alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

               WILSONS THE LEATHER EXPERTS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                           NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               QUARTER                 QUARTER
                                                                ENDED                   ENDED
                                                           OCTOBER 31, 1998       NOVEMBER 1, 1997
                                                           ---------------------------------------
<S>                                                             <C>                     <C>
Net Loss                                                       $ (1,990)              $ (5,889)
 
Weighted average common shares outstanding                       10,826                  9,532
 
Effect of options granted (1)                                        --                     --
Effect of warrant (1)                                                --                     --
 
Weighted average common shares outstanding--
assuming dilution                                                10,826                  9,532

Basic net loss per common share                                $  (0.18)              $  (0.62)
 
Diluted net loss per common share (1)                          $  (0.18)              $  (0.62)
 
 
                                                              NINE MONTHS            NINE MONTHS
                                                                 ENDED                  ENDED
                                                           OCTOBER 31, 1998        NOVEMBER 1, 1997
                                                           ----------------------------------------
Net Loss                                                       $(18,405)              $(25,733)
 
Weighted average common shares outstanding                       10,199                  8,703
                             
Effect of options granted (1)                                        --                     --
Effect of warrant (1)                                                --                     --
 
Weighted average common shares outstanding--
assuming dilution                                                10,199                  8,703
 
Basic net loss per common share                                $  (1.80)              $  (2.96)
 
Diluted net loss per common share (1)                          $  (1.80)              $  (2.96)
</TABLE>

Note 1:  Under Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 128 "Earnings per
     Share," common stock equivalents are excluded when computing diluted net
     income or loss per common share if the effect is anti-dilutive.
LAW AND CHANCERY COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

#### Joseph Klein *& Co.,*Inc., etc. v. C. *&*P. Telephone Co. of Va. et al.

August 8, 1968

Case No. (Law) 676

By JUDGE EDWARD L. RYAN, JR.

Subject matter comes before the court on the demurrer of The Reuben H. Donnelly Telephone Directory Company, the prime ground therefor being that said defendant "acted as agent for and on behalf of its disclosed principal, The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia, in regard to the contract alleged by the plaintiff" and that any recovery should be against the disclosed principal solely.

In support of the demurrer Donnelly argues that plaintiff's action sounds "purely in contract" and cites to the court *Lambert*v. *Phillips,*109 Va 632, 635 (1909), which holds that in a *contract*action where an agency relationship exists only the principal, if disclosed, can be held liable for a breach of the contract (Donnelly concedes that this rule would not apply in a negligence action).

In opposition to the demurrer plaintiff argues that its action sounds "purely in tort" and cites to the court *Ches.*& *Pot. Tel. Co. v. Carless,*127 Va. 5 (1920), in which it is said that "This is an action in tort. . . to recover damages for injuries occasioned. . . by a wrongful suspension of telephone service." Plaintiff argues further that *Carless*and the instant case are similar in essence, i.e., failure of a public service corporation to perform its *duty*to render a service required by law and its avowed undertakings to the public at large.

*486A general statement of the law may be found in 52 Am. Jur., *Telegraphs and*Telephones, § 95, where it is said that "It is the *duty*of the telephone company to furnish subscribers with all reasonable facilities required for the efficient operation of its telephone service, including a correct listing. . . in the alphabetical directories issued by it. . . . If the company, *in breach of its*duty, fails to list a subscriber's name or number (in the absence of a limitation of liability). . . (it may) be held liable for damages occasioned to the subscriber by the *neglect*to perform the *duty*imposed upon it* (Under some circumstances it is further noted that punitive damages may be recovered.)

A further general statement of the law may bo found in 92 ALR 2d 917, 921, as follows:

> Recovery in cases of omission or errors in telephone directories has been based on breach of contract, negligent breach of contract, ordinary negligence, and the like. . . .

From a reading of plaintiffs motion for judgment the court concludes that the action is bottomed basically on alleged negligence of the defendants. An order overruling the Donnelly demurrer may be presented for entry.
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2788 

AN ACT 

To designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial at the March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2788 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Distinguished Flying 

3 Cross National Memorial Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS 

5 NATIONAL MEMORIAL IN RIVERSIDE, CALI6 FORNIA. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) The most reliable statistics regarding the 

9 number of members of the Armed Forces who have 

10 been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross indi11 cate that 126,318 members of the Armed Forces re12 ceived the medal during World War II, approxi13 mately 21,000 members received the medal during 

14 the Korean conflict, and 21,647 members received 

15 the medal during the Vietnam War. Since the end 

16 of the Vietnam War, more than 203 Armed Forces 

17 members have received the medal in times of con18 flict. 

19 (2) The National Personnel Records Center in 

20 St. Louis, Missouri, burned down in 1973, and thus 

21 many more recipients of the Distinguished Flying 

22 Cross may be undocumented. Currently, the Depart23 ment of Defense continues to locate and identify 

24 members of the Armed Forces who have received the 

25 medal and are undocumented. 
3 

•HR 2788 EH

1 (3) The United States currently lacks a na2 tional memorial dedicated to the bravery and sac3 rifice of those members of the Armed Forces who 

4 have distinguished themselves by heroic deeds per5 formed in aerial flight. 

6 (4) An appropriate memorial to current and 

7 former members of the Armed Forces is under con8 struction at March Field Air Museum in Riverside, 

9 California. 

10 (5) This memorial will honor all those members 

11 of the Armed Forces who have distinguished them12 selves in aerial flight, whether documentation of 

13 such members who earned the Distinguished Flying 

14 Cross exists or not. 

15 (b) DESIGNATION.—The memorial to members of the 

16 Armed Forces who have been awarded the Distinguished 

17 Flying Cross that is under construction at March Field 

18 Air Museum in Riverside, California, is hereby designated 

19 as the Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial. 

20 (c) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.—The national memo21 rial designated by this section is not a unit of the National 

22 Park System, and the designation of the national memo23 rial shall not be construed to require or permit Federal 
4 

•HR 2788 EH

1 funds to be expended for any purpose related to the na2 tional memorial. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2788 

AN ACT 

To designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National 

Riverside, California. Memorial at the March Field Air Museum in
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-60254

Summary Calendar

TROY ALEXANDER HOLMAN,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(18 USA 4106A)

December 24, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On October 4, 1994, Troy Alexander Holman (Holman) was

sentenced in Mexico to an 11 year term of imprisonment upon his

conviction of transporting 3,199.5 grams of heroin in Mexico City,

Mexico on May 20, 1994. Holman appealed his sentence and

successfully had it reduced to ten years. On October 10, 1995,

Holman was transferred to the United States to serve his sentence

pursuant to the terms of the United States-Mexico treaty on the
2

execution of penal sentences. 

Following a hearing on February 26, 1996, the Parole

Commission ordered Holman to continue to serve the full term of his

Mexican sentence, ten years less good time, and to serve a 12-month

period of supervised release following his release from prison.

The Parole Commission determined that Holman’s guideline range for

a comparable offense under United States law was 151-188 months

based on offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of I.

In making its decision to have Holman serve the full term of his

sentence, the Parole Commission relied upon the fact that Holman’s

120-month Mexican sentence was already substantially below the

applicable United States Sentencing Guideline range of 151-188

months. Holman requested a downward departure based on his alleged

mistreatment in Mexico and his contention that the Mexican court

wrongly convicted him of transporting heroin. The Parole

Commission rejected Holman’s request for a downward departure. 

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

record excerpts and relevant portions of the record itself. We

review the Parole Commission’s determination de novo. Molano-Garza

v. United States Parole Commission, 965 F.2d 20, 23 (5th Cir.

1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1065 (1993). We will uphold the

sentence unless it (1) was imposed in violation of law; (2) was

imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing

guidelines; (3) is outside the applicable guideline range, and is
3

unreasonable or (4) was imposed for an offense for which there is

no applicable sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable. 18

U.S.C. § 3742(e); and see 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f). A review of this

record satisfies us that there is no basis, either in law or fact,

for changing the determination of the Parole Commission.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2877 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 235
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2877

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 14, 2009

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           December 17, 2009

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 76 Brookside Avenue in Chester, New York, as the ``1st Lieutenant 
                       Louis Allen Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. 1ST LIEUTENANT LOUIS ALLEN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 76 Brookside Avenue in Chester, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``1st Lieutenant Louis Allen Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``1st 
Lieutenant Louis Allen Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 235

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2877

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 76 Brookside Avenue in Chester, New York, as the ``1st Lieutenant 
                       Louis Allen Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 17, 2009

                       Reported without amendment
```
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                          DYNAMEX INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   CALCULATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                     (In Thousands except Per Share Amounts)
                                   (Unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Three Months Ended
                                                                  October 31,
                                                              -------------------
                                                               1996         1997
                                                              ------       ------

<S>                                                           <C>          <C>   
    Net Income                                                $  283       $  967
                                                              ======       ======

    Weighted Average Common shares Outstanding                 5,235        7,363

    Common Share Equivalents Related to
       Options and Warrants                                      718          132
                                                              ------       ------

    Common Shares and Common Share Equivalents                 5,953        7,495
                                                              ======       ======

    Common Stock Price used under Treasury Stock Method       $10.13       $ 8.48
                                                              ======       ======

    Net Income per Common Share                               $ 0.05       $ 0.13
                                                              ======       ======
</TABLE>


























                                       13
Exhibit 99.4
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                        CONTACT: Kym Cheseldine
December 4, 1998                                       Frederick Brewing Co.
                                                       301-694-7899 x113

                                                       I.W. Miller Group
                                                       Ira Miller/Larry Fortune
                                                       949-833-9001


                  FREDERICK BREWING CO. TO REVERSE SPLIT STOCK
   Mid-Atlantic's Largest Craft Brewer Takes Steps to Maintain NASDAQ Listing

FREDERICK, MD - Frederick Brewing Co. (NASDAQ: BLUE) board of directors has
announced a December 3, 1998 decision to recommend that shareholders approve a
plan to reverse split the Company's common shares by 5:1. This action would
reduce the Company's current outstanding shares from approximately 14.2 million
to approximately 2.8 million.

Frederick Brewing Co. Chairman and CEO Kevin Brannon said, "The board chose to
recommend this action to the shareholders in order to protect the listing of the
Company's shares on the NASDAQ stock exchange. We believe there are two main
advantages of maintaining the listing: NASDAQ listed companies are governed by
more stringent corporate governance standards, which provide a higher degree of
shareholder protection, than are companies trading on the OTC:BB [electronic
bulletin board] market; and liquidity is much better and pricing information
more reliable for shares listed on the NASDAQ exchange than on the bulletin
board."

Brannon also said that the Frederick Brewing Co. board of directors has
appointed a committee to prepare the relevant proxy materials and establish the
date of the shareholder meeting and vote. All proxy materials must be filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and distributed to all shareholders prior
to the meeting. The committee will announce within a week the schedule for
shareholder action.

This action is in response to a September, 1998 notification from NASDAQ that
Frederick Brewing Co. shares would be de-listed from the exchange unless the
closing bid price reached $1 per share for 10 consecutive trading days by
December 14, 1998.

                                             # # #
#### John DOE, Individually and as next friend of his minor children James Doe and Jack Doe, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD; Jimmie Richardson, Reverend, School Board Member, District A; Robert Potts, School Board Member, District B; Leonard Genco, School Board Member, District C; Al Link, School Board Member, District D; Don Williams, School Board Member, District E; Robert Caves, School Board Member, District F; Maxine Dixon, School Board Member, District G; Sandra Bailey-Simmons, School Board Member, District H; Carl Bardwell, School Board Member, District I; Louis Joseph, Superintendent, Tangipahoa Parish School System, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 05-30294.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 9, 2007.

Ronald Lawrence Wilson (argued), Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann, New Orleans, LA, for Doe.

Joshua Simon Force, Sher Garner Ca-hill, Richter Kelin & Hilbert, New Orleans, LA, Emma E. Daschbach, Siller Wilk, New York City, for Anti-Defamation League, Amicus Curiae.

Thomas J. Stein, Proskauer Rose, New York City, for Americans United for Separation of Church *&*State, Amicus Curiae.

Louis C. LaCour, Jr., Albert Kirk Gas-perecz (argued), Adams & Reese, New Orleans, LA, James Allen Keith, Adams *&*Reese, Jackson, MS, Christopher M. Moody, Moody *&*Moody, Hammond, LA, for all Defendants-Appellants.

James Michael Johnson (argued), Alliance Defense Fund, Shreveport, LA, Kevin Hayden Theriot, Alliance Defense Fund, Olathe, KS, for Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd.

Edward Lawrence White, III, Thomas More Law Ctr., Ann Arbor, MI, for Thomas More Law Ctr., Amicus Curiae.

Benjamin David DuPré, Law Offices of Benjamin D. DuPré, Montgomery, AL, for Foundation for Moral Law, Amicus Curiae.

Roy A. Mongrue, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Katherine Whitney, Uma Subramanian, Baton Rouge, LA, for State of LA, Amicus Curiae.

Kenneth F. Sills, Hammonds & Sills, Baton Rouge, LA, for LA Sch. Boards Ass’n, Amicus Curiae.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

*680BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the petitions for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
William T. Atkins, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of AmeriVest Properties Inc (the registrant).;

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 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 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)) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
April 29, 2005

|/s/WILLIAM T. ATKINSWilliam T. Atkins Chief Executive
Officer |  |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### Angel Colon, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 10]

—In an action to recover damages *259for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), entered August 9, 1996, which, upon a jury verdict, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Although the trial court frequently intervened in the trial by questioning witnesses, it did not display any bias toward either counsel. Rather, the trial court questioned the witnesses to further clarify facts material to the issues in the trial and to expedite the proceedings (see, *Pallotta v West Bend Co.,*166 AD2d 637, 639; *LaMotta v City of New York,*130 AD2d 627; *Gallo v Supermarkets Gen. Corp.,*112 AD2d 345, 348).

The plaintiffs challenges to the court’s supplemental charge on proximate cause are unpreserved for appellate review (see, *Scandell v Salerno,*155 AD2d 523; *deGast v Livingstone,*144 AD2d 332, 333; *Waddle v. Snyder Co.,*149 AD2d 696, 697). In any event, the charge as a whole sufficiently instructed the jury as to the law (see, *Scandell v Salerno, supra; Fricker v New York City Off Track Betting Corp.,*213 AD2d 590, 591, *cert denied*516 US 1114; *Dulin v Mahler,*200 AD2d 707, 708).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the fact that the defendants were found to have been negligent but that their negligence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries does not render the verdict inconsistent (see, *Schermerhorn v Warfield,*213 AD2d 877, 878; *Rubin v Pecoraro,*141 AD2d 525, 526).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Lerner, JJ., concur.