alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES 

PITTSBURGH,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 254 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
H. Res. 219

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 7, 2003.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 766) to provide for a National Nanotechnology

Research and Development Program, and for other purposes.

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under

the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in

the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During
2

•HRES 219 EH

consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the

Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition

on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment

has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule

XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read.

At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment

the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member

may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment

adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 38711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17150]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 11, 2017, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Network Centric Operations 
Industry Consortium, Inc. (``NCOIC'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Lewis Combs (individual member), 
Cincinnati, OH, has been added as a party to this venture.
    Also, Tata Power SED, Mumbai, INDIA; and beamSmart, Vienna, VA, 
have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and NCOIC intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 19, 2004, NCOIC filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on February 2, 2005 (70 FR 5486).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 13, 
2017. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on April 4, 2017 (82 FR 16420).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-17150 Filed 8-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>   1
                                 THERATECH, INC.                     EXHIBIT 11
                               -----------------

             STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                                    -----------------------------
Primary:                                                                1997             1996
                                                                    -----------      ------------
<S>                                                                  <C>               <C>       
        Weighted average shares of common stock                      20,591,790        20,101,747
        Common equivalent shares attributable to stock options        1,254,553
                                                                    -----------      ------------
        Weighted average common and dilutive
              common equivalent shares                               21,846,343        20,101,747
                                                                    ===========      ============
        Net income (loss)                                           $   786,846      $ (1,275,525)
                                                                    ===========      ============
        Net income (loss) per share                                 $      0.04      $      (0.06)
                                                                    ===========      ============


Fully Diluted:

        Weighted average shares of common stock                      20,591,790        20,101,747
        Common equivalent shares attributable to stock options        1,254,553
                                                                    -----------      ------------
        Weighted average common and dilutive
              common equivalent shares                               21,846,343        20,101,747
                                                                    ===========      ============
        Net income (loss)                                           $   786,846      $ (1,275,525)
                                                                    ===========      ============
        Net income (loss) per share                                 $      0.04      $      (0.06)
                                                                    ===========      ============
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Madden, Appellant.

[856 NYS2d 344]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (i)]), arising out of a vehicle chase in which defendant led the police through the Towns of Chili and Henrietta. The crimes at issue in this appeal were committed in the Town of Henrietta. We agree with defendant that he did not validly waive his right to appeal with respect to the denial of that part of his omnibus motion concerning the alleged violation of his statutory double jeopardy rights. Although defendant agreed with County Court’s statement that, by pleading guilty, defendant was “giving up [his] right to appeal the double jeopardy issue,” we conclude that the interchange between the court and defendant does not constitute a valid waiver by defendant of the *1265right to appeal with respect to the statutory double jeopardy issue. “When a trial court characterizes an appeal as [a right] automatically extinguished upon entry of a guilty plea, a reviewing court cannot be certain that the defendant comprehended the nature of the waiver of appellate rights” *(People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Here, the record does not “establish that the defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” *(id.).*

Contrary to the further contention of defendant, however, we conclude that the court properly determined that there was no statutory double jeopardy violation. The record establishes that, prior to being indicted for the offenses committed in the Town of Henrietta, defendant pleaded guilty to traffic offenses pending in the Town of Chili arising out of the same incident. Defendant did not move for consolidation of the charges and, pursuant to CPL 40.40, “the prohibition against separate prosecution of jointly prosecutable offenses applies *only*if the defendant has requested consolidation thereof for trial purposes and the request is denied” *(People v Dean,*56 AD2d 242, 246 [1977], *affd*45 NY2d 651 [1978], *rearg denied*46 NY2d 940 [1979]). Although defendant contends for the first time on appeal that there was a constitutional double jeopardy violation, he is not required to preserve that contention for our review *(see People v Biggs,*1 NY3d 225, 231 [2003]), and the contention survives his guilty plea *(see People v Hansen,*95 NY2d 227, 231 n 2 [2000]). We further conclude on the record before us, however, that there was no constitutional double jeopardy violation *(see People v Dodge,*38 AD3d 1324, 1325 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 874 [2007]; *see generally Biggs,*1 NY3d at 228-229). Present—Martoche, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Wells-Gardner Electronics Corporation;(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 Annual Report;(3)
    
    Based on 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 periods presented in this
Annual 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 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 Annual Report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Omitted;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the 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
Annual Report based on such evaluation;(d)
    
    Disclosed in this Annual 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;
 (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 auditors and
the Audit Committee of the registrants Board of Directors:
 (a)
    
    Any known 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 data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material
weakness in internal controls;(b)
    
    Any known 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: March 15, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ ANTHONY SPIERAnthony SpierChairman, President &Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE REGISTRANT'S STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1995 AND BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1995.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             657
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F2>
<PP&E>                                         395,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 344,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F2>
<BONDS>                                        143,859
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       240,034
<OTHER-SE>                                    (43,235)<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   344,571
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,605
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,227<F4>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,584<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,537
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,257<F6>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,304
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,304
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.61<F7>
<FN>
<F1>Amount insignificant.
<F2>Balance sheet is not classified.
<F3>Amount represents accumulated dividends in excess of Trust net income.
<F4>Amount comprised of Property Operating Cost ($8,310) and
Other Operating Expenses ($2,917).
<F5>Amount comprised of Depreciation expense ($10,893) and
General and Administrative expense ($1,691).
<F6>Amount represents income before gains on sales of real estate
investments. (Gains on sales of real estate investment equals $47)
<F7>Exercise of the outstanding stock options would not have material 
dilutive effect on earnings per share.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
No. 104, Misc.

#### Dale *v.*Heinze, Warden.

May 13, 1946.

Dismissed. The matters were presented and disposed of by denial of petition for certiorari in No. 949, *Dale*v. *California,*327 U. S. 809.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,420
<PP&E>                                         30,104
<DEPRECIATION>                                 11,158
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,379
<BONDS>                                        22,008
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,341
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,430
<SALES>                                         1,457
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,802
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    80
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                80
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                       80
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.04



</TABLE>
[No. 54680-5-I.

Division One.

November 21, 2005.]

#### Frontier Airpark Association, *Respondent,*v. Duane Wilcoxon, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 01-2-02065-8, Richard J. Thorpe, J., entered July 6, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Agid, J., concurred in by Grosse and Becker, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1

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 WJ Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael R. Farese, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)    The
Report fully 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 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|/s/MICHAEL R. FARESE, PHD.                                                                                  |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Michael R. Farese, Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
March 27, 2003 |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reginald Leon EDWARDS, a/k/a Reginald L. Edwards, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7620.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Reginald Leon Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Leon Edwards appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendment 750 to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines. We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion; however, “[w]e review de novo ... a court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2).” *United States v. Munn,*595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir.2010). As the district court properly found, Edwards was sentenced pursuant to the statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment and therefore is not eligible for a reduction via § 3582(c)(2). *See id.*at 187 (“[A] defendant who was convicted of a crack offense but sentenced pursuant to a mandatory statutory minimum sentence is ineligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2).”) (citing *United States v. Hood,*556 F.3d 226, 235-36 (4th Cir.2009)). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Edwards,*No. 6:07-cr-00014-NKM-l (W.D.Va. Sept. 11, 2012).

*263We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
EXHIBIT 23.1


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement (No. 333-105576) on Form S-8 of Williams Industries,
Incorporated of our report dated October 19, 2007, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule
of Williams Industries, Incorporated (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
regarding the uncertainty of Williams Industries, Incorporated's
ability to continue as a going concern); appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Williams Industries, Incorporated for the
year ended July 31, 2007.

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
Vienna, Virginia
October 19, 2007
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

As Adopted Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (the Company),
hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 28, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Financial Condition and Results of Operations of the Company.



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Peter L. Lynch
|Peter L. Lynch    

September 22, 2006