alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EXHIBIT 11

# TELLABS, INC. 
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

(In millions, except
per share amounts)

|                                             | Three Months Ended |               
|-------------------------------------------- | ------------------ | --------------
|                                            
|
|                                            
|                                             |                    |               
|Numerator:                                   |                   
|Net earnings/(loss)                          |                    | $       13.4  
|Denominator:                                 |                   
|Denominator for basic earnings per share-    |                   
|Weighted-average shares outstanding          |                    | 415.2         
|Effect of dilutive securities:               |                   
|Employee stock options and awards            |                    | 5.7           
|                                            
|Denominator for diluted earnings per share-  |                   
|adjusted weighted-average shares outstanding |                   
|and assumed conversions                      |                    | 420.9         
|                                            
|Net earnings/(loss) per share - Basic        |                    | $         0.03
|                                            
|Net earnings/(loss) per share - Diluted      |                    | $         0.03
|                                            

Under GAAP, dilutive securities are
not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share when a company is in a net
loss position.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30555]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD667


Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will 
hold a Marine Planning and Climate Change Committee (MPCCC) meeting in 
Honolulu, HI and by teleconference.

DATES: The MPCCC meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 20, 2015, 
from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held by teleconference and at the 
Council Office Conference Room, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, 
Honolulu, HI; telephone: (808) 522-8220.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; 
telephone: (808) 522-8220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MPCCC will review the draft marine 
planning and climate change policy and implementation plan, offer an 
opportunity for public comment and discuss new business. The Committee 
may make recommendations on these topics.

Agenda

(1) Review of the draft marine planning and climate change policy
(2) Review of the draft implementation plan
(3) Public comment
(4) Committee discussion and recommendations
(5) New business

    The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The 
Committee will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled 
business.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 
522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 23, 2014.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-30555 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
### M A N D A T E

TO THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT of SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 25th day of

June, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Aaron Busbee, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-15-00154-CR (Tr.Ct.No. S-14-3337-CR)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal,

concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in

accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 10th day of December, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7429

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CURTIS LAKOY EDMONDS, a/k/a Rude Boy , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00368

- BO

- 1 )

Submitted : May 17, 2021 Decided: May 27, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender , Jaclyn L

. Tarlton, Assistant Federal Public Defender , OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdo n, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Banumathi Rangarajan , Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not bi nding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Curtis Lakoy Edmonds appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for compassionate release. See United States v. High , __ F.3d __, __, No. 20

- 7350, 2021 WL 1823289, at *6 (4th Cir. Apr. 21, 2021) (rejecting argument that district court must invariably address defendant’s arguments on record in denying motion for compassionate release). Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Edmonds , No. 5:08

- cr 00368

- BO

- 1 (E.D.N.C. Sept . 14, 2020). We deny as moot Edmonds’ motion to expedite
and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7623

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

THERON JOHNNY MAXTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CR-97-490)

Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theron Johnny Maxton, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Brereton Barbier,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Theron Johnny Maxton appeals the district court’s order denying his “Petition for a Hearing to Have Joyce Brown Charge [sic]

For Perjury” for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Maxton, No. CR-97-490 (D.S.C.

Oct. 16, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0582V

UNPUBLISHED

THE ESTATE OF APOLINAR HASEM 

PERDOMO FELIZ, by and through 

Administrator, BIENCHIS Y. ESTEVAFELIZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: May 19, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

John Richard Taylor, Zaytoun Law Firm, Raleigh, NC, for petitioner.

Dhairya Divyakant Jani, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On April 17, 2019, the Estate of Apolina Hasem Perdomo Feliz, by and through

Administrator Biechis Y.L Esteva-Feliz, filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that, due to a March 12, 2017 influenza (“flu”) 

vaccine, Apolinar Hasem Perdomo Feliz suffered from Guillain-Barre syndrome 

(“GBS”), which led to his subsequent death on April 21, 2017 Petition at 1, 9-12. The 

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa (2012).
2

On May 15, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in 

the Vaccine Injury Table and Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation for GBS. Id. at 5. 

Respondent states that the scope of damages to be awarded “is limited to the 

decedent’s GBS and its related sequelae only.” Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:





(1)           Registration Statement (Form S-3) of American Oriental Bioengineering, Inc.; and





(2)           Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan of American Oriental Bioengineering, Inc.





of our report dated March 15, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of American Oriental Bioengineering, Inc., and our report dated March 15, 2010, with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of American Oriental Bioengineering, Inc.











/s/ Ernst & Young Hua Ming

Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

March 15, 2010
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Amos Junior SCOTT, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-6073.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.

Decided June 23, 2006.

Amos Junior Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Amy E. Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Amos Junior Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of his constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Scott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on December 3, 2014, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Vehicle Safety Communications 5 (VSC5) Consortium (“VSC5 Consortium”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Ford Motor Company—Research and Innovation Center, Dearborn, MI; General Motors Company—Research and Development Center, Warren, MI; Honda R&D Americas, Inc., Southfield, MI; Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center, Inc., Superior Township, MI; Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Irvine, CA; Mercedes-Benz Research & Development North America, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA; Nissan Technical Center North America, Inc., Farmington Hills, MI; and Volkswagen/Audi of America, Auburn Hills, MI.

The general area of VSC5 Consortium's planned activity is to engage in a collaborative effort in order to gain further knowledge and understanding of connected vehicle interactions and/or applications for vehicles that are intended to transform surface safety and mobility through a connected vehicle environment.

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2014-30674 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2036 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related Agencies, 

Corporation for National and Community Service, Payment to the National Service Trust for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related Agencies, Corporation for National and Community 

Service, Payment to the National Service Trust for fiscal 

year 2024. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2036 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 RELATED AGENCIES, CORPORATION FOR NA3 TIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE, PAYMENT 

4 TO THE NATIONAL SERVICE TRUST FOR FIS5 CAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Related Agencies, Corporation for National and 

9 Community Service, Payment to the National Service 

10 Trust for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $190,550,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2343 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Bilateral Economic 

Assistance, Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia for fiscal 

year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Bilateral Economic Assistance, Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE, ASSIST5 ANCE FOR EUROPE, EURASIA, AND CENTRAL 

6 ASIA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Bilaterial Economic Assistance, Assistance for 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2343 IH

1 Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia for fiscal year 2024 

2 may not exceed $500,000,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carolina SOLANO-BRISENO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-41417

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 21, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Melissa Joy Garcia, Garcia & Garcia, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Carolina Solano-Briseno appeals her sentence for transporting illegal aliens for *677private financial gain. Solano-Briseno concedes that the district court imposed a sentence within a properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range, but she argues that the sentence was an unreasonable sentence considering the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). When the district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range and gives proper weight to the Guidelines and § 3553 factors, this court “will give great deference to that sentence” and “will infer that the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines.” *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.2005). A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable. *United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir.2006); *Rita v. United States,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2466-68, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

On appeal, Solano-Briseno argues that the nature and circumstances of the offense, the seriousness of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law, the need to protect the public from harm, the need to provide her with education or training, and the need to avoid sentencing disparity all weigh in favor of a lesser sentence. Solano-Briseno raised these issues at sentencing and the district court engaged in a thorough discussion of the reasons for the sentence. Although Solano-Briseno has put forward cogent arguments to support her weighing of the § 3553 factors, she has not shown that the district court’s weighing of the § 3553 factors was not proper and resulted in an unreasonable sentence. *See Mares,*402 F.3d at 519-20. Solano-Briseno’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned,Alexander Lidow, the Chief Executive Officer of International RectifierCorporation (the “Company”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifiesthat, to his knowledge:

(i)                                     the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of, and for the periods presented in theReport.

Dated: November 10, 2006
|   | /s/ Alexander Lidow                  |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   | Alexander Lidow                      |
|   | Director and Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of the written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to International Rectifier Corporation and willbe furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

1

----
|   | (i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 28, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report. |
|--------|------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 30, 2010 | /s/ ILAN DASKAL                                                                      |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |  Ilan DaskalChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |