      ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
 Confidential Information .
 Invention .
 - 1 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE II
EMPLOYMENT, COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
 Employment With MakeMusic .
 Term .
 Duties .
     Outside Activities .
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Base Salary .
 Fringe Benefits From MakeMusic .
   Vacation .
 Expenses .
 ARTICLE III
TERMINATION
 Events of Termination .
  - 3 -




---



##### 



Compensation Upon Termination of Executives Employment .
    - 4 -




---



##### 



- 5 -




---



##### 



- 6 -




---



##### 



Return of MakeMusic Property .
 - 7 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE IV
PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS AND
CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS DATA
 Confidential Information .
 Maintain in Confidence .
     Return of Information .
 - 8 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE V
COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE
 Noncompete and Nonsolicitation .
     - 9 -




---



##### 



Understandings .
 ARTICLE VI
INVENTIONS
 Disclosure .
    Assignment of Ownership .
 Excluded Inventions .
 - 10 -




---



##### 



Prior Inventions .
 Specific Performance .
 ARTICLE VII
ARBITRATION
 Agreement to Arbitrate .
 Discovery .
 Costs .
 - 11 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE VIII
CERTAIN MAKEMUSIC REMEDIES; ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
 Certain MakeMusic Remedies .
 Payment of Fees and Expenses .
 ARTICLE IX
INDEMNIFICATION
 Indemnification .
 ARTICLE X
MISCELLANEOUS
 Survival of Provisions .
 Notification of Restrictive Covenants
 Severability
 - 12 -




---



##### 



Governing Law .
 Successors .
 Waiver .
 Notices .
    Modification .
 Code Section 409A
 Counterparts .
 - 13 -




---



##### 



No Strict Construction .
 - 14 -




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 EXECUTIVE/s/ Karen L. VanDerBoschKaren L. VanDerBoschMAKEMUSIC, INC./s/ Ronald B. RaupRonald B. RaupChief Executive Officer - 15 -
#### CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MICHIGAN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 4D10-1794.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 27, 2010.

Scot E. Samis of Abbey, Adams, Byel-ick, Kiernan, Mueller, Marone & Samis, L.L.P., Saint Petersburg, for appellant.

Mary K. Fortson and Kelly L. Kubiak of Merlin Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for appel-lee.

GERBER, J.

An insurer appeals from a circuit court order granting the insured’s motion to compel an appraisal before the court re*178solved the parties’ underlying coverage dispute. The insurer argues that the order conflicts with our holding that a trial court “must resolve all underlying coverage disputes prior to ordering an appraisal.” *Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Corridori,*28 So.3d 129, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). We agree and reverse.

The insured argues that *Corridori*is distinguishable because there, the insurer denied coverage *before*the insured filed suit, whereas here the insurer denied coverage *after*the insured filed suit. According to the insured, the insurer’s failure to deny coverage before the insured filed suit constitutes a waiver of the insurer’s right to deny coverage.

We disagree with the insured’s argument. “ Waiver is the intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right or conduct which warrants an inference of the relinquishment of a known right.’” *Aberdeen Golf & Country Club v. Bliss Constr., Inc.,*932 So.2d 235, 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citation omitted). We see nothing in the record which suggests that the insurer intentionally, voluntarily, or inferentially relinquished its right to deny coverage. Rather, the insurer still was investigating the claim at the time the insured filed suit.

The insured also argues that we should allow the appraisal to go forward while preserving the insurer’s right to contest coverage. In support, the insured relies on *Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Rawlins,*34 So.3d 753 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), in which the third district held that a circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an appraisal to go forward on a “dual track” basis while preserving the insurer’s right to contest coverage as a matter of law. *Id.*at 755.

We respectfully disagree with *Rawlins’*recognition of a dual-track approach. We appreciate the third district’s rationale that the dual-track approach may save “ ‘judicial resources which might otherwise be required in resolving the factual and legal issues involved in the [coverage issue] by a relatively swift and informal decision by the appraisers as to the amount of the loss.’ ” *Id.*(citation omitted). However, we believe that “[a] finding of liability necessarily precedes a determination of damages.” *Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.,*945 So.2d 1246, 1262-63 (Fla.2006). We certify conflict with *Rawlins.*

*Reversed.*

MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, October 19, 2010, 11 a.m. to October 19, 2010, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 17, 2010, 75 FR 57042-57043.                

The meeting will be two days—October 18, 2010, from 8 a.m. to October 19, 2010, 5 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: September 28, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-24783 Filed 10-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### In the Matter of MIDWEST AIRMOVING CORP., Bankrupt. NOLL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, v. Theodore R. SPILKA, Plaintiff-Appellee.

No. 14046.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

May 9, 1960.

Holland, J., dissented.

*793Stanley B. Wiener, Howard L. Sokolsky, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

Theodore R. Spilka, Marvin L. Gardner, Roemisch, Wright & Zimmerman, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.

Before CECIL and WEICK, Circuit Judges, and HOLLAND, Senior District Judge.

ORDER.

This cause is on appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, whereby the District Judge affirmed an order of the Referee in Bankruptcy. The order of the Referee held that a certain instrument denominated a lease was in fact a conditional sales contract; that it had not been recorded in the county wherein the machinery which was the subject of the contract was located, in accordance with the requirements of Section 1319.11, Ohio Revised Code; that by reason thereof the vendor, Noll Equipment Company, had no lien on the machinery in question; and that the trustee in bankruptcy was entitled to the proceeds of the sale of said machinery for the benefit of the creditors of the bankrupt, Midwest Air-moving Corporation.

The appeal was submitted to the Court upon the record, including the Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Memorandum of the Referee, and the order of the District Judge on Petition to Review, the briefs and oral arguments of counsel.

Upon consideration whereof the Court finds that under the law of Ohio a factual question is presented to be determined from the intention of the parties and all the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction in question; that the facts as found by the Referee are supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous; and that the conclusions of law drawn by the Referee are correct.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the District Court be and it is hereby affirmed.

Section 110, sub. c, Title 11 U.S.C.A. On conditional sales contracts see: Uni-type Co. v. Long, 6 Cir., 143 F. 315; Potter Mfg. Co. v. Arthur, 6 Cir., 220 F. 843; In re Pickett, 37 Ohio Law Rep. 153.

HOLLAND, J., dissents.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Clayton MINGO.

No. 2010-KK-2601.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2010.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. C, No. 492 — 469; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1528.

Stay denied. Writ denied.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Pehong Chen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of BroadVision, Inc., certifythat:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BroadVision, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: September 25, 2006 /s/ PEHONG CHEN   Pehong Chen   *Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer*