alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                           CONTINENTAL CIRCUITS CORP.
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)
                      (In thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Three months ended
                                                            November 1,  November 2,
                                                            ------------------------
                                                               1997        1996
                                                              ------      ------
<S>                                                         <C>           <C>
Primary:
Average shares outstanding                                     7,255       7,194

Net effect of dilutive stock options--based on
  the treasury  stock method average
  market price                                                   328         230
                                                              ------      ------

Totals                                                         7,583       7,424
                                                              ======      ======

Net Income                                                    $2,314      $1,433
                                                              ======      ======

Net income per share                                          $ 0.31      $ 0.19
                                                              ======      ======


Fully Diluted:
Average shares outstanding                                     7,255       7,194

Net effect of dilutive stock options--based on
  the treasury  stock method using year-end
  market price if higher than the average market                 328         230
  price.                                                      ------      ------

Totals                                                         7,583       7,424
                                                              ======      ======

Net Income                                                    $2,314      $1,433
                                                              ======      ======

Net income per share                                          $ 0.31      $ 0.19
                                                              ======      ======
</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Goodwill Easter Seals ofMiami Valley ) ) Under Contract No. HDEC08-13-C-OO 13 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60329

Daniel F. Edwards, Esq.

Frost Brown Todd LLC Columbus, OH Ralph J. Tremaglio, III, Esq.

Deputy General Counsel James F. Hayes, Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Defense Commissary Agency Fort Lee, VA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 23 March 2016

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60329, Appeal ofGoodwill Easter Seals ofMiami Valley, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
Exhibit 31.5

CERTIFICATION

I, David M. Velazquez, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Delmarva Power & Light Company; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain 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 this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                         
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 5, 2012 |  | /s/ DAVID M. VELAZQUEZ                                  
|                    |  | David M. Velazquez President
and Chief Executive Officer
Order entered December 17, 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01315

- CV

IN RE THE UNKNOWN HE IRS, AND HEIRS WHOSE WHEREABOUTS IS

UNKNOWN, OF THELMA F RANCIES SHAW BRADY, Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 025128



### O RDER

Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relators’ petition for writ of

mandamus.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS

JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Peter A. Walker , certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Union Security Insurance Company; 

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

3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial 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 periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure 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 usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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 financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most 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 internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: November 20, 2006
From: Robert Vargas

To: Doulou, Vannice C.

Subject: Draft Class III MICS Guidance

Date: Thursday, March 09, 2017 4:09:13 PM

During my review of the draft guidance for gaming machines I noticed that the document has two

sections (f). The Operations section and the Voucher section are both entitled (f). Thought I would

call it out to your attention in case no one else had yet.

R. F. (Bob) Vargas

Internal Audit

Gold Country Casino & Hotel

530-538-4560 Ext. 1208
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1
 CALCULATION OF THE MAXIMUM NOTES BALANCE AT MARCH 31, 2006
UNDER THE SENIOR SECURED NOTES FACILITY DATED JANUARY 13, 2005
 I. Lesser of:A. the product of:1. the Free Cash Flow Multiple
    
    
    8.0
    xMultiplied by2. Services Business Free Cash Flow
    
    $
    5,954$
    47,632OrB. the product of:x. 2.0 times
    
    
    2.0
    xmultiplied byy. Services Business Revenue
    
    $
    25,963$
    51,926II. Lesser of1. 50% of the results of the immediately preceding clause (I)
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    23,816Or2. 30% of the Companys After-tax PV10
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    13,055III. 10% of the Companys After-tax PV10
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    4,352Maximum Notes Balance = (I) + (II) + (III)
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    65,039Aggregate Notes Outstanding at Determination Date
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    50,000Companys After-tax PV10 as of 12/31/05
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    43,517Services Business Revenue {Section 2(a)(xxxx)}
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    25,963Services Business operating income
    
    $
    8,876Services Business depreciation and amortization expense
    
    
    1,268Less: Any net operating income from affiliates
    
    
    (A) Services Business net operating income before interest,
taxes,
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    10,144(B) Aggregate interest paid on permitted indebtedness
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Services Business capital expenditures
    
    $
    (4,940)Less: Issuances of stock by Infinity, less costs
    
    
    750(4,190
    )Less: Aggregate interest expense
    
    
    (
    )Services Business capital expenditures, not funded
    
    
    (4,190
    )
    
    
    (4,190
    )Services Free Cash Flow {Section 2(a)(xxxix)}
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    5,954
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Lester MEYERS, Defendant.

Cr. 43882.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

Nov. *21,*1955.

*300Louis Kaye, Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendant.

Leonard P. Moore, U. S. Atty., Edgar G. Brisach, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., in opposition.

RAYFIEL, District Judge.

The defendant moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it “is insufficient upon its face and does not allege or charge the crimes set forth and that the language of such indictment is insufficient as a matter of law to charge the defendant with a violation of Title 18, United States Code, § 1001”. He bases his claim of insufficiency chiefly on its failure to charge him, in the language of the statute, with “knowingly and willfully” using the false writings referred to therein.

I think the claim is without merit. It is not necessary to use the language of the statute if, as is true in the instant case, the facts charged in the indictment clearly import such knowledge and wilfulness. U. S. v. Amorosa, 3 Cir., 167 F.2d 596, Madsen v. United States, 10 Cir., 165 F.2d 507.

Rule 7(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. has liberalized the former practice applicable to the preparation of indictments. No longer need they contain the narrow and precise language of the statute. The test now is “whether the indictment contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently informs the defendant of what he must meet in the preparation of his defense, and whether it is sufficiently specific to obviate the danger of the defendant being prosecuted a second time for the same offense. *The indictment must allege the essential elements of the offense but mere forms of averment may be disregarded.”*(Emphasis added.) Madsen v. U. S., supra, 165 F.2d at page 509.

The defendant also contends that because of the vagueness and insufficiency of the language of the indictment he may be subjected to a second prosecution for the same alleged offense. A reading of the indictment discloses the fact that it explicitly sets forth the documents upon which it is based, the information therein contained, the manner in which and the purpose for which they were used and those particulars wherein they are false. The indictment is clearly sufficient and the motion is accordingly denied. Settle order on notice.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 6648] 

                    Pursuant to section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189 (a)(4)(C)), the Department of State is undertaking a review of the designation of the above-                          ( print page 26457)                        named group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Representatives and members of the above-named group may provide the Department of State with a written statement or other documentary materials for consideration as part of the review process and inclusion in the administrative record. Such materials must be submitted by June 12, 2009 to:  The Coordinator for Counterterrorism,  United States Department of State,  2201 C Street, NW.,  Washington, DC 20520.                 

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

Dated: May 13, 2009. 

Ronald L. Schlicher, 

Acting  Coordinator for Counterterrorism,  Department of State.

[FR Doc. E9-12821 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
EXHIBIT 32


                                ASHLAND INC.


                         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 Annual Report of Ashland Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, James J. O'Brien, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and J. Marvin Quin, 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, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)   The  Report  fully  complies,  in all  material  respects,  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 as of and for the periods presented in the report.


The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying
with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is
not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.

 /s/ James J. O'Brien
-----------------------------------
James J. O'Brien
Chief Executive Officer
December 14, 2004


 /s/ J. Marvin Quin
------------------------------------
J. Marvin Quin
Chief Financial Officer
December 14, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Ashland Inc. and will be retained by Ashland Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Injah Tafari, Appellant, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Submitted December 20, 2010;

decided February 22, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 14 (Friday, January 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4309-4310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1333]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden 
(Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer 
Burden (Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is 
soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer 
service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, March 12, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227, or 
954-423-7979.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden 
(Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held

[[Page 4310]]

Thursday, March 12, 2009, at 2 p.m. Eastern Time. For more information, 
please contact Ms. Sallie Chavez. Please call Ms. Chavez at 1-888-912-
1227 or 954-423-7979, or write Sallie Chavez, TAP Office, 1000 South 
Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or post comments to 
the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: January 13, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E9-1333 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. —.

#### Smith *v.*Western Union Telegraph Co. et al.

March 30, 1942.

Application denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Marilyn Kelly

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 15, 2006 

Order 

 

September 15, 2006 

131013 & (22) 

131014 

MARY LOU KLINGLER, Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

MATTHEW J. KLINGLER, Deceased, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC 131013-4 

v CoA 267452, 268945 

 Oakland CC 03-054932-NH 

ASHOK K. GUPTA, M.D., ASHOK K. 

GUPTA, M.D., P.C., KEWAL K. AGGARWAL, 

M.D., KEWAL K. AGGARWAL, M.D., P.C., 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

CRITTENTON HOSPITAL, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by the attorneys for the 

parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered and, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with 

prejudice and without costs.
EXHIBIT 21  Subsidiaries of Registrant As
of January 2, 2010  Subsidiaries
  
  State or Jurisdiction
  of Incorporation
  
  Percentage of Voting
  Securities OwnedAiC Analysts Limited
  
  United Kingdom
  
  100.0
  %Medical Concepts Staffing, Inc.
  
  Minnesota
  
  100.0
  %Analysts International Strategic Sourcing
  Services, LLC
  
  Minnesota
  
  100.0
  %Analysts International Business Resources
  Services, LLC
  
  Minnesota
  
  100.0
  %Analysts International Business Solutions
  Services, LLC
  
  Minnesota
  
  100.0
  %Analysts International Management Services, LLC
  
  Minnesota
  
  100.0
  %  1
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36965

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOEL R. URIBE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 548

Filed: July 9, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Power County. Hon. Peter D. McDermott, District Judge. 

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, 

affirmed.

Stephen D. Thompson, Ketchum, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Joel R. Uribe was convicted of possession of methadone, Idaho Code § 37-2732(1)(c). 

The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence with two years determinate. Uribe filed 

an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Uribe appeals from the 

denial of his Rule 35 motion.

A Rule 35 motion is a request for leniency which is addressed to the sound discretion of 

the sentencing court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); State v. 

Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 motion, 

the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional information 

subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 
2

201, 159 P.3d 838 (2007). Our focus on review is upon the nature of the offense and the 

character of the offender. State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 772, 653 P.2d 1183, 1184 (Ct. App. 

1982). Where a sentence is not illegal, the appellant must show that it is unreasonably harsh in 

light of the primary objective of protecting society and the related goals of deterrence, 

rehabilitation and retribution. State v. Broadhead, 120 Idaho 141, 145, 814 P.2d 401, 405 

(1991), overruled on other grounds by State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992); 

State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). 

Having reviewed the record, including the new information submitted with Uribe’s 

Rule 35 motion, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the motion. 

Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Uribe’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.
#### BANDER v. BRESLAUER et al.

Civ. No. 41-59.

District Court, S. D. New York.

July 12, 1947.

Bogart & Lonergan, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Levien, Singer & Neuberger, of New York City, for defendant.

KNOX, District Judge.

The-within motion is denied, and for two reasons: (1) The ¡Civil Rules of Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, have been in effect for almost nine years, and by this time, compliance therewith, particularly upon the part of a plaintiff, should almost be automatic, (2) the matter as to whether plaintiff is within the coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., can be more accurately determined by a judge than by a jury.