alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11.3

                       EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                       FULLY DILUTED COMPUTATION
     FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994
           (IN MILLIONS EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


                          Three Months Ended       Six Months Ended
                              December 31,            December 31,
                       -----------------------  ----------------------
                           1995         1994        1995        1994
                       -----------  ----------- ----------- -----------
Basis for computation of
 fully diluted earnings
 per share:

  Earnings before extra-
   ordinary item and
   cumulative effect of
   accounting change,
   as reported         $     43.6  $     27.9   $     73.8 $     49.7
  Add interest charges
   on convertible debt        1.8         1.8          3.6        3.6
  Less provision for taxes    (.7)        (.7)        (1.4)      (1.4)
                       ----------  ----------   ---------- ----------
  Earnings before cumu-
   lative effect of
   accounting change and
   extraordinary item,
   as adjusted               44.7        29.0         76.0       51.9
  Cumulative effect of
   accounting change                                             (5.9)
  Extraordinary loss
   - debt retirement                     (1.8)                   (3.0)
                       ----------  ----------   ---------- ----------

  Net earnings applicable
   to common stock     $     44.7  $     27.2   $     76.0 $     43.0
                       ==========  ==========   ========== ==========

Number of shares:

  Weighted average
   shares outstanding  60,169,301  59,201,812   60,033,321 59,195,764
  Conversion of
   convertible sub-
   ordinated notes
   into common stock    3,621,849   3,622,048    3,621,945  3,622,048
                       ----------  ----------   ---------- ----------
  Total common and
   common equivalent
   shares assuming
   full dilution       63,791,150  62,823,860   63,655,266 62,817,812
                       ==========  ==========   ========== ==========

Fully diluted earnings
 per share:

  Earnings before
   cumulative effect
   of accounting
   change and extra-
   ordinary item       $      .70  $      .46   $     1.20 $      .83
  Cumulative effect of
   accounting change                                             (.09)
  Extraordinary loss
   - debt retirement                     (.03)                   (.05)
                       ----------  ----------   ---------- ----------
  Net earnings         $      .70  $      .43   $     1.20 $      .69
                       ==========  ==========   ========== ==========

This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item
601(b)(11).  However, under APB Opinion No. 15, calculation of fully
diluted earnings per share would exclude the conversion of convertible
securities which would have an antidilutive effect on earnings per
share for each period.
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Robert J. De Vaere, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IDM Pharma, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Dated: August 10, 2007         /s/ Robert J. De Vaere   Robert J. De Vaere   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**Individual Firefighter EvaluationChecklist #09**

**Individual Fire Fighter EvaluationChecklist #09**

For the National Preparedness Review you will need to have the following items available for review.

**9-1Revised 2008**

**9-3****Revised 2008**
Exhibit 3.1

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                    RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                          BENTLEY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

     Bentley  Pharmaceuticals,  Inc., a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the  General  Corporation  Law of the  State of  Delaware  (the
"Corporation"), does hereby certify:

     FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

     SECOND:  The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was originally
filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on May 1, 1998.

     THIRD: The Board of Directors of the Corporation, acting in accordance with
the  provisions of Sections 242 of the General  Corporation  Law of the State of
Delaware,  adopted resolutions proposing and declaring advisable and in the best
interests of the Corporation  certain amendments to the Restated  Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation, as set forth below.

     FOURTH:  The first  sentence of Article IV of the Restated  Certificate  of
Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended and restated as follows:

          "The total number of shares of stock which the Corporation  shall have
          authority  to  issue  is   102,000,000   shares,   consisting  of  (a)
          100,000,000  shares of a single class of common stock,  par value $.02
          per share  ("Common  Stock")'  and (b)  2,000,000  shares of preferred
          stock, par value $1.00 per share ("Preferred Stock")."

     FIFTH:  This amendment to the Restated  Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation was approved at the Corporation's  meeting of stockholders,  held on
May 21, 2003,  by the holders of at least a majority of the voting rights of the
outstanding  shares of common  stock of the  Corporation,  voting  together as a
single class.

     IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  Bentley   Pharmaceuticals,   Inc.  has  caused  this
Certificate  of Amendment to its Restated  Certificate  of  Incorporation  to be
executed this 3rd day of July, 2003.

                                             BENTLEY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.



                                             By: /s/ JAMES R. MURPHY
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                     James R. Murphy
                                                     President
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Stephen A. Thorington, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Plains Exploration & Production Company, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Plains Exploration &Production Company; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [omitted in accordance with section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986] for the registrant and we have: 

 

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b. [omitted in accordance with section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986]; 

 

c. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation; and 

 

d. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10403 Summary Calendar

SERGIO AGUILAR , Plaintiff

–

Appellant ,

v.
SERVICE LLOYDS INSURANCE , Defendant

– Appellee

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18

- CV

- 2415

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Sergio Aguilar moves for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal s of the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction. See F ED

. R. C IV . P. 12(h)(3). Aguilar filed his complaint a ccusing Service Lloyds Insuran ce Company (Service Lloyds) of fraud and identity theft in connection with his workers’ compensation claim. Aguilar claimed that the medical reports and workers’ compensation benefits,

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 7, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10403 Document: 00515374270 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2020No. 19

- 10403

2 which compensated him for only one percent restriction, were fraudulent because they referenced false social security and claim numbers. Aguilar requested that Service Lloyds be required to pay him his correct benefits under his correct social security and claim numbers. In denying leave to appeal IFP, a district court ma y “incorporate by reference its decision dismissing the prisoner’s complaint on the merits with or without supplementation,” which is the procedure used in this case. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). By moving to proceed IFP, Aguilar is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See id. at 202. Our inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation s omitted). By failing to address the district court’s reasons for dismissing his complaint for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction or providing any other reason why the district court’s certification is erroneous, Aguilar has abandoned any challenge he might have raised regarding the district court’s decision. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff
Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Aguilar’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See
Howard , 707 F.2d at 219

- 20. His IFP motion is therefo re DENIED , and his appeal s are DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Case: 19-10403 Document: 00515374270 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2020
Justification for Exception Position (provide position level [1-5] and AD class) hired under the DOI AD 

Hiring Authority

Exception Position (provide position level [1-5]) requires no specialized skills or training. The job requires 

the performance of simple, routine, repetitive work tasks under close supervision or requires following 

oral or written specific step-by-step instructions.

Hiring unit:

Title of Exception Position: 

Objective or purpose of position: 

Duties: 

Position will be supervised by (provide position title):

Qualifications/training of AD employee that justifies or supports hiring him/her into this position: 

_____________________________________________ ____________________________

Name of person providing this description (please print) Date

_____________________________________________ ____________________________

Signature approval of National Incident Business Lead Date
**COURT OF APPEALS**

**TENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS**

****

October 29, 2015

No. 10-14-00205-CR

CHRISTOPHER JASON HALL

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

From the 220th District Court

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court No. 06-11-14071-BCCR

**JUDGMENT**

	This Court has reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record in this proceeding as relevant to the issue raised and finds no reversible error is presented.  Accordingly the trial court’s judgment, signed on May 22, 2014 is modified to reflect the amount of fine imposed as $1,000 and the amount of restitution imposed as $2,400.  Credits for previously made payments, if any, will be applied to these amounts by the trial court clerk in the usual manner.  As modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

A copy of this judgment will be certified by the Clerk of this Court and delivered to the trial court clerk for enforcement.

PER CURIAM

SHARRI ROESSLER, CLERK

By: ___________________________

							Nita Whitener, Deputy Clerk

# image1.png

# image2.jpeg

# image3.png
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United States Court of Appeals

**For the First Circuit**

No. 01-1148 ALLAN G. EDWARDS, JR., Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. GLEN A. BARTON, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge ] Before Boudin, Chief Judge , Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges .
Allan G. Edwards, Jr. on brief pro se. Louis M. Ciavarra , James P. Hoban and Bowditch & Dewey, LLP , on brief for appellees.
September 26, 2001Per Curiam . Appellant Allan G. Edwards, Jr. appeals

fromthe dismissal of his complaint filed against Caterpillar Corporation, the Chairman and C.E.O. of Caterpillar, Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation, and three employees of Caterpillar Financial Services. After carefully reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the district court for essentially the reasons stated in its Memorandum and Order, dated November 28, 2000. We add only that there is clearly no specific personal jurisdiction over any of the appellees

– the events in question in the appellant's suit all o ccurred at distant locations – and that the record contains no facts upon which a claim of general personal jurisdiction might be premised.

Affirmed . See Local Rule 27(c).
**Exhibit 10.3**

 

**Consent of Independent Public Accountants**

 

To the Board of Directors 

KT Corporation:

 

We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in theregistration statement on Form F-3 of KT Corporation (File no. 333-100251) of our report of independent accountants dated January 14, 2003, relating to the financial statements of KT ICOM which appears in the annual report for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2002 on Form 20-F of KT Corporation. We also consent to the reference to us under the headings “Experts” in such registration statement. 

 

Samil Accounting Corporation 

Seoul, Korea 

June 25, 2003
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial OfficerPursuant
to U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, John E. Yetter, Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period
ending December 31, 2005 of Derma Sciences, Inc. (the Form 10-KSB) upon my best knowledge and belief fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences, Inc.

|Dated:  March 30, 2006 | /s/ John E. YetterJohn E. Yetter, CPA
     Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
|---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1403

___________

Handson Asuma Nyambariga, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General *

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: September 23, 2010

Filed: September 30, 2010 

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Handson Asuma Nyambariga petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his July 2009 motion to reopen a prior decision.

We conclude that the BIA acted within its discretion. See Clifton v. Holder, 598 F.3d

486, 490–91 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition

for review.

______________________________
**Prescribed Fire Summary:**

**Before Ignition**

**April 2012**

______________________________________________________________________________

Policy for federal prescribed fire is found in “Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Procedures Guide,” which can be found at www.nwcg.gov/pms/Rx**Fire**/rx**fireguide**.pdf

The guideline was published by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group in July 2008.  It outlines responsibilities for more than a dozen positions with a role in prescribed fire, from agency administrators to prescribed fire burn boss to plastic sphere dispenser. 

Every federal prescribed fire has planning steps or “elements” that must be completed before ignition.  States generally follow a similar protocol.  Among the steps are:

· A **signature page**, dated and signed by at least three people:  the prescribed fire plan preparer; a technical reviewer; and the agency administrator.

· A **Go/No-Go checklist**, to ensure the pre-ignition checklist and other required compliances have been met.  A daily Go/No-Go list is required for each day of active ignition.

· A **Complexity Analysis**

· A **description** of the prescribed fire area, including location, boundaries, size, topography, and vegetation/fuels. 

· A public notification plan

· Resource and fire **objectives**

· **The prescription**, which is the measureable criteria that define a range of conditions during which the fire may be ignited and held. 

· The **schedule**

· **Weather forecasts and fuel samplings**are completed.

· A **briefing and briefing checklists** are completed.  Topics include burn organization and assignments; burn objectives and prescription; expected weather and fire behavior; ignition plan; holding plan; communications; safety and medical plan; and other topics. 

· A **test fire**

· A **contingency plan** if the prescribed fire is not meeting or threatens not to meet the expected boundary, objectives, prescription parameter or other critical factors. 

· **A monitoring plan and post-burn activities** are also required before ignition.

*Messages*

· Prescribed fires are ignited only after a thorough analysis is completed and strict procedures are followed.

· No fire organization can guarantee that all risk is removed from prescribed fires, but the overall record of federal agencies is excellent.  Only about one-half one percent of prescribed fires become wildfires. 

· Prescribed fires reduce fuels, thereby reducing the chance that unwanted severe wildfires will occur. 

· Fire is an essential ecological process and natural change agent.  Prescribed fires allow us to gain the benefits of a wildfire while minimizing the damage from them.
No. 610.

No. 808.

#### Kent *v.*Sanford, Warden; and Miller *v.*United States.

February 2, 1942.

*Mr. Augustus M. Roan*for petitioner in No. 610. *William Roy Miller, pro se. Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Berge,*and *Messrs. Oscar A. Provost*and *W. Marvin Smith*for respondent in No. 610; and *Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Berge,*and *Mr. Oscar A. Provost*for the United States in No. 808.

Petitions for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and motions for leave to proceed further *in forma pauperis,*denied. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration and decision of these applications.

*800
      *Pat Duggan, pro se.*