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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1


                              RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

                   Computation of Net (Loss) Income per Share
                   Years Ended August 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999
                      (In thousands, except per-share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             2001                2000                1999
                                                                           --------            --------            --------
<S>                                                                        <C>                 <C>                 <C>
Average common shares outstanding ......................................      6,712               6,046               5,783

Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on the
   treasury stock method ...............................................          -                   -                 149
                                                                           --------            --------            --------

       Total common and common equivalent shares .......................      6,712               6,046               5,932
                                                                           ========            ========            ========

Net (loss) income ......................................................   $(13,241)           $ (7,608)           $    729
                                                                           ========            ========            ========

Net (loss) income per share - Diluted ..................................   $  (1.97)           $  (1.26)           $   0.12
                                                                           ========            ========            ========
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Gore,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04114-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8995 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 1
#### J. H. Compton *v.*W. O. Newman and Others.

Officers — Sheriffs—Constable—Responsibility.

Sections 4 and 5 of Art. 4 Chap. 20, 1 Revised Statutes page 257, fixing the responsibility of constable, has no application to sheriffs.'

APPEAL FROM METCALFE CIRCUIT COURT.

December 11, 1868.

*673
      *Garnett*& *Dehoney, for appellant.*

*James Harlan, Jr., for appellees.*

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

The petition contains no allegation that the persons on whom the fee hills, for which the sheriff gave his receipt, were solvent, and able to pay them, but it is alleged that he collected them, and failed to pay the amount over.

And it appears incidentally in the bill of exceptions that the sheriff had died before the institution of the suit, but when or how long before is not known.

It was necessary under the issue formed by the pleadings to prove the collection of the money by the sheriff in order to entitle appellant to a judgment, which proof he failed to make and this was made the more necessary as the sheriff was dead and his securities could not be presumed to know anything in relation to the transaction.

No such enactment appears to have been made applicable to sheriffs as sections 4 to 5 of article 4, chapter 20, 1 E. S. p. 257, fixing the responsibility of constables.

As therefore there was no evidenec authorizing a judgment against appellees, the judgment rendered must be affirmed.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES C. CHAVERS.

July 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### BUNNELL HILL DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., Tractor Supply Company, and 1515 Management Co., Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BAY COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-1125.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 14, 2005.

Alan M. Greene, Andrew J. Lusk, Dyke-ma Gossett, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Michael C. Levine, Fraser, Trebilcock, Davis & Dunlap, Lansing, MI, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before NELSON and SUTTON, Circuit Judges, and WELLS, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Lesley Wells, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment declaring that the Bay County Road Commission lacks authority to revoke a driveway permit when there has been a change in the use of the property served by the *685driveway. The judgment prohibits the Commission from closing a commercial driveway over which the plaintiffs hold an easement.

The basis for the district court’s ruling was that Michigan law allows revocation of a driveway permit only “pursuant to duly enacted rules” and that the Commission had not promulgated any rule “authoriz[ing] it to revoke a duly-issued driveway permit simply because there has been a change in use ... or an increase in traffic flow to the site.”

At the appellate argument, however, the parties informed the court that the Commission has now promulgated a rule requiring property owners to obtain a new driveway permit when there has been a change in the use of the property served by the driveway. The new rule, adopted on December 22, 2004, defines “change in use” to include “additional access to another commercial property from/through a previously permitted driveway.”

The new rule raises a substantial question as to whether this case has become moot. That question should be addressed in the first instance, we believe, by the district court. Accordingly, the judgment is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to determine the effect of the Commission’s new rule and then proceed accordingly.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Schaun Owens,

Plaintiff 

v. 

Maricopa County Community College

District, et al.,

Defendant

No. CV-15-1769-PHX-SPL 

JUDGMENT ON TAXATION OF 

COSTS

 

Final Judgment having been entered, defendant filed a Bill of Costs on October 3, 

2017, seeking the taxation of $5,266.62. No objection was filed. The matter has been 

reviewed and all costs have been awarded.

The costs are hereby taxed for the defendant and against the plaintiff in the amount 

of $5,266.62.

DATED this 31st day of October, 2017

BRIAN D. KARTH, CLERK

By: 

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 65 Filed 10/31/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Joseph S. Dunham, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03453-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL 

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/26/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed Name 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8728 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8728 Filed 11/08/17 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Vision-Sciences, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, Ron Hadani, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Yoav M. Cohen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)          the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Dated: February 19, 2008 | /s/ Ron Hadani          |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                          | Ron Hadani              |
|                          | Chief Executive Officer |
|                          |                    |
|                          |                    |
| Dated: February 19, 2008 | /s/ Yoav M. Cohen       |
|                          | Yoav M. Cohen           |
|                          | Chief Financial Officer |
#### Berry *v.*Bates.

<á., having a promissory note against *B.*which was due, promised him by parol and without consideration that he would not urge the payment until a certain future time. *Held,*that the promise was not obligatory.

An agreement under seal not to sue for a limited time, cannot be pleaded in bar as a release: the defendant must resort to his action on the agreement.

ERROR to the *Madison*Circuit *Court.—Bates*sued *Berry*before a justice of the peace on a promissory note, and obtained judgment. *Berry*appealed to the Circuit Court, and judgment was there rendered in favour of *Bates.*

Scott, J.

The defence set up on the trial below was, that on the third of *May,*1827, after the note on which suit was brought had become due, *Berry*paid *Bates*a certain other debt of 30 dollars and upwards, and 2 dollars and 66 cents in part discharge, of the note on which suit was brought; and *Bates*then agreed, that he would not urge the payment of the balance of the note until Christmas following; and pledged his word and honour to that effect. The Circuit Court very correctly decided that *Bates*was not legally hound by that promise.

*119Wick, for the plaintiff.

*Fletcher*and *Brown,*for the defendant.

Even an agreement under seal, not to sue for a limited time, cannot be pleaded in bar as a release. The party, in that case, must resort to his action of covenant as his only remedy. 2 Salk. 573.-5 Bac. Abr. 683.—1 Esp. N. P. 244 (1). The reason of the rule applies more strongly in this case, where a mere verbal promise is set up to control a written instrument for the payment of money. The payment of another debt, and a part of that on which suit was brought, after the whole had become due, created no legal consideration for the promise of forbearance;. and the promise being made without consideration was not legally binding. The plaintiff’s pledge of honour for the performance of his promise does not alter the case, in a legal sense. He who relies on such security, must, when the pledge fails, abide the consequences; the law will not help him out.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, with *5'per cent,*damages and costs.

(1)

 Vide *Reed*v. Shaw, Vol. 1. of these Rep. 245, and note.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62607-62608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24898]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Certification Notice--227]


Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under 
the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of filing.

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

SUMMARY: On September 5, 2014, Panda Patriot LLC, as owner and operator 
of a new base load electric generating plant, submitted a coal 
capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) 
pursuant to Sec.  201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act 
of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. 
FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of 
filing of self-certification in the Federal Register. 42 U.S.C. 8311(d) 
and 10 CFR 501.61(c).

ADDRESSES: Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are 
available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-
024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586-
5260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 
et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplant may be 
constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another 
alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to FUA in order to 
meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such

[[Page 62608]]

a facility proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary 
energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) 
prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric 
powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or 
another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with 
FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. 42 
U.S.C. 8311.
    The following owner of a proposed new base load electric powerplant 
has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to 
FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 
501.60, 61:

Owner: Panda Patriot LLC
Capacity: 829 megawatts (MW)
Plant Location: Montgomery, PA
In-Service Date: June 1, 2016

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 10, 2014.
Brian Mills,
Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability.
[FR Doc. 2014-24898 Filed 10-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2314 

For the relief of Nabil Raja Dandan, Ketty Dandan, Souzi Dandan, Raja 

Nabil Dandan, and Sandra Dandan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 8, 2004 

Mr. DURBIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Nabil Raja Dandan, Ketty Dandan, Souzi 

Dandan, Raja Nabil Dandan, and Sandra Dandan. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR NABIL 

4 RAJA DANDAN, KETTY DANDAN, SOUZI 

5 DANDAN, RAJA NABIL DANDAN, AND SANDRA 

6 DANDAN. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

8 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

9 Act, Nabil Raja Dandan, Ketty Dandan, Souzi Dandan, 

10 Raja Nabil Dandan, and Sandra Dandan shall each be 
2 

•S 2314 IS 

1 eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjust2 ment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 

3 permanent residence upon filing an application for 

4 issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such 

5 Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resi6 dent. 

7 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Nabil Raja 

8 Dandan, Ketty Dandan, Souzi Dandan, Raja Nabil 

9 Dandan, and Sandra Dandan enter the United States be10 fore the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Nabil 

11 Raja Dandan, Ketty Dandan, Souzi Dandan, Raja Nabil 

12 Dandan, and Sandra Dandan shall each be considered to 

13 have entered and remained lawfully and shall be eligible 

14 for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immi15 gration and Nationality Act as of the date of the enact16 ment of this Act. 

17 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

18 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap19 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica20 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

21 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

22 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

23 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res24 idence to Nabil Raja Dandan, Ketty Dandan, Souzi 

25 Dandan, Raja Nabil Dandan, and Sandra Dandan, the 
3 

•S 2314 IS 

1 Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to re2 duce by 5, during the current or next following fiscal year, 

3 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail4 able to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth under 

5 section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 

6 if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are 

7 made available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth 

8 under section 202(e) of such Act. 

Æ
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Stacy Holtz","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/stacy-a-holtznasa-gov\/","title":"STS-48","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"c2AX71HgOc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-48\/\">STS-48<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-48\/embed\/#?secret=c2AX71HgOc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-48” — NASA\" data-secret=\"c2AX71HgOc\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Timothy Roberts,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04426-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: February 1, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9950 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63122-63123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25122]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations and 
Surrenders

    Pursuant to the Commission's direct rule (79 FR 56522, September 
22, 2014), beginning October 20, 2014, these notices will no longer be 
posted in the Federal Register. After October 20, 2014, this 
information will be available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fmc.gov, see OTI Licensing Updates.
    The Commission gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation

[[Page 63123]]

Intermediary licenses have been revoked or surrendered for the reason 
indicated pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 
40101) effective on the date shown.

    License No.: 018655N.
    Name: Triship Global Logistics, Inc.
    Address: 7400 SW 50th Terrace, Suite 207, Miami, FL 33155.
    Date Revoked: October 2, 2014.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License No.: 019581N.
    Name: Four Seasons Logistics Inc.
    Address: 22-30 119th Street, College Point, NY 11356.
    Date Revoked: October 3, 2014.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 2014-25122 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LARRY JOHNSON.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.