alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                        


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                                  ODWALLA, INC.

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                           Three Months Ended
                                                               November 30,

                                                        1995                1996
                                                        ----                ----
<S>                                                 <C>                <C>

Weighted average shares of
     common stock outstanding
     for the period                                 4,895,000          4,958,000

Weighted  average common
     share equivalents (1)                                  -                  -
                                                    ---------          ---------

Shares used in computing
     net earnings per share                         4,895,000          4,958,000
                                                    =========          =========
</TABLE>



(1)  The effect of common stock equivalents is not presented as it would be 
     anti-dilutive.
#### SINGER SUPERMARKETS, INC. v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY THROUGH RUSSELL MULLEN, ACTING COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

June 7, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1718 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1718

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  3710 West 73rd Terrace in Prairie Village, Kansas, as the ``Senator 
                     James B. Pearson Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SENATOR JAMES B. PEARSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3710 West 73rd Terrace in Prairie Village, Kansas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Senator James B. Pearson Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Senator 
James B. Pearson Post Office.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT 10.10 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
---------------------------------------------------------

As independent public accountants,  we hereby consent to  the use of our  report
(and to all  references made to  our firm) included  in or made  a part of  this
registration statement.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 22, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27562]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Inherited Disease Research Access 
Committee.
    Date: November 17, 2010.
    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 
4069, Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Ken D. Nakamura, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, MSC 
9306, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-402-0838.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 26, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-27562 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### MICHAEL DOLIANITES, ET AL. v. MARC SONBOLIAN AND THOMAS R. TINGHINO.

November 21, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH BORATTO AND MARTIN SILVERMAN.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification granted. (See 154 *N. J. Super.*386)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY EUGENE LEWIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

KING COUNTY; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35527 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01112-JLR 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Anthony Eugene Lewis appeals pro se from the district court’s summary 

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims related to 

Washington’s sex offender registration requirements. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 29 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-35527 

607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lewis’s Eighth 

Amendment claim because Washington’s sex offender registration statute does not 

impose criminal punishment. See State v. Ward, 869 P.2d 1062, 1068-69 (Wash. 

1994) (Washington’s sex offender registry serves a regulatory, rather than punitive, 

purpose).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lewis’s 

Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and substantive due process claims

because Lewis failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the 

sex offender registration statute is not rationally related to a legitimate state 

interest. See United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 

2012) (statute that does not burden a protected class or a fundamental right will be 

upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest); Ward, 869 P.2d at 

1077 (sex offender registration statute advances the valid state interest of assisting

law enforcement).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lewis’s 

Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim because Lewis failed to raise 

a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the registration requirement was

not based on his prior criminal conviction. See Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d at 1014 

(no additional due process required where the requirement to register is based 
3 17-35527 

solely on prior conviction).

AFFIRMED.
#### Strange and Another *v.*Lowe and Another.

In an action on a delivery-bond, the declaration must set out a judgment, &e., and an execution, showing that the sheriff was authorized to seize the property and take the bond.

Where there are several plaintiffs, the declaration must show a *prima facie*title in them all to sue.

ERROR, to the *Hendricks*Circuit Court.

Dewey, *J.*

J. *Lowe, E. Lowe,*and *Sample,*brought an action of debt, for the use of the *Lowes,*against *Dicken*and *Strange.*The declaration alleges that *J. Lowe*and *E. Lowe,*on, &c., recovered a judgment against *Dicken*(describing it); that, on, &c., the sheriff of *Hendricks*county, by virtue of an execution issued on that judgment against *Dicken*and “ one *William C. Cline,*the replevy-bail on said judgment, and by virtue of a certain other execution, issued from the office of the clerk of said Circuit Court, in favour of said *Sample,*and against said *Dicken*and said *Cline*and one *Jesse Woodward,*replevy-bail,” levied on certain property of *Dickon’s*“to satisfy said judgment;” that afterwards, on, &c., the defendants executed their delivery-bond, in favour of the plaintiffs, for the property so taken (describing the bond and its condition). The breach assigned is the non*244delivery of the property according to the condition of the bond. The defendants demurred to the declaration (assigning several causes of demurrer which it is unnecessary to state, as we shall view the demurrer as a general one). The demurrer was overruled, and an interlocutory judgment entered. Damages assessed by the Court by consent, and final judgment for the plaintiffs.

*C. C. Nave,*for the plaintiffs.

*J. S. Harvey*and *J. H. Bradley,*for the defendants.

We think the decision wrong. The declaration is substantially defective. To sustain this action it was necessary for the plaintiffs to show a judgment, or judgments, and an execution or executions issued thereon, which would authorize the sheriff to seize property, and to take a bond for its delivery in favour of the plaintiffs. The declaration sets out sufficiently a judgment in favour of the two *Lowes*against Lichen, but it sets out none in favour of *Sample,*or against *Cline*and *Woodward.*Simply alleging that *Sample*recovered a judgment against *Lichen,*and that *Cline*and *Woodward*were replevy-bail, is not enough. The judgment and the manner of entering bail should be described, that the Court may judge of their validity; and for the same reason, the substance of the executions should be stated. Without all this there is no foundation for the delivery-bond. And such a foundation must be shown in favour of all the plaintiffs. The allegation that the suit was brought for the use of the *Lowes*does not alter the case. A *prima facie*legal title to sue must appear in all the plaintiffs.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JIMMIE LEE ALLEN.

May *2,*1978.

Petition for certification denied. (See *155 N. J. Super.*582)
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Paritosh K. Choksi, ExecutiveVice President of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of ATEL CashDistribution Fund V, L.P. (the “Partnership”), certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1.                                       The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBof the Partnership for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Partnership.

 
| Date:     August 15,  2005 |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                     |   |
|                                                     |   |
| /s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                                   |   |   |
| Paritosh K. Choksi                                       |   |
| Executive Vice President  of General Partner,            |   |
| Principal Financial  Officer of Registrant               |   |
|                                                          |        |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnershipand will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
|Exhibit 32
|----------

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

This certification is given by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Venture Financial Group, Inc. (the "Registrant") pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, with respect to the Registrant's quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), 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 Registrant.



|/s/ Ken F. Parsons, Sr.Ken F. Parsons, Sr.Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board(principal executive officer)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Sandra L. SagerSandra L. Sager, CPAExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|August 14, 2007
|---------------

39

---
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|Subsidiaries                                                                                      |  | Place of
Incorporation
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|                                                                                                  |  |                       
|QDM Holdings Limited                                                                              |  | British Virgin Islands
|24/7 Kid Doc, Inc.                                                                                |  | Florida               
|QDM Group Limited                                                                                 |  | Hong Kong             
|Hong Kong YeeTah Insurance Broker Limited (formerly known as YeeTah Insurance Consultant Limited) |  | Hong Kong             
|Lutter Global Limited                                                                             |  | British Virgin Islands
|QDMI Software Group Limited                                                                       |  | Cyprus
# History of Hubble Space Telescope (HST)

In this photograph, the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) was being deployed on April 25, 1990. The photograph was taken by the IMAX Cargo Bay Camera (ICBC) mounted in a container on the port side of the Space Shuttle orbiter Discovery (STS-31 mission). The purpose of the HST, the most complex and sensitive optical telescope ever made, is to study the cosmos from a low-Earth orbit for 15 years or more. The HST provides fine detail imaging, produces ultraviolet images and spectra, and detects very faint objects. Two months after its deployment in space, scientists detected a 2-micron spherical aberration in the primary mirror of the HST that affected the telescope's ability to focus faint light sources into a precise point. This imperfection was very slight, one-fiftieth of the width of a human hair. A scheduled Space Service servicing mission (STS-61) in 1993 permitted scientists to correct the problem. During four spacewalks, new instruments were installed into the HST that had optical corrections. The Marshall Space Flight Center had responsibility for design, development, and construction of the HST. The Perkin-Elmer Corporation, in Danbury, Cornecticut, developed the optical system and guidance sensors. Photo Credit: NASA/Smithsonian Institution/Lockheed Corporation.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-9015550/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenApril 25, 1990ProducerMSFCSize1920x1480pxPIA Number9015550The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Aug 30, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              12,756
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      147,159
<ALLOWANCES>                                         6,601
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   160,916
<PP&E>                                             122,559
<DEPRECIATION>                                      86,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     278,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              132,017
<BONDS>                                            113,638
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            16,361
<OTHER-SE>                                          16,253
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       278,692
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   409,916
<CGS>                                              335,225
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      389,091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,194
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     20,894
<INCOME-TAX>                                        10,447
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 10,416
<DISCONTINUED>                                       8,678
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        19,094
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
                                                

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         106,730
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,999,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                   368,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,884,335
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,296,275
<PP&E>                                       9,029,542
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,685,402)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,462,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,212,953
<BONDS>                                      2,182,783
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,664,809
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,134)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,462,857
<SALES>                                      3,186,910
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,186,910
<CGS>                                        2,084,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,455,932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,208
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,158,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,513,948)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,503,149)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,503,149)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)
        

</TABLE>
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1768

AN ACT

To extend the national flood insurance program.

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 ‘‘National Flood Insur5 ance Program Reauthorization Act of 2004’’.
 †

2

S 1768 ES

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PRO2 GRAM.

3 (a) EXTENSION.—The National Flood Insurance Act

4 of 1968 is amended—

5 (1) in section 1309(a)(2) (42 U.S.C.

6 4016(a)(2)), by striking ‘‘December 31, 2003’’ and

7 inserting ‘‘December 31, 2004’’;

8 (2) in section 1319 (42 U.S.C. 4026), by strik9 ing ‘‘after’’ and all that follows through the period

10 at the end and inserting ‘‘after December 31,

11 2004.’’;

12 (3) in section 1336(a) (42 U.S.C. 4056(a)), by

13 striking ‘‘ending’’ and all that follows through ‘‘in’’

14 and inserting ‘‘ending December 31, 2004, in’’; and

15 (4) in section 1376(c) (42 U.S.C. 4127), by

16 striking ‘‘December 31, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘De17 cember 31, 2004’’.

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

19 this section shall be considered to have taken effect on

20 December 31, 2003.

Passed the Senate October 27, 2003.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1768

AN ACT

To extend the national flood insurance program.