alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 11Nano-Proprietary, Inc.Computation of Income (Loss) Per Share**

|                                                    |   |   | Three Months ended March 31, |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|                                                    |   |   | 2004                         |   | 2003 |
|                                                    |   |   |                         |   |   |
| Computation of loss per common share:                   |   |   |                         |   |
|                                                    |   |   |                         |   |
|    Net loss applicable to common  shares |   |   | $(1,111,641)                 |   | $(770,969) |
|                                                    |   |   |                         |   |   |
|    Weighted average number of common shares   |   |   | 95,961,000              |   | 79,738,707  |
|                                                    |   |   |                         |   |   |
|    Net income (loss) per common share         |   |   | $(0.01)                      |   | $(0.01) |
|                                                    |   |   |                         |   |   |
|                                                    |   |   |                         |   |   |
| Computation of income ( loss ) per common               |   |   |                         |   |   |
|    share assuming full dilution**             |   |   |                         |   |   |
|                                                    |   |   |                         |   |   |
|                                                    |   |   |                         |   |   |

 

** No computation of diluted loss per common share is included for any period because suchcomputation results in an antidilutive loss per common share.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin LOPEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50297.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lucien B. Campbell, Federal Public Defender, Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Martin Lopezr-Lopez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Lopez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Lopez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Lopez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 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 circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARVIN TOBIAS.

December 16, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2943

___________________________

John Benson; Brian Benson

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Family Tree Corporation, Inc.; Desert Partners IV, L.P.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants

Ann Kemske; Jon Kemske

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

Brigham Oil & Gas, LP; Oasis Petroleum Incorporated

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants

Jodee Lawler; Carolyn Probst; Judge Robin Schmidt

lllllllllllllllllllllMovants

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: August 31, 2021

Filed: September 7, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________
Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity action, Minnesota residents John and Brian Benson appeal the

district court’s1

 grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on res judicata. We

affirm.

To begin, we conclude the defendants properly raised the defense of res

judicata in their motion to dismiss. See C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Lobrano,

695 F.3d 758, 763-64 (8th Cir. 2012) (res judicata may be raised as affirmative

defense in motion to dismiss; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal

appropriately based on affirmative defense apparent from face of the complaint,

public records, and materials embraced by the complaint). Further, we need not reach

the Bensons’ claim for declaratory relief argument because they did not raise it in

their response to the motion to dismiss and instead urged the district court to accept

the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concluding the claim was barred

by claim preclusion. See Ridenour v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 679 F.3d

1062, 1067 (8th Cir. 2012) (A party “must present all his claims squarely to the

magistrate judge . . . to preserve them for review.”).

Finally, after careful de novo review, we conclude that dismissal of the

Bensons’ tort claims was proper. See Laase v. County of Isanti, 638 F.3d 853, 856

(8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing de novo the grant of motion to dismiss for failure to state

a claim based on res judicata and relying on the law of forum that rendered first

judgment to control res judicata analysis); see also Finstad v. Beresford Bancorp.,

1The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting in part the report and recommendation of the Honorable

David T. Schultz, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-
831 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2016) (noting elements of claim preclusion under

North Dakota law). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1011 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 1011

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 24, 2018.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 184) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider 
in the House the bill (H.R. 6311) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify the definition of 
qualified health plan for purposes of the health insurance premium tax credit 
and to allow individuals purchasing health insurance in the individual market to 
purchase a lower premium copper plan. All points of order against consideration 
of the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-83 shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on 
any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-72,029]

      ( print page 65514)    
                    By application sent to this office on April 8, 2010, the United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Local 1124, requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on February 19, 2010, and the Notice of Determination was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 11925). The workers produce interior automotive components.                

The negative determination was based on the findings that neither a significant number nor proportion of workers at the subject facility was totally or partially separated, or threatened with such separation, during the relevant period.

The UAW asserts that the Department has misinterpreted the statute and states that “as many as 830 Visteon workers were notified that they would be replaced” and asserts that about 1,800 workers were employed at the subject firm.

The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

## Conclusion

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of October 2010.

Del Min Amy Chen,

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-26897 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
# Coronal Mass Ejections – NASA

Official National Aeronautics and Space Administration Website

- A New Space Instrument Captures Its First Solar Eruption For new Sun-watching spacecraft, the first solar eruption is always special. On February 12, 2021, a little more than a year from its launch, the European Space Agency and NASA’s Solar Orbiter caught sight of this coronal mass ejection, or CME. This view is from the mission’s SoloHI instrument — short for Solar Orbiter Heliospheric [&#8230;]
- MMS: Five Years, Four Spacecraft, Thousands of Inspired Students “Most kids’ eyes light up when I say, ‘your cell phone service could be interrupted because of solar activity,’” said Troy Cline. Space weather, such as coronal mass ejections, or CMEs, which are large outbursts on the sun, can affect Earth’s magnetic field. A change in Earth’s magnetic field may cause current surges in power [&#8230;]
- CME Week: How NASA Watches CMEs Two main types of explosions occur on the sun: solar flares and coronal mass ejections. Unlike the energy and x-rays produced in a solar flare – which can reach Earth at the speed of light in eight minutes – coronal mass ejections are giant clouds of solar material that take one to three days to [&#8230;]
- CME Week: Mapping the Journey of a Giant Coronal Mass Ejection Two main types of explosions occur on the sun: solar flares and coronal mass ejections. Unlike the energy and X-rays produced in a solar flare – which can reach Earth at the speed of light in eight minutes – coronal mass ejections are giant clouds of solar material that take one to three days to [&#8230;]
- CME Week: Coronal Mass Ejections at Mars Two main types of explosions occur on the sun: solar flares and coronal mass ejections. Unlike the energy and X-rays produced in a solar flare – which can reach Earth at the speed of light in eight minutes – coronal mass ejections are giant clouds of solar material that take one to three days to [&#8230;]
- Another Earth-Directed CME On August 21, 2013 at 1:24 am EDT, the sun erupted with an Earth-directed coronal mass ejection, or CME, a solar phenomenon that can send billions of tons of particles into space and reach Earth one to three days later. These particles cannot travel through the atmosphere to harm humans on Earth, but they can [&#8230;]
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

Huttig Building Products, Inc. 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos.333-92495, 333-92497, 333-92499, 333-75610, 333-81410, and 333-131090 on Form S-8, and registration statement No. 333-130525 on Form S-3 of Huttig Building Products, Inc. of our reports dated March 8, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balancesheets of Huttig Building Products, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December31, 2005, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 which reports appear in theDecember 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Huttig Building Products, Inc. 

 

/s/ KPMG,LLP 

 

St. Louis, Missouri 

March 8, 2006
No. 8.

#### O. P. Gaines *et al.*plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Wm. Wedgeworth *et al.*defendants in error.

[1.] A motion to amend a confession of judgment, was made on the following affidavit of the Attorneys who gave the confession: “It was distinctly understood and stated by deponents, that we would confess judgment to the plaintiff, reserving the right to appeal, and that said confession was written out by Counsel for plaintiffs and signed by Col. Crook, without said reservation, by mistake or inadvertence.” The motion was granted: *Meld,*that it was properly granted.

Ejectment, in Chattooga Superior Court. Tried before Judge Trippe, September Term, 1855.

The defendant below confessed judgment to the plaintiff for the premises in dispute, and $25 *mesne*profits. From this confession he appealed. A motion was made to dismiss this appeal, because the liberty of appeal was not reserved. Defendant then moved to amend his confession of judgment,, and filed the affidavit of his Attorneys, A. B. Culberson and L. W. Crook, that “ it was distinctly understood and stated by deponents, that we would confess judgment to the plaintiffs, reserving the right to appeal; and that said confession tyas written out by Counsel for plaintiffs and signed by Col. *32Crook without said reservation, by mistake or inadvertence.”'

The Court allowed the amendment, and this decision is assigned as error.

Wright, for plaintiffs in error.

Underwood, represented by Hull, for defendants*

*By the Court.*

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

Courts have power, under the 'Act of 1818, to allow confessions of judgment to be amended in the manner in which it was proposed to be done in this case. *(Pr. Digest,*441. *Seymour vs. Howard,*15 *Ga. R.*110.)

The case was one in which the exercise of the power was proper.

The showing for leave to amend amounts to this: The Attorneys who gave the confession announced to the Court that they were willing to confess a judgment, with a reservation of the right of appeal. This they thought was heard and agreed to by the Attorneys on the other side; therefore, they thought that those Attorneys, in writing out the confession, would insert in it a reservation of the right of appeal. And for this reason, they did not examine the confession, to see whether iff contained the reservation or not. This is a case of inadvertence. In a case not dissimilar in principle, this Court decided that the party confessing was entitled to a bill in Equity for a new trial. *Booth and another vs. Stamper,*(6 *Ga. R.*172.)

But why should a party be compelled to go into Equity, when his object may be better accomplished at Law, by an amendment consisting in five words — “reserving the right of' appeal.”

We think the judgment allowing the amendment was right... See *Little vs. Ingram et al.*(16 *Ga. R.*194.)
Exhibit 31.1
I, Thomas A. Daiber, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Centrue FinancialCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; b) [intentionally omitted] c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: November 12, 2004 /s/ Thomas A. Daiber  Thomas A. Daiber Chief Executive Officer