alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

FRESH CHOICE, INC.
COMPUTATIONS OF NET INCOME PER COMMON AND EQUIVALENT SHARE
(In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                Twelve Weeks Ended     Twenty-Four Weeks Ended
                               --------------------    -----------------------
                               June 15,    June 16,     June 15,     June 16,
                                 1997        1996         1997         1996
                               --------    --------     --------     --------
<S>                             <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>
Net income (loss)               $ 233        $  95       $ (416)      $ (771) 
                                =====        =====       ======       ======    
Weighted average common
  shares outstanding            5,663        5,646        5,662        5,605

Common share equivalents(1)     1,191           40            -            -
                                -----        -----       ------       ------    
Shares used in computation      6,854        5,686        5,662        5,605
                                =====        =====       ======       ======

Net loss per common and
  equivalent share              $0.03        $0.02       $(0.07)      $(0.14)
                                =====        =====       ======       ======
</TABLE>


(1) Common share equivalents relating to stock options, warrants and
    convertible preferred shares have been excluded from the computations for 
    the twenty-four weeks ended June 15, 1997 and June 16, 1996 as they would 
    be anti-dilutive.
#### Antoneth Dawkins, Respondent, v Otis Stone, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[787 NYS2d 884]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Otis Stone appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated May 14, 2004, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

After the plaintiff placed this matter on the trial calendar, the appellant timely moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. In support, he offered the deposition testimony of the plaintiff. This testimony was sufficient to make out a prima facie case that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of a vehicle which collided with the back of the vehicle owned by the appellant and then left the scene without stopping *(see National Interstate v A.J. Murphy Co., Inc.,*9 AD3d 714 [2004]). In response, the plaintiff, a passenger in the vehicle owned by the appellant, failed to show the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was any negligence on the part of the appellant or the driver of the vehicle owned by him. Accordingly, summary judgment should have been granted to the appellant *(see National Interstate v A.J. Murphy Co., Inc., supra; Drake v Drakoulis,*304 AD2d 522 [2003]; *Leandre v Sharperson,*96 AD2d 883 [1983]; *see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 *589NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]). Florio, J.P., Cozier, Krausman and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 3.2

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT  OF  RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION  OF  WATER PIK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Water Pik Technologies, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby
certify:

FIRST:
That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of Water Pik Technologies, Inc. resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment to the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and directing that the amendment proposed be considered at the next annual meeting of the stockholders of said corporation.
The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

RESOLVED,
that the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be amended by changing the Tenth Article thereof so that, as amended said Article shall be and read in its
entirety as follows:



1

---





SECOND:
That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, an annual meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and held upon notice in accordance
with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting the necessary number of
shares as required by statute and by the corporation's restated certificate of incorporation were voted in favor of the amendment.

THIRD:
That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

FOURTH:
That this Certificate of Amendment of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation shall be effective upon filing with the Delaware Secretary of State.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, said Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by Michael P. Hoopis, its President and Chief Executive Officer, on November 29, 2005.

| |  | WATER PIK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
| |  | ----------------------------
| |  |                             
| |  | By                          

2

---



QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of Estate of Barbara W. Boothe, Deceased, Appellant, v Alpha Development Corp. et al., Respondents.

[789 NYS2d 269]

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to RRAFL 1602 to impose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the respondent Alpha Development Corp., the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erice, J.), dated September 25, 2003, which granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition and cancelling the notice of pendency.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent Alpha Development Corp. (hereinafter Alpha) agreed to purchase certain real property from the petitioner. At the closing, Alpha asserted that the property lacked a water meter and that there was an illegal extension to a structure on the property, and sought a $10,000 reduction in the purchase price to correct those alleged defects. The petitioner agreed and the sale was concluded. The petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding to impose a mortgage on the property and filed a notice of pendency. The petitioner asserted that he subsequently learned that the extension was, in fact, legal and that the property had a water meter. Thus, he alleged, he was fraudulently induced into selling the property for $10,000 less than the agreed-to price by the respondents’ misrepresentations. The Supreme Court granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition and cancelling the notice of pendency. We affirm.

With respect to a contract for the sale of real property, unless the facts allegedly misrepresented involved matters peculiarly within one party’s knowledge, the other party must make use of the means available to learn, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth of such matters or he or she will not be heard to complain that he or she was induced to enter into a transaction by such misrepresentations (see *Schumaker v Mather,*133 NY 590, 596 [1892]; *Fabozzi v Coppa,*5 AD3d 722, 724 [2004]; *703
      *Fiorilla v County of Putnam,*1 AD3d 475, 476 [2003]). Here, the alleged misrepresentations did not involve matters peculiarly within the respondents’ knowledge. To the contrary, the petitioner was in a superior position to determine the truth, but failed to do so prior to the sale. Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition and cancelling the notice of pendency.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Fisher and Lifson, JJ, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000892997
<NAME>                        WNC CALIFORNIA HOUSING TAX CREDITS III, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                           1,464,026
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,464,026
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,376,661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,033,373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,376,661
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    24,552
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      138,346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   554,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (667,794)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (667,794)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (667,794)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (37) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT,
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 For purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, in connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Quovadx, Inc. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Commission) on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge and
belief, 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 results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Harvey A. WagnerHarvey A. WagnerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) April 14, 2005
#### Thos. Penny’s Admr. *v.*W. W. Penny’s Admr. et al.

Demurrer — Parties to Suit.

A suit was filed, in the nature of a bill *quia timet,*for the purpose of litigating the question of right to a debt collected by an administrator, there being a dispute between the heirs of two estates as to which.it belonged. The administrator was the personal representative of one of said estates and he joined the personal representative and heirs of the other estate as defendants, all being alike interested. *Held:*That a demurrer thereto should not have been sustained.

APPEAL FROM ANDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

*Kavanaugh,*for Appellant.

*Draffin,*for Appellee.

June 30, 1867.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters :

There is some contradiction between the original petition and the amendment, resulting perhaps from a misunderstanding of the facts, or unskillfulness, on the part of the attorney who drew the original; but the amended petition was in the nature of a bill *quia*timet, and was brought for the purpose of litigating the question of right to the debt of $858.65 which the appellant, while administrator of W. W. Penny, deceased, collected, but had not accounted for in the settlement of the estate of the intestate, which he had made, entertaining a doubt, as he did, whether the money belonged to the estate of the intestate, W. W. Penny, or of the estate of Thomas Penny, deceased, whose personal representative he then was.

In order, therefore, to have the question properly and finally adjudicated to which estate the fund belonged, the suit was brought against the personal representative and heirs of W. W. Penny, all being alike interested in a final adjustment of the question necessary to settle the estates of said decedents, and the demurrer to the petition Was, therefore, improperly sustained. Wherefore, the judgment is *reversed,*and the cause remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SpaceX Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) Space Act Agreement 

NNK12MS02S 

SpaceX Space Act Agreement 

SpaceX CCiCap Amendment 01 

SpaceX CCiCap Amendment 02 

SpaceX CCiCap Amendment 03 

SpaceX CCiCap Amendment 04

SpaceX CCiCap Amendment 05

SpaceX CCiCap Amendment 06
























































































17 April 2017

 Julie A. Jiru
EXHIBIT 11.1


                                 WORLDTEX, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (In thousands except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    Three Months Ended       Six Months Ended
                                         June 30,                June 30,
                                  ----------------------  ----------------------
                                     1999        1998        1999        1998
                                     ----        ----        ----        ----
<S>                                  <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Net income                           $1,260        748       2,075       2,899
                                     ======        ===       =====       =====

Shares:
  Weighted average number of         14,271     14,433      14,271      14,431
                                     ======     ======      ======      ======
    shares outstanding
  Basic earnings per share<F1>         $.09        .05         .15         .20
                                       ====        ===         ===         ===

Shares:
  Weighted average number of         14,271     14,433      14,271      14,431
    shares outstanding
  Assumed exercise of options             -        302           -         327
                                   --------   --------    --------    --------

   Total average number of           14,271     14,735      14,271      14,758
                                     ======     ======      ======      ======
     common and common
     equivalent shares used for
     dilution computation

Diluted earnings per share<F2>         $.09        .05         .15         .20
                                       ====        ===         ===         ===


<FN>
<F1>
    Basic  earnings per share are  calculated  based upon the  weighted  average
    number of common shares outstanding during the year.

<F2>
    Diluted  earnings per share are calculated  based upon the weighted  average
    number of common shares and common equivalent shares  outstanding during the
    year.
</FN>
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1757 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 348
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1757

                          [Report No. 108-174]

To amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to authorize appropriations for 
          the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 17, 2003

  Mr. Inhofe (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Frist, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
 Kennedy, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Daschle) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                            October 28, 2003

               Reported by Mr. Inhofe, with an amendment
  [Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to authorize appropriations for 
          the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE JOHN F. KENNEDY 
              CENTER.

    Section 13 of the John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76r) is 
amended by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
following:
    ``(a) Maintenance, Repair, and Security.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Board to carry out section 4(a)(1)(H)--
            ``(1) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
            ``(2) $18,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 
        2008.
    ``(b) Capital Projects.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Board to carry out subparagraphs (F) and (G) of section (4)(a)(1)--
        <DELETED>    ``(1) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; 
        and</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    ``(2) $18,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 
        through 2008.''.</DELETED>
            ``(1) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
            ``(2) $18,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006; 
        and
            ``(3) $12,000,000 for fiscal years 2007 and 2008.''.

                                                       Calendar No. 348

108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1757

                          [Report No. 108-174]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to authorize appropriations for 
          the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 28, 2003

                       Reported with an amendment
```
Order filed September 3, 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00329

- CV

____________ MICHELLE KAPLOWITZ , Appellant

V. LONE STAR TAN GP, LLC; LST AUSTIN I, LTD; AND ASHLEY

ALVILLAR , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 26th District Court Williamson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18

- 0550

- C26



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due August 14, 2020

. No brief or motion to extend time has been filed. Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or bef ore September 14, 2020 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Zimmerer.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6140

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DOUGLAS A. PANNELL, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-6142

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DOUGLAS A. PANNELL, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (4:09-cr-00024-JLK-RSB-1; 4:12-cv-80540-JLKRSB; 4:10-cr-00008-JLK-RSB-1; 4:12-cv-80541-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas A. Pannell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew 

Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Douglas A. Pannell, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Pannell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED