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

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

         The following is a reconciliation of the numerators and denominators of
the basic and diluted earnings per share computations for income from continuing
operations:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      Income           Shares        Per Share
U.S. dollars in thousands except share and per share data           (Numerator)     (Denominator)      Amount
---------------------------------------------------------           -----------     -------------    ---------

Three Months Ended March 31, 1998                                           
---------------------------------------------------------                 
<S>                                                                  <C>             <C>             <C>   
Basic earnings per share
Income available to common shareholders                              $   3,251       13,923,799      $    0.23

Effect of Dilutive Securities:
   Class A Warrants                                                                     292,123
   Director and Employee Options                                                         99,344
   Class B Warrants                                                                      58,425
                                                               ---------------------------------------------------
Diluted earnings per share
Income available to common shareholders                              $   3,251       14,373,691      $    0.23
                                                               ===================================================

Three Months Ended March 31, 1997                                          
---------------------------------------------------------                
Basic and diluted earnings per share
Income available to common shareholders                              $     450          180,000      $    2.50
                                                               ===================================================

</TABLE>

         The Company was recapitalized in December 1997. In order to provide a
presentation comparable to 1998, all 1997 share amounts used in the earnings per
share calculation have been presented on a recapitalized basis.

                                      E-14
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

CACI International, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract Nos. DASCO l-03-C-0003 ) 

NOO 140-02-C-N77 5 ) 

N00140-3-C-0040 ) 

N00189-07-D-Z045 ) 

N65236-02-C-N775 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60569 

J. William Koegel, Jr., Esq. 

General Counsel 

Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq. 

Deputy General Counsel 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Cara A. Wulf, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Boston, MA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 30 August 2017 

dministrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60569, Appeal of CACI International, Inc., rendered 

in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0046 

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ROBERT LEE MORRISSEY JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 16, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 12 2024

09/12/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0046
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
 Date: August 9, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Michael J. CalielMichael J. CalielPresident and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

ILLINOIS

ART ASK AGENCY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 1:20-cv-04518

)

UUMM, et al. )

)

Defendants. ) Hon. John J Tharp, Jr.

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER

OR OTHERWISE PLEAD

COMES NOW Defendant UUMM, by and through counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 6(b) respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time to answer or 

otherwise plead, showing the Court as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed its Complaint on August 3, 2020. [ECF No. 1]

2. The Court’s docket indicates that responsive pleadings were due September 15, 2020. 

[ECF No. 25]

3. Plaintiff filed a motion for default on November 12, 2020. [ECF No. 37]

4. As of December 4, 2020, Plaintiff’s motion for default has not yet been granted. 

5. The undersigned counsel was retained early on the morning of December 4, 2020. 

She immediately contacted Michael Hierl, counsel for Plaintiff, via email and 

requested an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead to permit the parties a 

period of time to explore the possibility of settlement. Attorney Hierl responded and 

indicated that he had no objection. 

6. There is no intention by Defendant in filing this motion for extension to negatively 

Case: 1:20-cv-04518 Document #: 47 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2055
affect the entry of default against any other non-moving Defendants in this case. The 

relief sought in this motion is limited to Defendant UUMM alone. 

7. Defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order granting this motion 

and extending the deadline for it to answer or otherwise plead through December 18, 

2020, to permit the parties to determine whether settlement is possible, or whether 

UUMM will file a responsive pleading by that date.

8. This extension of time is not being sought for the purpose of delay or frustration of 

the progress of this matter.

9. This extension will not unduly burden Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Defendant UUMM respectfully requests that this Court grant its

Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Plead and Ordering

Defendant UUMM to answer or otherwise plead by December 18, 2020. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Erin K. Russell

The Russell Firm, LLC 

833 W. Chicago Avenue, Suite 508

Chicago, IL 60642

T: 312-994-2424

F: 312-706-9766

erin@russellfirmip.com

CERTIFICATE OF 

SERVICE

This is to certify that on December 4, 2020, this document was filed with the Court 

via the CM/ECF electronic filing system, thereby serving it upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Erin K. Russell

Case: 1:20-cv-04518 Document #: 47 Filed: 12/04/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2056
Global COVID-19 Wastewater Monitoring Efforts: 

Development of the COVIDPoops19 Dashboard

Alvarado, A.G.F., Naughton, C.C., Roman, F.A. Jr., Tariqi, A., Deeming, M.A., 

Medema, G., Rose, J. et al.

DHS NIST Workshop: Data Reporting and Analytics, June 15th, 2021
COVIDPoops19 Global Wastewater Dashboard

https://arcg.is/1aummW https://www.covid19wbec.org/
Dashboard Data Flow 

https://www.covid19wbec.org/

Daily key word 

searches

Literature and internet 

searches 

Category sort Continuously 

update 

Google forms

ArcGIS online 

dashboard 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/202

1.03.14.21253564v1
Dashboard Review and Best Practices 

Ø 59+ Dashboards

Ø Only 11 with downloadable data

Ø Lots of Variation

Ø Tips: Include videos, non-technical 

language, and downloadable data 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.14.21253564v1
Ohio-Example of Wastewater SARS-CoV-2 Dashboards

https://coronavirus.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/covid-19/dashboards/wastewater

Ohio
Scotland-Example of Wastewater SARS-CoV-2 Dashboards

https://informatics.sepa.org.uk/RNAmonitoring/
Saskatchewan-Example of Wastewater SARS-CoV-2 Dashboards

https://water.usask.ca/covid-19/#MeasuringVirusIndicatorsinWastewaterasanEarlyWarningofCOVID19Outbreaks
Acknowledgements and Questions? 

● Follow @COVIDPoops19 

Colleen C. Naughton, PhD.: 

cnaughton2@ucmerced.edu

https://arcg.is/1aummW

https://www.covid19wbec.org/

https://www.waterpathogens.org/
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 513 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 24, 1998.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill 
(H.R. 3736) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes 
relating to H-1B nonimmigrants. The bill shall be considered as read for 
amendment. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on the 
Judiciary now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 6 of rule 
XXIII shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the 
bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the further amendment 
printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 2 pursuant to clause 6 of rule 
XXIII, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or 
demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
    Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and 
numbered 3 pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII shall be considered as adopted in 
lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional 
Record and numbered 1.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 24, 2011

y1017 

# Order

October 24, 2011

143476

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143476 COA: 303612 Lapeer CC: 10-010328-FH CHRISTOPHER JOHN MASTERS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
9646.

#### Suttles *v.*Parrish *et al.*

Decided January 23, 1919.

Complaint; from Pulton superior court—Judge Ellis. April 4, ,1918. '

*Joseph W. & John D. Humphries,*for plaintiff in error.'

*Bachman & Simmons, Douglas & Douglas,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. Under the facts of the ease, the excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of in the special grounds of the motion for a new trial, contain no error.

2. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and the- court did not err in overruling the motion for a new tidal.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*JBloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATE
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 Annual Report of
Vivid Learning Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert M. Blodgett, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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
      respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 
 /s/ Robert M.
Blodgett
 Name:  Robert
M. Blodgett
 Title:   Chief
Financial Officer
 Date:   December
4, 2008
Exhibit 32.1

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 of United PanAm Financial Corp. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ray Thousand, certify in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (a) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this Certification as of May 2, 2007.



/S/ RAY THOUSANDRay ThousandChief Executive Officer and President
EXHIBIT 32.2


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 of Mercari Communications Group, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), Tim F. Holderbaum, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 Company.





/s/ Tim F. HolderbaumTim F. HolderbaumTitle: Chief Financial OfficerDate: April 8, 2010








This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Digital Video Output Standards

Michael Garris†, Mary Laamanen‡, Craig Russell‡, Lawrence Nadel†

†Information Access Division – Image Group ‡Software and Systems Division – Software Quality Group

Problem

• Sources of investigative video have increased exponentially. For large-scale events or crimes, the amount of recorded 

data can be overwhelming.

• Closed circuit television (CCTV) security products store data to digital video recorders (DVRs) using vendor 

proprietary protocols and formats inhibiting efficient and effective export of video surveillance data for law 

enforcement (LE) purposes. 

• Vendor Lock-in – video playback, export, and analysis frequently requires vendor-only software.

• Exporting video often involves data conversion resulting in degradation, loss of metadata, and costly delays.

Guiding Principles

• Do No Harm – preserve native quality

• Leverage Existing Standards

– flexible + playable container

– standard codec

• Promote Key Metadata

– date, time, location, camera ...

• Minimize Cost – align with Industry practice

Proposed Solution: A standard for efficiently exporting high quality video from CCTV systems 

Technical Approach

• Hands-on DVR investigation and discovery

• Build community: LE, Industry, & Standards

• Identify open standards and develop best practices

• Promote adoption
# U ni ted S tat es Cour t of App eals F orth e Se ve nt h Ci r c uit Chicago, Illin ois 60604 Arg ued October 6, 2009 Deci ded July 20, 2010 Be for e WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circ uit Judge DIANE P. WOOD, Circ uit Judge ANN CLAIRE WI LLIAMS , Circ uit Judge
No. 08-1512 AN TO NIN A SUR GA NOV A, Pe ti ti o ner ,
v. ER I C H
. H O L D E R, J R
. , A t t o r n ey General of the United Stat es, Res po nde nt . Peti tion for Review of an Order o f the

Board o f Immi gr ation Appeals No. A078-854-919

O RD E R In a publi shed opini on i ssu ed on to day’s date, we have denied peti tioner Anto nina Surg anova’ s peti tion to rev i ew t he or der of the Boar d of Immi gr ation Appeals conclu ding that she i s removable because s he procured an a dj us tment inher im mi gr ation s tatus NONP R E C E DE NT I AL DI S P OS I T I ON T o b e c ited on ly in ac c or d an c e w ith Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1No. 08-1512 Pag e 2

thro ugh marriage fraud. As we explain in more det ai l in that opini on, the poss ibi li ty t hat s he ha d d one s o fi rs t c am e to th e a tten ti on o f t he D ep artm en t of Hom el an d Se c uri ty’s Im mi grati on a nd Cu s tom s En fo rc em en t s e c ti on whe n h er ex -s on- i n- la w, An dre wFle ming, contacted that o ffi ce. Ea rli er, how ever, on N ovembe r 18 , 2 00 3, Fle ming h ad s ub mi tted a FormI- 86 4 w i th an affi da vi t to D HS as a c o- s pon s or fo r Surg an ova’ s pe ti ti on to c ha nge her imm i grati on status base d on her marr i age t o a U.S . ci tizen. On that offi ci al form, he swore that Surg anova’ s cu rr ent address was wi th her husb a nd
. Sev en months later, whi le he was embro i le d in a n u gly d i vorc e fr o mS u r g a n ova’ s da ughte r, Fl em i ng t old D HS th at h i s ea rli er statement had been untruthful. In fac t, he sa id, S urganov a had nev erres i de d w i th h er husband, and that fact caused h i m to b e l ie v e t ha t the marr i age was a sh am. Fleming tes ti fi ed at Surga nova ’s he aring tha t he di d not have any rea s on t o qu es ti on the val i di ty of the ma rri age at th e ti me he fi le d th e FormI- 89 4, bu t he di d n ot exp la i n h owhe c ou ld ha ve thoughtthat she was li ving wi th her husband when s he was i n fac t living i n Fleming’s own apartment, with hi m, her daughter, and her granddaughter, and s he was prov i ding chi ld care for t he granddaughter
. Fle ming i s a l i c en s ed attorn ey in I ll i noi s . We do no t k no wi f the re i s any w ay to reconci le hi s fi rst and second set of statements, but the inf or mati on availabl e to us con vin c e s u s th a t th e p ro p e r a u th or i ti e s n e e d to i n ve s ti ga te th i s fu rth e r. W e a c cordin gly di rec t th e Cl erk of thi s c ou rt to fo rw ard a c opy of thi s orde r an d ou r publ i s he d op i ni on t o bo th the Attorn ey Re gi s trati on a nd D i s c i pl i na ry Com mi s s i on o f I llin oi s an d th e U. S. Att or ney for the Nor thern Di stric t of Illinoi s, for whatever further acti on (i f any ) either o ne deems appropriate. S O O RDER ED .
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60723 Conference Calendar

DOUGLAS TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, ET AL., Defendants, RICKY ROBERTS, K-9 Officer; BETTY EVANS; M.J. HOADLEY; RICKY NICHOLSON, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:97-CV-12-LN

- - - - - - - - - - April 15, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Douglas Taylor appeals the denial of a complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Taylor alleged that police officers employed by the City of Meridian, Mississippi, used excessive force when arresting him, that serious injuries resulted requiring immediate medical attention, but that theNo. 97-60723 -2-

detaining officials displayed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. On appeal Taylor argues that the district court erred when it determined that Taylor did not sustain a serious injury. He also argues that the court erred when it determined that the defendants did not treat Taylor with deliberate indifference. Essentially Taylor is challenging the district court’s weighing of evidence and its factual findings. Taylor fails to identify any factual findings that are clearly erroneous. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985)(explaining that if the factfinder’s account of the evidence is plausible, an appellate court may not reverse it); Dardar v. La Fourche Realty Co., Inc. , 985 F.2d 824, 827 (5th Cir. 1993)(holding that an appellate court is no position to weigh conflicting evidence). Consequently, the district court’s denial of Taylor’s complaint is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10412

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:99-cr-00030-JES-DNF-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

NATHANIEL WILLIS PITTS, JR.,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 3, 2015)

Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Nathaniel Willis Pitts, Jr. appeals his sentence of 24 months of imprisonment 

Case: 14-10412 Date Filed: 04/03/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

following the second revocation of his supervised release. Pitts argues that his 

sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

Pitts is barred from challenging the reasonableness of his sentence. Under 

the doctrine of invited error, when a defendant invites or induces the district court 

to impose a particular sentence, the defendant cannot complain about that sentence

on appeal. United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009). After 

the district court revoked Pitts’s supervised release and ordered him to serve 9 

months of imprisonment and 24 months of supervised release, Pitts interjected that 

“if [he was] going to go to prison, [he] might as well get it over with” and he 

wanted to “serve the 24 months straight.” When questioned by the district court, 

Pitts confirmed that he wanted a sentence of 24 months of imprisonment. Pitts 

cannot contest the substantive reasonableness of a sentence that he requested. And 

even if the doctrine of invited error did not apply, we would affirm Pitts’s sentence 

within the guideline range as substantively reasonable.

We AFFIRM Pitts’s sentence.

Case: 14-10412 Date Filed: 04/03/2015 Page: 2 of 2