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

                             RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                  YEARS ENDED AUGUST 31, 1998, 1997 AND 1996
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER-SHARE DATA)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                                     1998         1997       1996
                                                                                     ----         ----       ----
<S>                                                                                 <C>         <C>        <C> 
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding .........................           5,551       5,379      5,084

Net effect of dilutive stock option conversions ..........................             427         411        345
                                                                                    ------      ------     ------

   Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding ....................           5,978       5,790      5,429
                                                                                    ======      ======     ======

Net income ...............................................................          $4,760      $3,807     $1,889
                                                                                    ======      ======     ======

Net income per share:
          Basic ..........................................................          $ 0.86      $ 0.70     $ 0.37
                                                                                    ======      ======     ======

          Diluted ........................................................          $ 0.80      $ 0.66     $ 0.35
                                                                                    ======      ======     ======
</TABLE>
#### Dougherty *v.*Mason.

In error.

Monday, *December*11

IF the papers in an appeal from the judgment of a justice be not filed in time, the appellee may, for that reason, have the appeal dismissed on motion; but if, without making the objection, he go to trial on the merits, the objection is waived (1).

The circumstance, that on a trial of a cause before *A. B.*a justice, without a jury, the justice was, with consent of parties, assisted by *C. D.*another justice, who sat and consulted with him on the trial, is no objection to the judgment pronounced in the cause by *A. B.*

(1)

 The justice’s failure to file the papers in time is not now a cause for dismissing the appeal. Stat. 1839, p. 37.
----

Exhibit 32.2 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
In connection with the annual reportof Zi Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), I, Blair Mullin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 
(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 
(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 
Date: April 1, 2009. 

*/s/Blair Mullin                                 *Blair Mullin Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
#### The State *v.*Odell.

A judgment of acquittal by a.justice of the peace, on a charge of an assault and battery with intent to murder, is *corám non judice*and void.

A plea of such acquittal, to an indictment for an assault and battery alleged W be the same offence with that determined by the.justice, cannot be sustained.

*Monday, November 28.*

ERROR to the *Montgomery*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

Indictment against *Caleb Odell*for an assault and battery on *Allen Moore.*Plea, that the defendant had been tried by a justice of the peace, for an assault and battery on *Allen Moore*with intent to murder him, and had been acquitted by the justice of the charge; and that the assault and battery mentioned in the indictment, is the same with that determined by the justice. Demurrer to the plea, and judgment for the defendant.

This judgment must be reversed. The justice had no jurisdiction to try and determine an assault and battery with an intent to murder, and the proceedings before him, described in the plea, were *coram non judice.*The justice should have taken measures to secure the defendant’s appearance at the next term of the Circuit Court to answer the charge; and that was all he was authorised to do with him. The judgment of the justice, on the merits of the charge of an assault and battery with intent to murder, is a nullity; and the defendant’s *157plea to the indictment, relying on that judgment, is no de*r>*fence.

*W. Herod,*for the state.

*I. Naylor,*for the defendant.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,067
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,437
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,108
<INVENTORY>                                      4,754
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,287
<PP&E>                                           7,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,312
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,614
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,048
<SALES>                                         41,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,571
<CGS>                                           21,936
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,404
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,751
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,108
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                       692
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,664
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,664
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28


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



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 27.2
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS RESTATED SUMMARY INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CAPSTONE CAPITAL CORPORATION FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                     DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             1,122,241
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        335,304
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  10,757,880
<PP&E>                                           302,874,866
<DEPRECIATION>                                    11,275,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   356,695,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              3,899,467
<BONDS>                                           17,657,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              14,247
<OTHER-SE>                                       240,832,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     356,695,116
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  35,952,336
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     17,038,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 8,812,170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   18,913,689
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               18,913,689
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      18,913,689
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           1.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           1.68


</TABLE>
Case 2:15-mj-01741-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01741-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01741-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 3
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY THE BOROUGH OF OGDENSBURG, SUSSEX COUNTY OF NEW JERSEY v. MARIETTA PEIA.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Jesse Gray *v.*Randall Gray’s Admr. et al.

Affidavit — Form in Which Given.

An affidavit is sufficient, whether .it allege a “legal” or “just” off-set. It is not required that it be a literal copy of the form prescribed.

APPEAL FROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 9, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

It is true that the verification of appellant’s demand is not in the precise language prescribed in the statute and we do not deem. it necessary that it should be a literal copy of the form prescribed, the difference between a *“legal”*and *“just”*off-set, is scarcely sufficient to condemn the affidavit, and looking at the whole language we think it a substantial compliance with the requirements of the law and substance more than form- should be looked at. We also deem the reason stated in the response of appellant a sufficient excuse for not accompanying his affidavit with the other proof, required. The administrator, the only witness as he says, by whom he can prove the demand, is a defendant to the action, and it is stated in the response that he declined to prove it, or to have any*558thing to do with it, saying that *he could*prove it, but that the negroes (meaning plaintiff and defendants) might fight it out, that he would have nothing to do with it.

Taylor, *Sumrall, for appellant.*

Phister, *for appellees.*

He had no compulsory process by which he could compel the administrator to prove the account, if the statement in the response was untrue, the administrator could have so stated in a counter-affidavit, which he failed to do, and the language of the response, although not as direct and unequivocal on the point as it might have been, still certainly implies that he applied to the administrator to make the proof. The court below was of the opinion that the reason stated in the response for failing to produce the preliminary proof of the demand was sufficient, but adjudged that the verification of the claim by appellant was insufficient and therefore dismissed his petition. For the reasons already stated we think the verification was a substantial compliance.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded, with directions to overrule the motion to dismiss the petition, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
#### Hinckley *v.*O’Farrel.

The official acts of a notary public must be authenticated by his official seal, and not by a scrawl.

*Saturday, December*24.

ERROR to the *Floyd*Circuit Court.

M’Kinney, J.

This is a writ of domestic attachment. It was dismissed by the Circuit Court. The attachment is founded on an award, and several grounds are taken in support of the judgment below; among which, it is only necessary to notice that which denies the affidavit, the foundation of the proceeding, to be legally authenticated.

The affidavit was taken by a notary public; and his authority to take such, if it exists, is given by the act of 1833, “ declaratory of the powers of notaries public.” The act authorises each and every notary public to take and certify all affidavits and depositions, authorised to be taken and certified by justices of the peace, and to take and certify all proofs of deeds* &c.; and it provides that his certificate and attestation, with his official seal, shall be taken and received in all cases to be of equal verity and validity with the certificate, attestation, and seal of a clerk of the Circuit Court (1). It is contended, that if the notary public be authorised to take the affidavit of one applying for the writ of domestic attachment, the affidavit in this case is not legally authenticated; his certificate not being attested by his official seal.

The certificate and attestation attached to the affidavit are as follows: “Sworn to this 7th day of *January,*1835, at the county aforesaid, before the undersigned a notary public of said *county.—R. Crawford,*N. P. F. C. [Seal.] ”

*186*R. Crawford*and *H. P. Thornton,*for the plaintiff.

We think the objection to the certificate well taken. It is certainly not attested as contemplated by the statute establishing the office and defining the duties of notaries public. The seal attached to the certificate is simply a scrawl, and such as could not have been intended. By the third section of the act, “ each notary public shall procure a seal, which shall be called the seal of the notary public.” The substitution of a scrawl for the seal thus prescribed, is not warranted; and for this defect, the Circuit Court was correct in dismissing the attachment.

Dewey, J., having been of counsel in the cause, was absent.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs. To be certified, &c.

(1)

 Stat. 1833, p. 44. Accord, Rev. Stat. 1838, p. 420.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned, in connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Danka Business
Systems PLC (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ A.D. Frazier                                     
|A.D. Frazier                                         
|Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

November 14, 2008

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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 

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability 

Litigation, 

_________________________________ 

This Order relates to 

Case No.: CV15-3466 PHX DGC 

Johnisha T. Wright, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

C.R. Bard, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Johnisha Wright filed her complaint in this MDL on October 12, 2016. In 

accordance with Amended Case Management Order No. 5, Plaintiff is required to provide 

Defendants with a completed Plaintiff Profile Form (“PPF”) within 60 days of filing her 

complaint. Plaintiff has failed to provide her PPF to Defendants even though defense 

counsel has requested her PPF on four separate occasions (12/21/2016, 2/3/2017, 

5/23/2017, and 9/18/2017). 

On September 26, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint 

for failure to comply with Amended Case Management Order No. 5. Doc. 7781. 

Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to dismiss and the time to do so has 

passed. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8864 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. On or before December 4, 2017, Plaintiff shall provide a completed PPF to 

Defendants. 

2. On or before December 4, 2017, Plaintiff shall file a response to 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doc. 7781. 

3. If Plaintiff fails to provide a completed PPF to Defendants or fails to file a 

response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss and 

terminate this matter on December 4, 2017. 

4. Counsel for Plaintiff shall provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Johnisha 

T. Wright on or before November 27, 2017 and shall file a notice of service of the same 

with the Court. 

5. The Court will not grant extension to these deadlines. The time for 

providing the PPF to Defendants and the time for filing a response to Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss has long passed. 

Dated this 20th day of November, 2017. 

 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8864 Filed 11/20/17 Page 2 of 2
No. 87-1223.

#### Ger-Shep, Inc. *v.*United States; KLP, Inc. *v.*United States; McMinn’s Asphalt Co., Inc. *v.*United States; McMinn’s Asphalt Products, Inc. *v.*United States; Schell *v.*United States; and Sweigart *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement  (Form  S-3 No.  333-30390  and Form  S-4 No.  333-34716)  of  Seabulk
International,  Inc.  (formerly known as Hvide Marine  Incorporated)  and in the
related  Prospectus of our report dated  February 22, 2001,  with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Seabulk International, Inc. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.




                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Miami, Florida
March 28, 2001
#### WILLIAM J. MADIGAN v. GENERAL DYNAMICS.

September 5, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement Nos.333-134867 and 333-130193, in Registration Statement Nos. 333-121350, 333-115765, 333-132337 and333-132338 on Form S-3; in Registration Statement No. 333-132340 on Form S-4, and in Post-EffectiveAmendment No. 1 to Registration Statement Nos. 333-87633 and 333-84344 on Form S-8, of our reportsdated October 9, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financialstatement schedules of Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. and management’s report on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofFerrellgas Partners, L.P. for the year ended July 31, 2006**.****/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP**Kansas City, Missouri
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 612

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to restore the link between

the maximum amount of earnings by blind individuals permitted without

demonstrating ability to engage in substantial gainful activity and the

exempt amount permitted in determining excess earnings under the earnings test.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 5, 1997

Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut (for herself, Mr. EHRLICH, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. BEREUTER,

Mr. CLEMENT, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. TRAFICANT, Mr.

FROST, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. UNDERWOOD, Mr.

DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Ms.

LOFGREN, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. SPRATT, Mr.

GEJDENSON, Mr. FARR of California, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. DELAURO,

Mr. SANDERS, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. HALL of Ohio, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of

Texas, Mr. KLECZKA, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. MATSUI, Mr.

COYNE, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut, Mr. YOUNG of

Alaska, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr.

LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. SHAYS, Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri, and Ms.

KAPTUR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to restore

the link between the maximum amount of earnings by

blind individuals permitted without demonstrating ability

to engage in substantial gainful activity and the exempt

amount permitted in determining excess earnings under

the earnings test.
2

•HR 612 IH

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

3 SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF LINK BETWEEN RULES RE4 LATING TO SUBSTANTIAL GAINFUL ACTIVITY

5 FOR BLIND INDIVIDUALS AND RULES RELAT6 ING TO EXCESS EARNINGS UNDER THE EARN7 INGS TEST.

8 Section 223(d)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act (42

9 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘No individ10 ual who is blind’’ and all that follows through ‘‘had not

11 been enacted.’’ and inserting ‘‘No individual who is blind

12 shall be regarded as having demonstrated an ability to en13 gage in substantial gainful activity on the basis of earn14 ings that do not exceed an amount equal to the exempt

15 amount under section 203(f)(8) which is applicable to in16 dividuals described in subparagraph (D) thereof.’’.

17 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

18 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with

19 respect to taxable years ending after 1995.

Æ