alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CINEPLEX ODEON CORPORATION							

STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS							

(Calculated in accordance with United States generally accepted
 accounting principles)							
(In U.S. dollars, except number of shares)							
							

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
							
		                           Year ended	        Year ended	    Year ended	
		                    December 31, 1996	 December 31, 1995   December 31, 1994	
				    -----------------    -----------------   -----------------
<S>                                  <C>                  <C>                 <C>    			
Primary						
-------
Loss from continuing operations (G)      ($31,082,000)	      ($32,907,000)	($14,173,000)	
							
Net loss (H)		                 ($31,082,000)	      ($32,907,000)	($14,173,000)	
							
Weighted average outstanding common and							
subordinate restricted voting shares 	  163,473,000 	       114,764,000 	 110,175,000 
							
Add: incremental shares based on
treasury stock method, calculated using
average stock price for the year	            0 (2)	         0 (2)	           0 (2)
							
Adjusted weighted average outstanding
shares (I)		                  163,473,000 	       114,764,000 	 110,175,000 	
							
Loss per share from continuing
operations (G/I)		               ($0.19)		    ($0.29)	      ($0.13)	
							
Loss per share (H/I)		               ($0.19)		    ($0.29)	      ($0.13)	
							
Fully Diluted 							
-------------							
Loss from continuing operations          ($31,082,000)	      ($32,907,000)	($14,173,000)	
							
Imputed interest savings on
convertible debt 		                N/A (1)		    N/A	(1)	     0 	(1)
							
Adjusted net loss from continuing
operations (J)		                 ($31,082,000)        ($32,907,000)     ($14,173,000)	
							
Net loss 		                 ($31,082,000)	      ($32,907,000)     ($14,173,000)	
							
Imputed interest savings on
convertible debt 		               N/A (1)		    N/A	(1)	     0 	(1)
							
Adjusted net loss (K)		         ($31,082,000)        ($32,907,000)     ($14,173,000)	
							
Weighted average outstanding common and							
subordinate restricted voting shares 	  163,473,000 	       114,764,000       110,175,000 	
							
Add: incremental shares based on
treasury stock method, calculated
using ending stock price for the year		0 (2)	              0 (2)	     0 (2)
							
Add: Incremental shares on
convertible debt  		              N/A (2)		    N/A (2)	     0 (2)
	                                                                       						
Adjusted weighted average outstanding
shares (L)		                  163,473,000 		114,764,000 	110,175,000
							
Loss per share from continuing
operations (J/L)		               ($0.19)		     ($0.29)	     ($0.13)	
							
Loss per share (K/L)		               ($0.19)		     ($0.29)	     ($0.13)	
							
							
(1)  Imputed interest calculation would be anti-dilutive and therefore has 
     been excluded in calculations.

(2)  Inclusion of conversions would be anti-dilutive and therefore are 
     excluded in calculations.
							
</TABLE>
#### Carl Reynoso et al., Appellants, v Samir M. Amin et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[821 NYS2d 883]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered October 12, 2005, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to reargue, denominated as one for “renewal and/or reargument,” unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

Since plaintiffs did not offer any new or additional facts that would have changed the prior determination to dismiss, the motion was in essence one to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable *(see Rosen v Rosenholc,*303 AD2d 230 [2003]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.R, Andrias, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano,

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch

,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

M arch 26 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk March 26 , 2021

160291

- 2 ( 77 )

VERNON BOWMAN, Individually and as

Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF

KELLY M. BOWMAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 160291, 160292

v C OA: 341640, 341663

Macomb CC: 2017

- 002159

- NH

ST. JOHN HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL

CENTER, and ASCENSION MEDICAL GROUP

MICHIGAN

, doing business as ROMEO PLAN

DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, and TUSHAR S.

PARIKH, M.D.,

Defendant s

- Appellees.

_______ ______________________________ ___ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Association for Justice to

file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on March 2 4 , 2021

, is accepted for filing

.
# table26_q4.4_state
@article{1216086,
  author = {Melissa Henderson and Benjamin Heacock and Markus Bleuel and David Cory and Colin Heikes and Michael G. Huber and Jeffery Krzywon and Olivier Nahman-Lévesque and Graeme Luke and M Pula and Dusan Sarenac and Kirill Zhernenkov and Dmitry Pushin},
  title = {Three-Dimensional Neutron Far-Field Tomography of a Bulk Skyrmion Lattice},
  year = {2023},
  number = {106},
  month = {2023-08-13 04:08:00},
  publisher = {ACS Nature, Physics},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956676},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.094435},
  language = {en},
}
No. 04-15-00405-CV

__________________________________________ 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

__________________________________________ 

DAVID GILLESPIE, 

Appellant, 

vs.

A.L. HERNDEN and FREDERICK R. ZLOTOUCHA, 

Appellees.

__________________________________________ 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL & 

APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR BRIEFING DEADLINE 

EXTENSION

To the Honorable Court: 

Appellant David Gillespie asks this Court and all counsel of 

record to take notice that he has retained appellate counsel: 

Kimberly S. Keller, Keller Stolarczyk PLLC, 234 West Bandera Road, 

No. 120, Boerne, Texas 78006. 

Appellant respectfully requests this Court grant him a 30-day 

briefing deadline extension.1 Appellant’s brief is currently due on 

 

1Appellant’s newly-retained appellate counsel has recently received the 

appellate record and needs time to analyze the appellate record, research the 

ACCEPTED

04-15-00405-cv

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

10/21/2015 12:04:27 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/21/2015 12:04:27 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
2

November 4, 2015. If this Court grants this Motion, Appellant’s brief 

will be due on December 4, 2015. Appellees are unopposed to this 

Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

KELLER STOLARCZYK, PLLC

234 West Bandera Road #120

Boerne, Texas 78006

Tele: 830.981.5000

Facs: 888.293.8580

/s/Kimberly S. Keller

Kimberly S. Keller

SBN: 24014182

kim@kellsto.com

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

 

legal issues presented by the trial court’s ruling, and prepare and file a brief to 

this Court raising Appellant’s issues on appeal.
3

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE & SERVICE

 I conferred with opposing counsel, listed below, and was 

informed Appellees are unopposed to this Motion. Also, I certify that 

on October 21, 2015, I served this Motion on: 

Richard A. Sparr Jr. 

SPARR & GEERDES

1313 NE Loop 410, Suite 100

San Antonio, Texas 78209

Email: rsparr@sparrlaw.net

Frederick R. Zlotucha

LAW OFFICE OF FREDERICK R. ZLOTUCHA

222 E. Main Plaza

San Antonio, Texas 78205

Counsel for Appellees

/s/Kimberly S. Keller

Kimberly S. Keller
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Shermen WSC Acquisition Corp.(the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|                            | /s/ John E.  Toffolon, Jr. |
|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                            | Name:                           | John E.  Toffolon, Jr. |
|                            | Title:                          | Chief Financial Officer  and |
|                            |                            | Director (Principal  Financial and |
|                            |                            | Accounting Officer) |
|                            |                            |   |
| Dated:  May 15,  2008 |                            |   |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0 248 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. REGINA LEE THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant,
ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 1, 202 2 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal
.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 20 2022

05/20/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0248
EX-32
  ·   Section 1350 Certifications
  GENEMEN INC.
 
 Pursuant
to Section  18U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Pursuant  to  section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002
(subsection  (a) and (b)
of  section  1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,
United  States  Code),  each of
the  undersigned  officers  of Genemen
Inc.,  a Nevada  corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify that:
 
 The
Annual  Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  February
28, 2009  (the  "Form  10-K")  of  the  Company   fully   complies   with  the
requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act of
1934  and  information  contained  in
the  Form  10-K  fairly presents,  in
all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date:  June
2, 2009
 
 /s/ Qiaozhen
Chen
 Qiaozhen
Chen
 Principal
Executive Officer
 and
Principal Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Aaron H. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Sharda R., Appellant.

[822 NYS2d *1001737]

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Salintro, J.), dated March 7, 2005, which denied her application to modify a temporary order of protection of the same court dated January 5, 2005, which, inter alia, excluded her from residing in the same household as her child, Aaron H., and from visiting him except when supervised by the Administration for Children’s Services.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The temporary order of protection dated January 5, 2005, has expired. Accordingly, the appeal has been rendered academic. Prudenti, EJ., Mastro, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtron M., Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 760]

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record *(see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). The credible police testimony adduced at the hearing satisfied the People’s burden of establishing that defendant agreed to waive his *Miranda*rights. To the extent that defendant is arguing that suppression of his statement is warranted as a sanction for the loss of a *Miranda*warnings form, we find that argument without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P., Buckley, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.
Program United States

 Railroad Retirement Board Letter Office of Programs 

Quality Reporting Service Center Phone: (312) 751-4992 

e-mail: qrsc@rrb.gov Fax: (312) 751-7123 

Letter No. Date: March 8, 2013 

2013-04 

TO: Certification Registration, Retirement and Unemployment Contact Officials 

SUBJECT: Impact of Sequestration under the Budget Control Act of 2011 on RUIA Benefits 

Please distribute this notice to all individuals within your organization who may need the 

information in connection with their work. 

Unemployment and sickness benefits payable under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act 

(RUIA) for days after February 28, 2013 must be sequestered or reduced by 9.2 % as part of a 

package of automatic spending cuts required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), which 

was passed in August 2011. This sequestration is the result of the failure of the Joint Select 

Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose, and Congress to enact, legislation reducing the 

deficit, as required by the BCA. Under the BCA, the cuts were triggered to take effect beginning 

January 1, 2013, if the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not agree to a $1.2 

trillion deficit-reduction package by November 23, 2011. The cuts were initially delayed but 

will now take effect March 1, 2013. The initial reduction will continue through September 30, 

2013. Congress will determine the amount of subsequent reductions for October 1, 2013 and 

beyond. We will update this program letter as necessary. 

The final order of sequestration remains in effect through September 30, 2013, or until ordered 

by legislative or Executive action. 

Only the reduced amount of sickness or unemployment benefits paid to a claimant will be 

charged to the claimant’s base year employer’s benefit account balance and consequently will be 

used when calculating the base year employer’s experience rated RUIA contribution rate for any 

future years. The sequestered amount will not be charged to the claimant’s base year employer’s 

benefit account balance. 
Any reduced special extended unemployment benefits paid based on the American Taxpayer 

Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA) or any subsequent Act extending unemployment benefits will be 

charged to the $175 million appropriation. These benefits will not be charged to the claimant’s 

base year employer’s benefit account balance and consequently will not be used when 

calculating the base year employer’s experience rated RUIA contribution rate for any future 

years. 

If you have any questions regarding the reduction or sequestration of benefits paid based on the 

Budget Control Act of 2011, please contact the Railroad Retirement Board’s Quality Reporting 

Service Center at (312) 751-4992.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60629

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES EDWARD JEFFERSON, 

a/k/a “Peanut,”

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(USDC No. 4:93-CR-21-D)

- - - - - - - - - -

May 28, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

James Jefferson appeals from the order reimbursing the

Government $8,622 for the cost of paying Jefferson’s legal

representation in his criminal proceedings from funds seized from

Jefferson when he was arrested, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(f).

Jefferson contends that the district court’s reimbursement

order violated the Due Process Clause because he had no prior

knowledge that the Government would argue for forfeiture under
2

§ 3006A(f); because the district court and the Government denied

him the assistance of retained counsel at trial and did nothing to

help him obtain a refund from retained counsel; because he was not

informed during his criminal proceedings that future reimbursement

was a condition of appointment of counsel; and because the

Government failed to direct the court’s attention to the funds used

for reimbursement when the court investigated Jefferson’s financial

status before appointing counsel. He argues that the district

court failed to investigate adequately his financial status before

appointing counsel; that the district court lacked authority to

order reimbursement after his conviction and sentence were affirmed

by this court; that the district court lacked authority to order

forfeiture of his funds after it was ordered returned to him by a

state court; and that the district court lacked authority to order

reimbursement under § 3006A(f) after the Government failed to seek

forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. §§ 853, 881.

Jefferson received notice of the hearing regarding the

Government’s reimbursement motion and his own motion for return of

the funds to him. He received a meaningful opportunity to be heard

at the hearing on the motions. Jefferson received the process due

to him. Rodriguez v. United States, 66 F.3d 95, 97 (5th Cir.

1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1058 (1996). Regarding Jefferson’s

remaining arguments, we have reviewed the record and the briefs of

the party and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court. See

United States v. Jefferson, No. 4:93-CR-021-D (N.D. Miss. Sep. 5,
3

1996). Finally, Jefferson’s motion for appointment of appellate

counsel is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Corrado De Gasperis, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Symmetry Holdings Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the condensed consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 

 

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

 

a) designed such disclosure 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 us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s registered public accounting firm 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 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 internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 7, 2007 

 

 

| */s/ Corrado De Gasperis*                                                      |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  

*Corrado De Gasperis*

 

*(Principal Financial Officer)*

  |
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15675]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3305-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


Oklahoma; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-3305-EM), dated June 23, 2009, and related 
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 23, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kenneth R. 
Tingman, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating 
Officer for this emergency.
    This action terminates the appointment of Douglas G. Mayne as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-15675 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
December 18, 2012



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

WILLIAM V. WADE , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 01024

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision ce rtified below for observance.