alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OREGON STEEL MILLS, INC.


                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                              OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                  (In thousands, except per share data amounts)

                                      Three Months Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                         September 30,           September 30,
                                      -------------------    -------------------
                                       1997        1996        1997        1996
                                      --------   --------    --------    -------
Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding                  25,694     25,668      25,694      21,748

Common stock equivalents arising
   from 598 shares of stock to be
   issued March 2003                      598        598         598         598
                                      -------     ------     -------    --------

                                       26,292     26,266      26,292      22,346
                                      =======    =======     =======     =======

Net income                            $10,438    $ 6,356     $25,786     $16,997
                                      =======    =======     =======     =======

Primary and fully diluted
   net income per common and
   common equivalent share               $.40       $.24        $.98        $.76
                                         =====      =====       =====       ====
[No. 35030-1-II.

Division Two.

August 7, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Vernon Lee Haffner, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 06-1-00397-7, Roger A. Bennett, J., entered June 22, 2006. *Affirmed in part, reversed in part,*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Quinn-Brintnall, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Penoyar, J.
941 A.2d 685

#### Albert ROBUS, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 4, 2008.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 2008, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Request for Leave to Amend the Petition are GRANTED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Request for Appointment of Counsel, the Motion to Quash/Dismiss the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s Answer, and the Motion to Quash/Dismiss *171the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ Answer are DENIED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 25, 2017

a0717 

# Order

Clerk July 25, 2017

154342 & (36)

In re DAWSON

________________________________________

DION PATRICK DAWSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 154342

COA: 331589

WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issue is GRANTED. The application for

leave to appeal the June 16, 2016 order o f the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed

by this Court.

W ILDER , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
The National Forest Service Library provides access to electronic journals and bibliographic databases, current literature alerting, reference, and interlibrary loan services to support the needs of Forest Service employees.  Forest Service employees can find library services and assistance through the intranet site. Contact us at SM.FS.FSLib@usda.gov. Search National Forest Service Library CollectionsKeywordAuthorSubjectTitleClick Advanced Search for more optionsAdvanced Search
947 A.2d 194

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Earl R. TOWNSEND, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued May 14, 2008.

Decided May 27, 2008.

Dean Walid Ibrahim, Esq., Ibrahim & McKillop, P.C., Doylestown, for Earl R. Townsend.

Michelle Ann Henry, Esq., Bucks County District Attorney’s Office, Stephen B. Harris, Esq., Office of the District Attorney, Anthony C. Cappuccio, Esq., Laura Siegle, Esq., for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Before: CASTILLE, C.J., and SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD and MCCAFFERY, JJ.

*574
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed as having been IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.
#### PAUL GREENAN *v.*SUZANNE GREENAN

*Samuel V. SchoonmakerlV,*in support of the petition.

Decided May 26, 2010

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 31240) is denied.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Computer-Communications Research (1192).                    

*Date/Time:*                         March 15-16 and March 22-23, 2001; 8:30 a.m.-6 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Robert Sloan, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1145, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8911.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate proposals as a part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: February 13, 2001.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-3983 Filed 2-15-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Miguel DIAZ-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-11118

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 7, 2011.

Yvette Rhodes, A. Brian Albritton, Jeffrey Scott Downing, David Paul Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Howard C. Anderson, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TJOFLAT, HULL and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Howard C. Anderson, appointed counsel for Carlos Diaz-Acosta, has filed a motion *265to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Diaz-Acosta’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

        Name                                    State of Incorporation

        GHA Natural Products, Inc.              Delaware
        GHA Specialty Retailing, Inc.           Delaware
        Global Health Alternatives, Inc.        Florida
        Maine Naturals, Inc.                    Delaware
        NHTC Real Estate, Inc.                  Florida
        Natural Health Laboratories, Inc.       New York
        Kaire Nutraceuticals, Inc.              Delaware
        Natural Health Trends Acquisition Corp. Delaware



        Kaire International Europe              England
        Kaire Nutra Australia Pty               Australia
        Kaire Nutra New Zealand, Pty            New Zealand
        Kaire International Trinidad
        & Tobaggo                               Trinidad & Tobaggo
        Kaire International Jamaica             Jamaica
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of United Investors IncomeProperties (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer ofthe Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the Chief FinancialOfficer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

 

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Huntsman Polymers Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C., Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Peter R. Huntsman
------------------------------
Peter R. Huntsman
Chief Executive Officer
August 15, 2002
Exhibit 31

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark Meriwether, President, CEO, Secretary/Treasurer of Oak Ridge Micro-
Energy, Inc. (the "small business issuer"), certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Registrant;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this Quarterly 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
Quarterly Report;

     4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)
for the Registrant and I have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the Registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within
          those entities, particularly during the period in which this
          Quarterly Report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure
          controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
          filing date of this Quarterly Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented in this Quarterly Report my conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
          My evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
          internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's
          ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
          and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material
          weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
          other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's
          internal controls.


Dated: 11-21-05           Signature:  /s/Mark Meriwether
       --------                       -------------------------
                                      Mark Meriwether
                                      President, CEO, Secretary/Treasurer
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



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

______________________

PHOENIX MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee,

AND

ALLIANCE TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

______________________

2013

- 5018

______________________

Appeal from the United State s Court of Federal
Claims in No. 12

- CV

- 0325, Judge Susan G. Braden.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J OHN C. D ULSKE , The Law Offices of Dulske & Gluys, P.C., of San Antonio, Texas, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

S ETH W. G REENE , Trial Attorney, United States D epartment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for d efendant

- appellee. With him on the brief were S TUART F.
D ELERY , Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Director, and D ONALD E. K INNER

, Assistant Director.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK

, B RYSON

, and W ALLACH

, Circuit Judge s ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

June 7, 2013 /s/ Jan Horbaly
Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000912061
<NAME>                        NATURAL HEALTH TRENDS
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         354,784
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,072,860
<ALLOWANCES>                                   92,912
<INVENTORY>                                    1,026,999
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,546,307
<PP&E>                                         3,980,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                 462,647
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,804,921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,463,909
<BONDS>                                        2,434,358
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          380,000
<PREFERRED>                                    1,900,702
<COMMON>                                       758
<OTHER-SE>                                     494,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,804,921
<SALES>                                        6,992,516
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,992,516
<CGS>                                          2,868,094
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,868,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,064,301
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,200,679)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,200,679)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (2,524,441)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,725,120)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (17.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (17.79)
        


</TABLE>
DiaSys Corporation - Exhibit 10.22A-A




EXHIBIT 10.22A-A 





Bionuclear 




SCHEDULE A

  

  
  	Products 	R/S 2005 - Urine Sediment Workstation: 

        FE-5 - Parasitology Workstation: 	USD $________/ea 

        USD $________/ea 



  


 






	Consumables 	 UriPrep Tubes: 

      Parasep Tubes: 

      

      Fecozyme 

      Urizyme 	USD $________/ea 

      USD $________/ea 

      

      USD $___/per vial 

      USD $___/per vial 


 





ELISA Tests 











Electrophoresis
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAM ES W ILL B ONHAM , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. B ANK OF AM E R IC A, N.A., a c orporation; UNKNOW

N PAR TIES, Doe s 1-10, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15045 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-02220-SR B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Susa n R . B olton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 14, 2016 ** B e fore : B EA, WATFORD, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Jam e s W ill B onha

m a p pe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his dive

rsity a c tion a sse rting a

quie t titlec la im . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo a distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l for fa ilure



# FIL ED JUN 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).to sta

te a c l a im unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 12(b)(6). Se eHe bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th C ir. 2010). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d B onha

m ’ s a c tion be c a

use B o nha

m ’ s c onte ntions tha

t the a lle ge d se c uritiz ation of his note re n d e re d the de e d of trust or note une n forc e a

ble fa il a s a m atte r of la

w. S e e C e rv a nte s v . C ountryw i deHome Loans, Inc . , 656 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th C i r. 2011) (“ Eve n if we we re to a c c e p t the pla i ntiffs’ pre m ise [] tha

t . . . thenote is split from the de e d, we would re je c t the pla i ntiffs’ c onc lusion tha

t, a s a ne c e ssa ry c o nse q ue nc e , no pa

rty ha s the powe r to fore c lose .” ). Furthe r, de fe nda nt wa s not re quire d to show B onha m the note or othe rwise prove its a

uthority to fore c lose . Se eHogan v . W ash. Mutual Bank

, N .A. , 277 P.3d 781, 781 (Ariz . 2012) (“ W e hold tha t Ariz ona ’ s non-judic ia l fore c losure sta tute s do not re quire the be ne fic ia ry to prove its a

uthority or ‘ show thenote ’ be fore the truste e m ay

c o m m e nc e a non-judic ia l fore c l osure .” ). Dism issa l of B onha

m ’ s a c tion without a

he aring did not viola

te B onha m ’ s rights to due

proc e s s or a

jury tria l. Se eN

ov ak v . Unite d State

s , 795 F.3d 1012, 1023 (9th C ir. 2015) (due proc e ss doe s not re q uire a c ourt to hold a

he aring on a pa rty ’ s m otion to dism

iss); Lie s v . Farre ll Line

s, Inc . , 641 F.2d 765, 771 n.8 (9th C ir. 1981) (de sc ribing Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6) a s one de vic e “ for a judge to re m o ve a

c a se from

a jury ” ).
1 4 - 1 5 0 4 5

2W e re je c t a s without me rit B onha m ’ s c onte ntion tha

t the distric t c ourt la c ke d subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion. B onha m ’ s pe nding re que sts, se t forth in theope ning brie f, are de nie d . AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 5 0 4 5 3
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We have issued our report dated February 18, 2005, except for Note 18, as to which the date isMarch 25, 2005, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in theAnnual Report of Opinion Research Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements ofOpinion Research Corporation on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-63485, effective September 16, 1998; FileNo. 333-45412, effective September 8, 2000; File No. 333-45412, Post-Effective Amendment effectiveApril 6, 2001; File No. 333-46530, effective September 25, 2000; File No. 333-64630, effective July5, 2001; File No. 333-74482, effective December 4, 2001).
/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00553- CR

Rodolf o Ram irez , Appellan t
v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 368 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 09- 715- K3 68, H ONO RAB LE B URT CARNES, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Rodolfo Ramirez seeks to appea l a judgme nt of conviction for burg lary of a habitation. Sentence was imposed on Marc h 10, 2010. On J uly 1, the district cler k filed a letter from Ramirez, dated J une 26, asking to appea l his conviction. On J uly 12, the tri al court appointed an attorney to repre sent Ramirez on appea l. The cle rk’s re cord w as filed on Septembe r 17. The d ea d l i n e fo r perf

ecting appea l in this cause was April 9, 2010. Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a) (1). The only notice of appea l appea ring in the rec ord is appellant’ s letter, which was not timely
. Under the circ umstances, we lack jurisdiction to d i s p o s e of the purported appea l in any
manner other than by dismiss ing it for want o f jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State , 981 S.W .2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522-23 (Te x . Crim. App. 1996).The a ppeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and Pember

ton Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Oc tober 6, 2010 Do Not Publish

2