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



                              COLUMBUS ENERGY CORP.
                 Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings
                                   (Unaudited)
                      (In Thousands Except Per Share Data)

                                                     Three Months Ended
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           February 28, 1997   February 29, 1996
                                           -----------------   -----------------

Primary:
 Based on weighted average
 shares outstanding including
 the effect of common stock
 equivalents:

Weighted average shares
 outstanding:                                    3,171                 3,058

Incremental shares attributable
 to dilutive stock options and
 warrants outstanding based on
 average market price during
 the period calculated using
 the treasury method                                75                     1
                                                ------                ------

   Total average common and
    common equivalent shares                     3,246                 3,059
                                                ======                ======

      Net earnings                              $1,143                $  550
                                                ======                ======

Earnings per share                              $  .36                $  .18
                                                ======                ======

Note:Full diluted incremental shares in 1997 and 1996 were 75,000 and 1,000 with
     total  average  common and common share  equivalent  shares  3,246,000  and
     3,059,000, respectively.
NATIONAL .
INDIAN : .

GAMING

COMMISSION

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the
National Indian Gaming Commission has assessed the environmental
impacts of the following project:

Proposed Development
ofa
Tribal Gaming Facility
by the Chehalis Tribal Government
on the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation

The purpose of this project is the development of a 44,000 square
foot building that will house a casino, bingo hall, and restaurant,
with ancillary customer and employee parking, on a 26 acre tract of
Trust land located along 188th Avenue SW in the. community of
Oakville on the Chehalis Indian Reservation, Thurston County,
Washington. The purpose of the Environmental Assessment is to
discuss the impacts of the proposed project.

This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the following
factors: the project will not result in any significant impacts to
water or land resources, to any properties listed on or eligible
for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, to any
threatened or endangered species, or to any other resource, and
will benefit the socioeconomic resources of the Chehalis Tribe.

The environmental assessment process indicates the proposed project

will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared.

ZL fGOLk.. In Y G4,

Anthony-d. ype, ehairman Date 7

National In@ian Gaming Commission

ta
SAMMY VIDALES

V.

STATE OF TEXAS

Cause No. 2012436579

COA No. 07-13-00286-CR

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Motion for Extension of Time to File

Petition for Discretionary Rveiew

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Comes now Sammy Vidales, appellant pro se, and files his

motion for extension of time and in support shows the following.

On May 15th, 2015, appellant's direct appeal was affirmed

by the Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo, Texas. Appellant's

counsel on direct appeal informed him of the affirmation and also

his right to file a P.D.R. on appellant's own behalf. The letter

was sent May 28th, 2015, received June 1st by appellant.

II.

Appellant asserts that more time is needed to be afforded

adequate opportunity to effectively file a sufficient appeal

on his own behalf. And needs the time to do further research

in the unit law library. Appellant would ask for sixty(60) days.

III.

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that he be

allowed an extension of time to file his P.D.R.

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUN 08 2015

AfcelAeosta,Clerk

itbed,

JLES

\7sr\\ f.m. 2>£>2_-z_

FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

«N 10 2j:j

Abe/ Acosta, Clerk
Exhibit 10.7

                                 October 9, 1996


Jaron Norberg
Tempe, Az  85282


Dear Jaron,

As a follow-up to our recent  discussion in which you  expressed  your intent to
retire from APS effective  December 31st of this year, I am providing you with a
written summary of those benefit enhancements that we have agreed upon.

Retirement
----------

A.       The cash  equivalent  for stock  options and  restricted  stock awarded
         under the Pinnacle West Stock Option and Restricted  Stock Program that
         would have vested with one additional year credited.

B.       In recognition  for your service on the APS Board of Directors you will
         receive an additional four years of credited service for the purpose of
         calculating your pension benefit.

C.       Your pension  benefit will be calculated on base  compensation  paid in
         1994, 1995 and 1996. Additionally,  any incentive bonus earned in 1994,
         1995 and 1996 will also be included in your pension calculation.

Severance
---------

A.       You will receive severance pay equal to one year of base salary.

B.       You will be credited  with one  additional  year of age and service for
         purposes of calculating your pension and SEBRP benefits.

C.       You will  receive  continued  dental  coverage for a period of one year
         beginning  January  1, 1997 to  December  31,  1997  provided  that you
         continue to pay your  respective  share of the  premium.  At the end of
         this one year period,  you will be eligible to elect continued coverage
         in accordance with COBRA.
<PAGE>
Consulting Services
-------------------

At the  discretion  of the Chief  Executive  Officer you will  provide up to six
hundred hours of consulting  services to APS in each of the two years  following
your retirement at the rate of two hundred dollars per hour.

Miscellaneous
-------------

We are  awarding  you the  computers  you have been using at APS, as well as the
Country Club membership at Phoenix Country Club.

Further,  at the  discretion of the CEO every effort will be made to accommodate
you with parking at the Corporate Headquarters building subject to availability.

If you have questions  regarding any of the preceding  information  let me know,
otherwise indicate your acknowledgment and agreement by providing your signature
below.


Sincerely,



WILLIAM J. POST
--------------------------------
William J. Post
Chief Operating Officer
Arizona Public Service





The foregoing is agreed to and accepted:



JARON B. NORBERG
--------------------------------
Jaron Norberg
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians

7500 Odawa Circle

Harbor Springs, Michigan 49740

231-242-1401 • Fax 231-242-1411

August 23, 2013

National Indian Gaming Commission

1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100

Washington, DC 20005

delivered via email to reg.review@nigc.gov

RE: The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians’ comments on Electronic One

Touch Bingo System

Dear National Indian Gaming Commission:

I submit these comments on behalf of, and as general counsel to, the Little Traverse Bay

Bands of Odawa Indians (LTBB). LTBB strongly agrees with the NIGC’s revised legal analysis

set out in it June 25, 2013 Federal Register notice. The proposed reinterpretation of the status of

electronic one touch bingo systems, correctly classifying them as class II, would bring

consistency and clarity to the determination in accordance with the IGRA definition at 25 U.S.C.

§2703(7). LTBB fully agrees that the express definition in IGRA, as analyzed by the federal

courts (e.g. United States v. 103 Elec. Gambling Devices, 223 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2000);

United States v. 162 Megamania Gambling Devices, 231 F.3d 713 (10th Cir. Okla. 2000)) in no

way requires separate steps for initiation of play and covering numbers. Preserving the possibility

of a player “sleeping” through a win is simply not in the IGRA class II definition.

Rather than a subjective case-by-case determination, the NIGC’s revised approach would

enable the development and usage of technical standards that could be accurately analyzed

through testing laboratories. 25 CFR Parts 543 and 547 include class II minimum internal

control standards, and minimum technical standards for class II gaming systems and equipment

that the Tribal regulations must equate or exceed in stringency. One key provision requires the

Tribal regulatory authority to submit the class II equipment to an approved testing laboratory to

certify its compliance with Parts 543 and 547. The erroneous 2008 position of the NIGC created

unnecessary inconsistency between legal and technical determinations. Independent test labs,

such as Gaming Laboratories, Inc., test and certify games based on the written technical

standards. The NIGC’s "two touch rule" expressed in its 2008 Metlakatla gaming ordinance

denial letter was not included in the NIGC’s published technical standards. This resulted in many

games being tested and certified as class II games that do not include the "two touch rule." The

June 25, 2013 reinterpretation would resolve this inconsistency between technical standards and

Page 1 of 2
legal interpretation. The revised approach, eliminating the extra-statutory distinction between

one and two touch systems, would allow for the creation of technical standards that track only the

statutory IGRA class II definition. This would give Tribal operations a means of obtaining

reliable objective determinations of machine status through certified testing laboratories. 

We appreciate the NIGC’s careful analysis reflected in the June 25, 2013 notice, and the

opportunity to provide comments.

Sincerely,

James A. Bransky

General Counsel

Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                         971,199
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,240,513
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,377,754
<PP&E>                                         945,753
<DEPRECIATION>                               (274,604)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,534,939
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          612,194
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       201,159
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,721,586
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,534,939
<SALES>                                      1,300,423
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,300,423
<CGS>                                           95,693
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,524,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,259
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (194,089)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (194,089)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (194,089)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.017)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.017)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 13****Certification Pursuant To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Commonwealth Bank ofAustralia Limited, an Australian corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:     The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: 14 December 2005     /s/ Ralph Norris        Name: Ralph J. Norris
1 

NO. 04-15-00487-CV 

In the Fourth Court of Appeals 

San Antonio, Texas 

__________________________________________________________________ 

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY et al. 

v. 

LEON OSCAR RAMIREZ, JR. et al. 

__________________________________________________________________ 

APPELLEES’ MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL 

__________________________________________________________________ 

TO THE HONORABLE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS: 

 Leon Oscar Ramirez, Jr. and Jesus M. Dominguez, as Guardian for Minerva 

Clementina Ramirez, an incapacitated person, Appellees and Cross-Appellants, file this 

motion to reinstate the appeal and for cause show: 

1. On November 11, 2015, ConocoPhillips Company, defendant in the trial court 

and one of the appellants, filed a notice of bankruptcy stating that on October 

26, 2015, while this appeal was pending, Leon Oscar Ramirez, Jr., Appellee and 

Cross-Appellant in this appeal, filed a petition in bankruptcy, in Case Number 

15-50164, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of 

Texas, Laredo Division, styled In re Leon Oscar Ramirez, Jr. 

2. On November 13, 2015, this Court ordered the appeal abated and removed from 

the court’s active docket pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. The Court also ordered 

ACCEPTED

04-15-00487-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

11/18/2015 6:15:15 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 11/18/2015 6:15:15 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
2 

that the appeal would be reinstated upon proper motion and proof. Tex. R. App. 

P. 8.3. 

3. On November 18, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court signed an order lifting the 

automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362, precisely so that this appeal may 

continue to judgment. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of the 

Bankruptcy Court’s order lifting the automatic stay. 

4. Therefore, Appellees and Cross-Appellants request that the Court reinstate the 

appeal on the Court’s active docket. 

/s/ Alberto Alarcon 

Alberto Alarcon 

 State Bar No. 00968425 

HALL, QUINTANILLA & ALARCON, LC 

P.O. Box 207 

 1302 Washington 

Laredo, Texas 78042-0207 

(956) 723-5527 

(956) 723-8168 (fax) 

aalarcon@sbcglobal.net 

Lisa Bowlin Hobbs 

 State Bar No. 24026905 

 KUHN HOBBS PLLC 

 3307 Northland Drive, Suite 310 

 Austin, Texas 78731 

 (512) 476-6000 

 (512) 476-6002 (fax) 

 lisa@kuhnhobbs.com 

 

 

 
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this motion was served on this 18th day 

of November, 2015, to the following parties and counsel as designated: 

Michael V. Powell 

Locke Lord LLP 

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 

Dallas, Texas 75201

via e-service 

John A. Kazen 

211 Calle del Norte, Suite 100 

Laredo, Texas 78041-6237

via e-service 

 

Bruce J. Werstak, III 

6721 McPherson Road, Suite 360 

Laredo, TX 78041 

 

via e-service 

Jesse R. Castillo via e-service 

Bank of America Plaza, Suite 1020 

300 Convent St. 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

 /s/ Alberto Alarcon 

 Alberto Alarcon
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.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 
 
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515. License No.
Name/address
Date reissued001593F
Robertson Forwarding Co., Inc., 4469 NW 97th Ave., Miami, FL 33178
May 10, 2009.013172N
Yung Hoon Kim, dba Conex International, 20695 South Western Ave., Suite 136, Torrance, CA 90501
May 6, 2009.
 Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.


[FR Doc. E9-13639 Filed 6-9-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### Gregoria Floridalma AJIATAZ MAZARIEGOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74562.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 8, 2006.

Gregoria Floridalma Ajiataz Mazariegos, San Rafael, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, John S. Hogan, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil DivyOffice of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Gregoria Floridalma Ajiataz Mazariegos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *INS v. Elias Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Mazariegos did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. *Id.*at 481-482, 112 S.Ct. 812. Mazariegos’ claim centers on her father’s involvement with the National Police. Her father, however, as well as her four brothers, continue to reside in *698Guatemala without incident and she has testified that neither she nor her family was politically active. *See Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 816-17 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that “an applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident”); *Sangha v. INS,*103 F.3d 1482, 1491 (9th Cir.1997) (concluding that petitioner failed to show that he faced problems on account of his political opinion).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
solarmax_ex1024.htm

  EXHIBIT 10.24
  
 August 4, 2022
  
 SolarMax Technology, Inc.
 3080 12th Street
 Riverside, California 92507
  
 Ladies and Gentlemen:
  
 Reference is made to the agreement dated March 27, 2019, pursuant to which I exchanged 998,676 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share (“Common Stock”), of SolarMax Technology, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) represented by a Stock Grant for (i) an option to purchase 1,058,098 shares of Common Stock and (ii) a cash payment of $500,000 which was to have been paid by December 15, 2019 and which date was extended to December 31, 2022. This letter will confirm my prior advice to you that I agree that the date by which the cash payment is to be made to me has been extended to the earlier of December 31, 2022 or three business days after the completion of the Company’s initial public offering.  The number of shares in this letter reflect the 0.59445-for-one reverse stock split effective July 15, 2022.
  
 	 Very truly yours,
	  

	  
	  

	  /s/ Ching Liu
	  

	 Name: Ching Liu
EXHIBIT 32.1

                 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                               INFINITY, INC.
                    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Infinity, Inc. for the period ending September 30, 2003:

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Infinity,
Inc.





/s/ Stanton E. Ross
Stanton E. Ross
Chief Executive Officer
November 19, 2003
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3354 

To redesignate the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex 

as the Sam D. Hamilton North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges 

Complex. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2010 

Mr. COCHRAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To redesignate the North Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex as the Sam D. Hamilton North Mississippi 

National Wildlife Refuges Complex. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF THE NORTH MISSISSIPPI 

4 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES COMPLEX. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The North Mississippi National 

6 Wildlife Refuges Complex, located in the State of Mis7 sissippi and consisting of the Dahomey National Wildlife 

8 Refuge, the Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge, the 

9 Coldwater National Wildlife Refuge, and the Bear Lake 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3354 IS

1 Unit, is redesignated as the ‘‘Sam D. Hamilton North 

2 Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex.’’ 

3 (b) BOUNDARY REVISION.—Nothing in this Act pre4 vents the Secretary of the Interior from making adjust5 ments to the boundaries of the Sam D. Hamilton North 

6 Mississippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex (referred 

7 to in this section as the ‘‘Refuges Complex’’), as the Sec8 retary determines to be appropriate, to carry out the mis9 sion of the National Wildlife Refuge System in accordance 

10 with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

11 Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) and any other ap12 plicable authority. 

13 (c) ADDITION OF LAND.—Nothing in this Act pre14 vents the Secretary of the Interior from adding to the Ref15 uges Complex new land or parcels of the National Wildlife 

16 Refuge System, as the Secretary determines to be appro17 priate, to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife 

18 Refuge System in accordance with the National Wildlife 

19 Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

20 668dd et seq.) and any other applicable authority. 

21 (d) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any statute, 

22 rule, regulation, executive order, publication, map, paper, 

23 or other document of the United States to the North Mis24 sissippi National Wildlife Refuges Complex is deemed to 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3354 IS

1 refer to the Sam D. Hamilton North Mississippi National 

2 Wildlife Refuges Complex. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS