alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                       AUSPEX SYSTEMS, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES
                       STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF COMMON
                          AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES

                     (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               FOR THE THREE YEARS ENDED
                                                          ------------------------------------
                                                            JUNE 30,     JUNE 30,      JUNE 30,
                                                             1997         1996          1995
                                                           -------       -------       -------
<S>                                                        <C>           <C>           <C>    
Net Income .........................................       $13,420       $19,830       $12,411

Weighted average common shares outstanding .........        24,641        23,701        23,029

Weighted average common equivalent shares

     Common stock options ..........................         1,017         2,001         1,342

Total weighted average common shares and equivalents        25,658        25,702        24,371
                                                           =======       =======       =======

Net income per share ...............................       $  0.52       $  0.77       $  0.51
                                                           =======       =======       =======
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20989]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings 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 grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases Initial Review Group; Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and 
Skin Diseases Clinical Trials Review Committee.
    Date: October 24, 2017.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda North Marriott, 5701 Marinelli Road, Rockville, 
MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Kathy Salaita, SCD, Chief, Scientific Review 
Branch, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases, DHHS/National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 
Rm. 818, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-5033 (office), 301-402-2406 
(fax), <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c388a2b7abbaed90a2afa2aab7a283adaaabeda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a3e8c2d7cbda8df0c2cfc2cad7c2e3cdcacb8dc4ccd5">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; AMSC 
Conflict Review Meeting.
    Date: October 26, 2017.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and 
Skin Diseases, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 816, Bethesda, MD 
20892 (Teleconference).
    Contact Person: Nakia C. Brown, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 816, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
301-827-4905, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a3828352d34343b391a373b333674343332743d352c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9abbba6bea7a7a8aa89a4a8a0a5e7a7a0a1e7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 26, 2017.
Sylvia L. Neal,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-20989 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation 
of our reports included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously 
filed Registration Statements (SEC File No. 33-41039, 33-46567, 33-51604, 
33-77404, 33-77612, 33-81686, 33-91260, 33-93942, 333-09723, 333-22151, 
333-22213, 333-25047, 333-25149 and 333-31507).


                                         ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


San Antonio, Texas
December 11, 1997
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Written Statement of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of LCC International, Inc.
(the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2004, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, our financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ C. Thomas Faulders, III
C. Thomas Faulders, III
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission as our exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be deemed to
be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
#### Sadie CAMPBELL and Dan Campbell, her husband v. George PLAVCHAK.

Civ. A. No. 18981.

United States. District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 29, 1957.

Matthew W. Bullock, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Howard R. Detweiler, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

*42KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.

This is an action for personal injuries incurred in an automobile accident which occurred on May Í6, 1953. The complaint was not filed until nearly two years later, or six days before the statute of limitations had run. A summons was issued forthwith, and on June 21, 1955, returned “not found”. No alias summons was issued until January 14, 1957, or about a year and eight months later.

The defendant has moved to dismiss under Rule 41(b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proe., 28 U.S.C., for failure to prosecute. The motion discloses nothing except the chronology above stated which, it seems to me, is enough, of itself, to put the burden upon the plaintiffs to explain the delay. No answer has been filed and there are no facts of record other than what appear from the motion. However, both sides have filed briefs which contain a number of statements of fact and there was no real dispute about them at the oral argument. From these, it appears that from the date of the accident until January 1954, the defendant lived at 223 Collingswood Road, Fair-less Hills, Pennsylvania, the address given in his automobile license. In January 1954 he moved and his address became Box 306, Taylor Drive, Falsingham, Pennsylvania, which address was recorded in Harrisburg when he applied for his 1954 and 1955 licenses. From the date of the accident until the present time, he has been employed at the same place, U. S. Steel Corporation, Fairless Works, Morrisville, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs’ explanation of the delay was “It was not until December of 1956 that defendant’s whereabouts became known to plaintiffs’ attorneys * * I believe that the plaintiffs’ attorney also stated at the argument that he wrote to Harrisburg to obtain the defendant’s address from his license registration but did not receive a reply. In any event, it can hardly be argued that under the circumstances the defendant could not have been located at any time had the slightest degree of diligence been exercised. The net result was to keep defendant in ignorance of the fact that a suit against him was pending, until 21 months after the statutory period of limitations had expired. In Fistel v. Christman, D.C., 13 F.R.D. 245, the suit was dismissed because of a delay of 10% months. In that case the delay was in issuing the original summons, whereas here it was in issuing an alias after a return of “nut found”. But I think the reasoning of the Fistel case is fully applicable.

The motion to dismiss is granted.
EXHIBIT 32





FAR VISTA INTERACTIVE CORP.





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 Far Vista Interactive Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Buckley, as Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: April 15, 2010
By:
/s/Richard BuckleyName:
Richard BuckleyTitle:
Principal Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
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





I,
Mitchell K. Dauerman, Chief Financial Officer of The Ultimate Software Group,
Inc., hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
that the information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of The Ultimate Software Group, Inc.








/s/ Mitchell K. DauermanMitchell
      K. DauermanChief
      Financial OfficerNovember
      9, 2009
Exhibit
24
 
 **POWER
      OF ATTORNEY****AEP
      GENERATING COMPANY****Annual
      Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended****December
      31, 2004**
 
 
 The
undersigned directors of AEP GENERATING COMPANY, an Ohio corporation (the
"Company"), do hereby constitute and appoint MICHAEL G. MORRIS, STEPHEN P. SMITH
and SUSAN TOMASKY, and each of them, their attorneys-in-fact and agents, to
execute for them, and in their names, and in any and all of their capacities,
the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K, pursuant to Section 13 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004,
and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits
thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each
of them, full power and authority to do and perform every act and thing required
or necessary to be done, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned
might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned have hereunto set their hands this
26 th day of
January, 2005.
 
 
 /s/
      Thomas M. Hagan
    /s/
      Robert P. Powers/s/
      John B. Keane
    /s/
      Stephen P. Smith/s/
      Michael G. Morris
    /s/
      Susan Tomasky
CIRCUIT COURT OF AUGUSTA COUNTY

#### Ortiz v. Commonwealth of Virginia

April 11, 1986

By JUDGE THOMAS H. WOOD

After considering the evidence, the authorities and the views of counsel, I have concluded that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss based upon the failure of the plaintiff to comply with the notice requirements of the Virginia Tort Claims Act, Virginia Code Sections 8.01-195.1 through 8.01-195.8, ought to be sustained.

For purposes of this decision, I have assumed that the letter of Judd L. Kessler, Esquire, dated November 18, 1983, to Timothy Crofton, Assistant Director of The Woodrow Wilson Rehabilitation Center, would have satisfied the notice requirements of the Tort Claims Act had it been mailed to the proper persons, and I have further assumed that the agency and the Attorney General had actual knowledge and actual notice of the particulars of the claim. In addition, I have assumed that the appropriate notice period is the six-month period specified in Virginia Code Section 8.01-195.6 prior to the amendment effective July 1, 1984, which extended the notice period to one year.

My decision is based on the cases of *Town of Crewe*v. *Marler,*228 Va. 109, 319 S.E.2d 748 (1984), and *Daniel*v. *City of*Richmond, 199 Va. 490, 100 S.E.2d 763 (1957), which, I suggest, stand for the proposition that actual knowledge and/or actual notice are not acceptable substitutes for substantial compliance with the notice requirements of the statute. Admittedly, these two cases construe Virginia Code Section 8.01-222 involving claims against municipalities. However, the language in Section 8.01-222 *313is so similar to the language in Section 8.01-195.6 and the purpose for the two statutes is so similar that these two cases would clearly appear to be applicable.

The case of *Heller*v. *City of Virginia*Beach, 213 Va. 683, 194 S.E.2d 696 (1973), is of no help to the plaintiff. In that case, a police officer expressly undertook to deliver, for the plaintiff, a sufficient notice to the proper official. In the case now before me, Ms. Ortiz was obligated to file a written statement of her claim with the agency head and to file a copy of that statement with the Attorney General. Her statement was filed with neither, and no State representative was requested to or undertook to file the statement for her.

I realize the result in this matter is harsh particularly when the agency and the Attorney General’s office had actual knowledge of the claim and the matter had even been negotiated by the State’s insurance carrier. However, as stated above, I firmly believe that this decision is mandated by *Town of Crewe*and *City of Richmond*cases.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
OF OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF
UNIVERSAL GUARDIAN HOLDINGS, INC.



The undersigned executive officers and/or directors of Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), which anticipates filing, with respect to its fiscal year ending December 31, 2005, an Annual Report on Form 10-KSB ("Annual Report") with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., hereby constitutes and appoints Michael J. Skellern, Mark Asdourian and Marian J. Barcikowski, and each of them, severally, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, as attorneys or attorney to sign the Annual Report for the undersigned in any and all capacities, and any and all applications or other documents to be filed pertaining to the Annual Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and with full power and authority to do and perform any and all acts and things whatsoever required and necessary to be done in the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned could do if personally present.  The undersigned hereby ratifies and confirms all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of their substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

EXECUTED this 12th day of April, 2005.

|    |                        
|--- | -----------------------
|/s/ | /s/ Michael J. Skellern
|    | Michael J. Skellern    
|    |                        
|/s/ | /s/Mel R. Brashears    
|    | Mel R. Brashears       
|    |                        
|/s/ | /s/Michael D. Bozarth  
|    | Michael D. Bozarth     
|    |
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-60108 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. DANIEL DEE QUEEN, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:01-CR-133-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Daniel Dee Q u e e n a ppeals his 24-month revocation sentence. The Government petitioned for the revocation of his su p e rvi sed release based on a positive drug screen for cocaine and charges filed against Queen in Mississippi for kidnapping and armed robbery. According to Queen, his sentence was substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary in light of the nature a n d c ircumstances of his case. Because he did not object to the reasonableness of the sentence in the district court, review is for plain error. See U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary18 , 20 13 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-60108 Document: 00512118401 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2013No. 12-60108

United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009). He must show

a clear or obvious error (one not subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). We have the discretion to c o r r e c t such an error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Id. Queen notes that the sentence for his underlying federal offense did not

run concurrently with his state sentence for extortion, de s p it e hi s u n d erstanding that it would. He asserts that the evidence of his supervised release violations

was weak because the drug screen was unreliable and because he was allowed to plead guilty to disorderly conduct and petit larceny. He also asserts that his guilty plea to the s t a t e charges was not an admission of guilt. Finally, Queen contends that a shorter revocation sentence would better serve his ne e d for education and vocational training. The 24-month sentence did not exce e d t h e statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Q u e e n cites no authority for the propositions that a revocation sentence i s u nreasonable where the defendant’s earlier sentences

w e r e c o n s e c u tiv e , wh e r e h e d e nied committing the violations, where the evide n c e arguably was weak, or where he will benefit from education and training after his release. He fails to show that t h e sentence was plainly erroneous, particularly given the w i d e l atitude district courts have to devise appropriate revocation sentences. See Pucket t , 5 5 6 U.S. at 135; United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 496 (2011). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-60108 Document: 00512118401 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2013
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2656 

To require amounts remaining in Members’ representational allowances at 

the end of a fiscal year to be used for deficit reduction or to reduce 

the Federal debt, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 2, 2009 

Mr. CAMP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To require amounts remaining in Members’ representational 

allowances at the end of a fiscal year to be used for 

deficit reduction or to reduce the Federal debt, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REQUIRING AMOUNTS REMAINING IN MEM4 BERS’ REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES TO 

5 BE USED FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION OR TO RE6 DUCE THE FEDERAL DEBT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law, any amounts appropriated for the Members’ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2656 IH

1 Representational Allowance of a Member of the House of 

2 Representatives for a fiscal year which remain after all 

3 payments are made under such Allowance for the year 

4 shall be deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit re5 duction, except that in the case of a fiscal year for which 

6 there is no Federal budget deficit, such amounts shall be 

7 used to reduce the Federal debt (in such manner as the 

8 Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate). 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply with 

10 respect to fiscal year 2009 and each succeeding fiscal year. 

11 SEC. 2. PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT. 

12 After each session of Congress or other period for 

13 which the Members’ Representational Allowance is made 

14 available, there shall be published in the Congressional 

15 Record a statement showing, with respect to such session 

16 or period, the amount deposited with respect to each Mem17 ber under section 1 and the total deposited with respect 

18 to all Members. 

19 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

20 The Committee on House Administration of the 

21 House of Representatives shall have authority to prescribe 

22 regulations to carry out this Act. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2656 IH

1 SEC. 4. DEFINITION. 

2 As used in this Act, the term ‘‘Member of the House 

3 of Representatives’’ means a Representative in, or a Dele4 gate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS