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

                                                                    Exhibit 11.0

Computation of Earnings per Share

The following represents the computation of earnings per share reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the option and warrants plan which
would be dilutive will be exercised.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Three Months Ended            Nine Months Ended
                                                                    September 30,               September 30,
                                                            --------------------------    --------------------------
                                                               2005            2004          2005           2004
<S>                                                         <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Net earnings applicable to common shareholders - basic      $   506,488    $   465,164    $ 1,632,605    $ 1,272,625
Add: Dividend to preferred shareholders                          24,819         21,600         68,019         64,800
                                                            -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------

Net earnings - diluted                                      $   531,307    $   486,764    $ 1,700,624    $ 1,337,425
                                                            ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========

Weighted average common shares outstanding - basic           12,836,971     12,550,679     12,704,035     12,482,060

Common share equivalents relating to stock options,
warrants and preferred stock                                  3,825,782      3,571,496      3,929,764      3,596,813
                                                            -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------

Adjusted common and common equivalent shares for diluted
computation                                                  16,662,753     16,122,175     16,633,799     16,078,873
                                                            ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========

Net earnings per share:
         Basic                                              $      0.04    $      0.04    $      0.13    $      0.10
         Diluted                                            $      0.03    $      0.03    $      0.10    $      0.08

Anti-dilutive options not included in the earnings per
share computations                                              584,163        470,100        481,298        365,100
</TABLE>

See notes to consolidated financial statements
EXHIBIT 21 (a)



Subsidiaries of OXIS International, Inc.



As of December 31, 2002, the Companys subsidiaries were as follows:



|Name                            |  | Jurisdiction of incorporation
|------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|OXIS Health Products, Inc.      |  | Delaware                     
|OXIS Therapeutics, Inc.         |  | Delaware                     
|OXIS International S.A.         |  | France                       
|OXIS Acquisition Corporation    |  | Delaware                     
|OXIS Isle of Man Limited        |  | Isle of Man                  
|OXIS Instruments, Inc.          |  | Pennsylvania                 
|OXIS International (UK) Limited |  | United Kingdom
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her
capacity as an officer of e.Digital Corporation (the "Company"), that, to his or
her knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 Date:
February 10, 2009
 
 /s/ ROBERT PUTNAM
 Robert
      Putnam,Interim
      Chief Accounting Officer
                  (Principal
      Financial Officer)
 
 Date:
February 10, 2009
 
 /s/ ALFRED H. FALK
 Alfred
      H. Falk,President
      and CEO,
                  (Principal
      Executive Officer)
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID Peer Review Meeting.                    

*Date:*                         September 20-21, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health,  5601 Fishers Lane,  Rockville, MD 20892,  (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kelly Y. Poe, Ph.D., Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3F40B, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5036,                         *poeky@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 22, 2017.

Natasha M. Copeland, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-18121 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GURA SINGH DHILLON,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70079

Agency No. A077-157-610

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 19, 2010** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. 

Gura Singh Dhillon, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

JUL 29 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70079

discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960,

964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Dhillon’s motion to

reconsider as untimely, where it was filed over two years after the BIA’s final

administrative decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). 

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s exercise of its sua sponte authority

to deny Dhillon’s motion to reconsider based on his due process argument. See

Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### GUMBINER THEATRICAL ENTERPRISES, Inc., Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL THEATRES CORPORATION, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 12074.

United States District Court, E. D. New York.

Nov. 19, 1954.

See also, 106 F.Supp. 489.

*321Corcoran & Kostelanetz, New York City, for plaintiff, Francis J. Mulderig, New York City, of counsel.

Dwight, Royall, Harris, Koegel & Caskey, New York City, for defendant, Frederick *W.*R. Pride, Charles F. Young, Stanley Godofsky, New York City, of counsel.

GALSTON, District Judge.

The defendant, by motion, seeks to limit the information requested in interrogatories propounded to the defendant, to activities in the States of California and New York, and to limit the period of time covered to the date of filing the complaint herein, and to have eliminated and stricken interrogatories 2(i), 2(j) and 3, 9 and 10.

This action is brought under the anti-trust laws, and the cor' ’aint was filed in this court on September 5, 1951. In its answer the defendant pleaded the statutes of limitations of the States of New York and of California as a complete bar to the claim asserted. On July 2, 1953 the plaintiff moved for a separate trial of the issue of the statute of limitations. The defendant consented to the motion for a separate trial on the statute of limitations.

The determination of the issue of the statute of limitations should be restricted to the activities within the States of New York and California, and insofar as the interrogatories are directed to activities outside those states, the objections must be sustained. Such references as Ball v. Paramount Pictures, D.C., 4 F. R.D. 194; Savannah Theatre Co. v. Lucas & Jenkins, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 461, and Bordonaro Bros. Theatres v. Loew’s, D.C., 7 F.R.D. 210, are pertinent.

That was my view on the oral arguments of this motion; and the reading of the papers does not change that opinion. I believe also that the information sought in the interrogatories should be limited to matters prior to and up to September 5, 1951, when the action was commenced in this court. See Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Harrisburg Trust Co., D.C., 2 F.R.D. 197.

As to specific objections: interrogatory 2, subdivisions (i) and (j) relate to the income and expenses of the defendant. I cannot see how these interrogatories bear on the issue of the statute of limitations, and the objections are therefore sustained. Sustaining the general objection requires also that the objection to interrogatory 3 must be sustained.

As to interrogatory 9, the information sought is certainly within the knowledge of the plaintiff. It must know when it informed any representative of the defendant that a law suit was to be instituted in California against the defendant. For the same reason- the objection is sustained to interrogatory 10, *322which relates to information of a projected law suit having been given to any representative of the defendant in New York.

Defendant’s motion is granted. Settle order.
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1399

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Arkansas.

Charles Allen Bisbee, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: 

 Filed: July 7, 2005 

___________

Before 

___________

PER CURIAM.

After two days of trial, Mr. Bisbee pleaded guilty to eight counts of mail fraud

under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Over Mr. Bisbee’s objection, the district court1

 imposed a

role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 and sentenced him to thirty-three months

imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the
-2-

enhancement. Also, the district court sentenced Mr. Bisbee before the Supreme Court

issued its opinion in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). Mr. Bisbee

raises a Sixth Amendment argument on appeal claiming that the district court

impermissibly based the enhancement on facts neither admitted by the defendant nor

found by the jury. We affirm.

Mr. Bisbee’s crimes involved the fraudulent sale of stolen vehicles as salvaged

and rebuilt vehicles. Participants in the scheme stole vehicles nearly identical to

recently wrecked vehicles and switched the vehicle identification numbers between

the wrecked and stolen vehicles. Mr. Bisbee then sold the stolen vehicles as salvaged

and rebuilt vehicles. On Mr. Bisbee’s property, government agents found twenty

wrecked vehicles with identification numbers removed. The unwitting buyers used

the mail to communicate with lenders, insurers, and a state government agency to

finance and register the vehicles.

Mr. Bisbee admitted to these facts in his change of plea hearing. He also

admitted during his sentencing hearing that at least two other individuals were

involved in the scheme. The district court relied on these facts to assess the role

enhancement. This evidence was sufficient to support the enhancement.

When a defendant raises a Sixth Amendment, Blakely claim for the first time

on appeal, we review for plain error under the standard set forth in United States v.

Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 551-52 (8th Cir. 2005). To show prejudice under Pirani, a

defendant must show a reasonable probability that the district court would have

granted a lesser sentence had the district court not treated the Guidelines as

mandatory. Id. Here, the district court sentenced Mr. Bisbee at the top of the

applicable Guidelines range. There is nothing to suggest that the district court would

have given Mr. Bisbee a lesser sentence had the district court not treated the

guidelines as mandatory. 
-3-

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE NINE
WEST GROUP INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF AUGUST 1, 1998 AND
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE TWENTY-SIX WEEKS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998
<CASH>                                          27,522
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  181,860
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (57,229)
<INVENTORY>                                    516,930
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               730,132
<PP&E>                                         262,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                (90,683)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,320,241
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          210,291
<BONDS>                                        576,892
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           359
<OTHER-SE>                                     465,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,320,241
<SALES>                                        976,240
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               976,240
<CGS>                                          570,804
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  570,804
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               328,656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,293
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,408
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,488
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,920
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,920
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.80
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.2

[Cenlar Logo]

SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

Cenlar FSB

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Cenlar FSB, as servicer (the Servicer) pursuant to the applicable servicing agreements governing the
securities listed on Exhibit A, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicers activities during the period 1/1/13 to 12/31/13 (the
Reporting Period) and of the Servicers performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To
the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th day of February 2014.



|    |  |                             
|--- |  | ----------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Michael Blair           
|    |  | Name: Michael Blair         
|    |  | Title: Senior Vice President



---

Exhibit A

Securities Covered in Cenlar FSBs Servicer Compliance Statement 1123:

Redwood Trust, Inc.



|         |  |                     |  |             |  |                                  |                 | 
|-------- |  | ------------------- |  | ----------- |  | -------------------------------- | --------------- | 
|Investor |  | Issuer              |  | Security    |  | * PeriodSubserviced byCenlar FSB |                
|HO6      |  | Redwood Trust, Inc. |  | SEMT 2012-1 |  |                                  | 1/1 to 12/31/13 | 
|K06      |  | Redwood Trust, Inc. |  | SEMT 2012-2 |  |                                  | 1/1 to 12/31/13 | 
|L06      |  | Redwood Trust, Inc. |  | SEMT 2012-3 |  |                                  | 1/1 to 12/31/13 | 
|Z06      |  | Redwood Trust, Inc. |  | SEMT 2012-4 |  |                                  | 1/1 to 12/31/13 | 
|Y06      |  | Redwood Trust, Inc. |  | SEMT 2012-5 |  |                                  | 1/1 to 12/31/13 | 
|RW0      |  | Redwood Trust, Inc. |  | SEMT 2012-6 |  |                                  | 1/1 to 12/31/13 | 
|RW1      |  | Redwood Trust, Inc. |  | SEMT 2013-1 |  |                                  | 1/1 to 12/31/13 | 
|RW2/S11  |  | Redwood Trust, Inc. |  | SEMT 2013-2 |  |                                  | 2/1 to 12/31/13 | 
|RW3      |  | Redwood Trust, Inc. |  | SEMT 2013-3 |  |                                  | 3/1 to 12/31/13 | 
|RW4      |  | Redwood Trust, Inc. |  | SEMT 2013-4 |  |                                  | 4/1 to 12/31/13 | 
|RW5      |  | Redwood Trust, Inc. |  | SEMT 2013-5 |  |                                  | 5/1 to 12/31/13 | 
|RW6      |  | Redwood Trust, Inc. |  | SEMT 2013-6 |  |                                  | 6/1 to 12/31/13 | 
|RW7      |  | Redwood Trust, Inc. |  | SEMT 2013-7 |  |                                  | 7/1 to 12/31/13 |
Exhibit 32.2


        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND
         18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In  connection  with the filing of Zunicom,  Inc. and  Subsidiary  (the
"Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),I,  John C. Rudy,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to Rule  13a-14(b)  of the  Exchange  Act and 18 U.S.C.  (SS) 1350,  as
enacted pursuant to Section 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 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/ John C. Rudy
----------------------
John C. Rudy
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer

May 14, 2010
























                                Exhibit 32.2 - 1