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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

 DYNAMEX INC.
 CALCULATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
 (in thousands except per share data)
 (Unaudited)



<Table>
<Caption>
                                        Three months ended        Nine months ended
                                              April 30,               April 30,
                                       ---------------------    ---------------------
                                         2002        2001         2002        2001
                                       ---------   ---------    ---------   ---------
<S>                                    <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>
 Net income (loss)                     $   1,330   $     (17)   $   1,787   $     540
                                       =========   =========    =========   =========

 Weighted average common

    shares outstanding                    10,680      10,207       10,414      10,207

 Common share equivalents related
    to options and warrants                   42          --           36          12
                                       ---------   ---------    ---------   ---------

 Common shares and common share
    equivalents                           10,722      10,207       10,450      10,219
                                       =========   =========    =========   =========

 Common stock price used under
    treasury stock method              $    2.21   $    2.04    $    2.09   $    1.63
                                       =========   =========    =========   =========

 Net income (loss) per common share:

    Basic                              $    0.12   $   (0.00)   $    0.17   $    0.05
                                       =========   =========    =========   =========

    Diluted                            $    0.12   $   (0.00)   $    0.17   $    0.05
                                       =========   =========    =========   =========
</Table>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of Texas Eastern Products
Pipeline Company, LLC, the sole general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (the
Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2003, filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TEPPCO Partners, L.P.
and will be retained by TEPPCO Partners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

February 23, 2004
Date

|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ CHARLES H. LEONARD                                       
|                                                             
|Charles H. Leonard                                           
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer            
|Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company, LLC, General Partner
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001015551
<NAME>                        Sprint Sprectrum L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         90
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  551
<ALLOWANCES>                                   56
<INVENTORY>                                    352
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,012
<PP&E>                                         7,402
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,029
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,737
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,240
<BONDS>                                        8,853
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,471)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,737
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,699
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (970)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (970)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (970)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

                   CONSENT OF PETERSON & CO., LLP, INDEPENDENT
                        REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on
Forms  S-2  (Nos.  333-108923,   333-105656,  333-37676,  333-63468,  333-73906,
333-84766),  Forms S-3 (Nos.  333-19695,  333-62761,  333-45759,  333-07861) and
Forms  S-8  (Nos.  333-105854,   033-61704,   033-61708,  033-63046,  333-24991,
333-26319,  333-60011)  of our report dated  February 28, 2005,  included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Protein Polymer Technologies,  Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2004, with respect to the financial  statements,  included in
this Form 10-KSB.





                                                     PETERSON & CO., LLP

San Diego, California
March 30, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN
THIS FORM 10-QSB FOR PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,769,660
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,823,231
<PP&E>                                         250,508
<DEPRECIATION>                                 140,396
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,972,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,547,461
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,603
<OTHER-SE>                                     361,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,972,405
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,130
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,536,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,007,226
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,807
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,480,646)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,480,646)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.74)


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, being the Chief Executive Officer of Texas Eastern Products
Pipeline Company, LLC, the sole general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (the
Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2003, filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TEPPCO Partners, L.P.
and will be retained by TEPPCO Partners, L.P. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

February 23, 2004
Date

|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ BARRY R. PEARL                                           
|                                                             
|Barry R. Pearl                                               
|President and Chief Executive Officer                        
|Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company, LLC, General Partner
949

1 5 Wheat. (18 U.S.) 420, 422–423 (1820).

ARTICLE VII

RATIFICATION

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be

sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between

the States so ratifying the Same.

In General

In Owings v. Speed, 1 the question at issue was whether the

Constitution of the United States operated upon an act of Virginia

passed in 1788. The Court held it did not, stating in part:

‘‘The Conventions of nine States having adopted the Constitution, Congress, in September or October, 1788, passed a resolution

in conformity with the opinions expressed by the Convention, and

appointed the first Wednesday in March of the ensuing year as the

day, and the then seat of Congress as the place, ‘for commencing

proceedings under the Constitution.’

‘‘Both Governments could not be understood to exist at the

same time. The New Government did not commence until the old

Government expired. It is apparent that the Government did not

commence on the Constitution being ratified by the ninth State; for

these ratifications were to be reported to Congress, whose continuing existence was recognized by the Convention, and who were requested to continue to exercise their powers for the purpose of

bringing the new Government into operation. In fact, Congress did

continue to act as a Government until it dissolved on the 1st of November, by the successive disappearance of its Members. It existed

potentially until the 2d of March, the day proceeding that on which

the Members of the new Congress were directed to assemble.

‘‘The resolution of the Convention might originally have suggested a doubt, whether the Government could be in operation for

every purpose before the choice of a President; but this doubt has

been long solved, and were it otherwise, its discussion would be

useless, since it is apparent that its operation did not commence

before the first Wednesday in March 1789 . . . .’’
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

Nos. 20-1368

 20-1412

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

v.

RICHARD M. SIMON,

Defendant, Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 20-1369

 20-1411

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

v.

SUNRISE LEE,

Defendant, Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 20-1370

 20-1413

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH A. ROWAN,

Defendant, Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
- 2 -

Nos. 20-1382

 20-1409

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

v.

JOHN KAPOOR,

Defendant, Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 20-1410

 20-1457

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. GURRY,

Defendant, Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this court issued on August 25, 2021, is 

corrected as follows:

On page 96, line 16, replace "decry" with "descry".
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated March 27, 2003, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of JMAR
Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statements of JMAR Technologies, Inc. on Forms S-3 (File Nos. 33-47390,
effective July 2, 1993, 33-96848 effective August 14,1996, 333-24353 effective
May 19, 1997, 333-52703 effective July 8, 1998, 333-46392 effective October 5,
2000, 333-55876 effective April 4, 2001, 333-67056 effective October 11, 2001,
and 333-72860 effective June 13, 2002) and on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-66672,
effective July 29, 1993, 33-66674 effective July 29, 1993, 333-10923 effective
August 28, 1996, 333-10925 effective August 28, 1996, 333-33902 effective April
3, 2000, and 333-33904 effective April 3, 2000).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Irvine, California
March 27, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 quarterly report of
  UltraGuard Water Systems Corp on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Ken Fielding, President
  and Chief Executive Officer, and John R Gaetz. Vice-President and Chief Financial
  Officer of UltraGuard Water Systems Corp, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarban-Oxley Act of
  2002, to our knowledge

|(1) | the quarterly
        report of UltraGuard Water Systems Corp for the period ended June 30,
        2003, 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 such quarterly report of UltraGuard Water Systems Corp for
        the period ended June 30, 2003 fairly represents, in all material respects,
        the financial conditions and results of operations of UltraGuard Water
        Systems Corp.



/s/ Ken Fielding
  Ken Fielding 
  President and Chief Executive Officer  /s/ John R Gaetz
    John R Gaetz 
    Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer




---
SCPW-16-0000605

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

RICHARD L. HOLCOMB, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE JAMES H. ASHFORD, Judge of the District Court of

the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge, 

and

THE STATE OF HAWAI#I and ERIC KOBASHIGAWA, Respondents.

_________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CASE NO. 1DTA-16-01292)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Richard L. Holcomb’s 

petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition, filed on

September 1, 2016, the documents attached thereto and submitted

in support thereof, and the record, it appears that, at this

time, petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and

indisputable right to the requested relief or that he lacks

alternative means to seek relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not

entitled to the requested writ of mandamus and/or writ of

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-16-0000605

16-SEP-2016

01:19 PM
prohibition. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d

334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy

that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear

and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means

to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested

action; it is meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court from

acting beyond or in excess of his or her jurisdiction); Honolulu

Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a

writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that is meant to 

restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in

excess of his jurisdiction). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus and/or prohibition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 16, 2016. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE

PETITION OF HARRY W.

ANDERSON FOR A WRIT OF

MANDAMUS § § No. 377 , 2015 § §

Submitted: July 29 , 2015

Decided: September 9 , 2015

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VAUGHN , and SEITZ

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 9 th day of September 2015 , upon consideration of the petition of Harry

Anderson for a n extraordinary writ of mandamus, it appears to the Court that :

(1) The petitioner, Harry W. Anderson , seeks to invoke the original

jurisdiction of this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of

mandamus compelling the Department of Correction to credit him with two years,

nine months, and nine days o f time served on his third violation of probation

. The

State of Delaware has filed an answer and asked the Court to deny Anderson ’s

petition. After careful review, we find that Anderson ’s petition manifestly fails to

invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction.

(2) This Court’s “original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus is

limited to instances when the respondent is a court o r a judge thereof

. ” 1 This Court

1 In re Hitchens , 600 A.2d 37, 38 (Del. 1991). See also Del. Const. of 1897 art. IV § 11(5) (defining Court’s original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs).2 does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directed to the Department

of Correction. 2 According ly, Anderson’s petition must be dismissed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for the issuance of

a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Justice

2 See, e.g.

, In re Johnson , 2007 WL 4216981, at *1 (Del. Nov. 30, 2007) (dismissing petition for writ of mandamus directing Department of Correction officials to credit petitioner with accumulated good time).
(logo) LNR

          Partners, LLC

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

**OF**

** **

**LNR PARTNERS, LLC**

** **

** **

The undersigned, Job Warshaw,being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the "Special Servicer"), asspecial servicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement, herebycertifies, as of the date hereof, on behalf of the Special Servicer, solely inhis capacity as an officer of the Special Servicer and not in his individualcapacity, as follows:

 

1. I have reviewed the activitiesperformed by the Special Servicer under the applicable Pooling and ServicingAgreement during the period commencing on January 1, 2016 and ending onDecember 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"), and the SpecialServicer's performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been madeunder my supervision;

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicing criteriaunder Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilled itsobligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Reporting Period

 

 

LNR Partners, LLC, 

A Florida limited liabilitycompany

 

By: /s/ Job Warshaw

Job Warshaw

President

 

 

Dated: February 22, 2017

 

 

1601 Washington Avenue ∙Suite700 ∙ Miami Beach, Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 ∙Fax: (305)695-5601
exv4wcw28







Exhibit 4(c)(28)




Binding Fee Letter




Dated: 17 September, 2010




Parties: Elan Corporation plc (Elan); Jack Schuler; and Vaughn Bryson (together with Mr Schuler the
“Directors”).




In consideration of the entry into of a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) of today’s date by
the parties, Elan agrees to pay to the Directors within 10 days of the date hereof the aggregate
amount of US$300,000 in settlement of all costs, fees and expenses incurred by them prior to the
date hereof in respect of any and all matters relating to the Litigation described in the MOU and
the SEC investigation of Jack Schuler.




Nothing in this letter or the MOU shall adversely affect the Directors’ respective rights to
indemnification by Elan for all such costs, fees and expenses incurred by them after the date
hereof. It is agreed that the indemnity in Article 115 of the Company’s Articles of Association
shall, and shall be deemed to, apply to Schuler and Bryson, notwithstanding their ceasing to be a
director of the Company prior to their exercising their right of indemnity.




	 	 	 

	/s/ Jack Schuler
 


	 	 
	Jack Schuler
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Vaughn Bryson
 


	 	 
	Vaughn Bryson
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Kelly Martin
 


	 	 
	Elan Corporation, plc
NOTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC, Appellant

v.

INTEL CORPORATION, Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1266

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018

- 01312, IPR2018

- 01661.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

K

AMRAN V AKILI

, Irell & Manella LLP, Newport Beach, CA, argued for appellant.

D OMINIC E. M ASSA

, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale andDorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellee. Also represented by M ARK C HRISTOPHER F LEMING ; D AVID P. Y IN

, Washington, DC.

______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is Case: 23-1266 Document: 35 Page: 1 Filed: 04/08/2024O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE

, D YK

, and S TOLL

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 8 , 2024

Date Case: 23-1266 Document: 35 Page: 2 Filed: 04/08/2024