alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit  11.02


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         FIRST AVIATION SERVICES INC.
                                                              STATEMENTS RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                                                           (SUPPLEMENTAL BASIS)


                                                                               QUARTER ENDED     
                                                                                  4/30/97        
Supplemental Net Income Per Basic Common Share:
<S>                                                                          <C>                 
Net Income                                                                          $1,012,000   

Preferred dividends on shares not exchanged for common stock                          $(7,000)

Interest Expense recorded on long term debt extinguished                                17,000   

Extraordinary item; loss on early extinguishment of debt                               193,000   
                                                                             ------------------  

Net Income applicable to Common Stock                                               $1,215,000   
                                                                             ==================  

Weighted average common shares outstanding                                           7,128,888   

Incremental shares due to warrants to purchase common stock                            428,774

Incremental shares due to stock options                                                149,850   

Shares applicable to preferred stock                                                    55,000
                                                                             ------------------

Total Shares                                                                         7,762,512   
                                                                             ==================

Supplemental Net income per common share                                                 $0.16
                                                                             ==================


</TABLE>
2009-2289.

#### State v. Brown.

Cuyahoga App. No. 90379, 2008-Ohio-3665. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied. Motion for transcript at state’s expense denied as moot.
|                                   | 1980   | 1981   | 1982   | 1983   | 1984   | 1985   | 1986   | 1987   | 1988  
|---------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|Total Insured Banks
    1980-1988 | 14,364 | 14,434 | 14,414 | 14,451 | 14,469 | 14,483 | 14,407 | 14,199 | 13,703
|Problem Banks                      | 287    | 217    | 223    | 369    | 642    | 848    | 1,140  | 1,484  | 1,575 
|Percent Problems                   | 2      | 1.5    | 1.55   | 2.55   | 4.44   | 5.86   | 7.91   | 10.45  | 11.49 

Back to Chart

|                                   | 1989   | 1990   | 1991   | 1992   | 1993   | 1994   | 1995   | 1996   | 1997  
|---------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|Total Insured Banks
    1980-1988 | 13,123 | 12,709 | 12,343 | 11,921 | 11,462 | 10,958 | 10,451 | 11,484 | 10,950
|Problem Banks                      | 1,406  | 1,109  | 1,046  | 1,090  | 863    | 472    | 264    | 117    | 92    
|Percent Problems                   | 10.71  | 8.73   | 8.47   | 9.14   | 7.53   | 4.31   | 2.53   | 1.02   | 0.84  

Back to Chart

|                                   | 1998   | 1999   | 2000  | 2001  | 2002  | 2003 
|---------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ----- | ----- | ----- | -----
|Total Insured Banks
    1980-1988 | 10,489 | 10,242 | 9,923 | 9,632 | 9,372 | 9,196
|Problem Banks                      | 84     | 79     | 94    | 114   | 136   | 116  
|Percent Problems                   | 0.8    | 0.77   | 0.95  | 1.18  | 1.45  | 1.26 

Source: FDIC Annual Reports 1980-2003, and FHLBB Reports 1980-1988

Back to Chart
#### Abuduroufo ABULAITI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-1888.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 31, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 9, 2011.

Diane E. McHugh Martinez, Law Office of McHugh Martinez, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrea N. Gevas, Of*626fice of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Abuduroufo Abulaiti, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motions to reopen and to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2010). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re: Abulaiti*(B.I.A. July 9, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
#### Patrick McDonald, Appellant, v Michael Riccuiti et al., Respondents.

[6 NYS3d 134]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Asher, J.), dated April 11, 2013, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action in the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action as barred by the one-year statute of limitations applicable to intentional torts *(see*CPLR 215 [3]). In determining which limitations period is applicable to a given cause of action, the court must look to the substance of the allegations rather than to the characterization of those allegations by the parties *(see Western Elec. Co. v Brenner,*41 NY2d 291, 293 [1977]; *Doe v Jacobs,*19 AD3d 641, 642 [2005]; *Rutzinger v Lewis,*302 AD2d 653, 654 [2003]). The factual allegations of the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action clearly set forth only intentional tortious conduct on the part of the defendants *(see e.g. Cagliostro v Madison Sq. Garden, Inc.,*73 AD3d 534, 535 [2010]; *Schetzen v Robotsis,*273 AD2d 220, 220-221 [2000]; *Friedman v Gallinelli,*240 AD2d 699, 700 [1997]), governed by the one-year limitations period of CPLR 215 (3). The defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that this action was not commenced until after the running of the applicable statute of limitations *(see*CPLR 215 [3]; *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Goetz-Haddad v Pathmark Supermarkets,*13 AD3d 480 [2004]; *Schetzen v Robotsis,*273 AD2d 220, 221 [2000]; *Wertzberger v City of New York,*254 AD2d 352 [1998]; *Friedman v Gallinelli,*240 AD2d 699, 700 *955[1997]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff could not avoid the running of the limitations period merely by attempting to couch the causes of action as sounding in negligence (see *Smith v County of Erie,*295 AD2d 1010, 1010-1011 [2002]; *Wertzberger v City of New York,*254 AD2d 352 [1998]; *Mazzaferro v Albany Motel Enters.,*127 AD2d 374, 376-377 [1987]). The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action in the complaint as time-barred.

Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                           9,450
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,728
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,488
<INVENTORY>                                     87,819
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               196,087
<PP&E>                                         115,087
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 414,097
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,565
<BONDS>                                        135,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     39,017
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   414,097
<SALES>                                        406,878
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               406,878
<CGS>                                          329,959
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  329,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,019
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   784
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,006
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,119
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,887
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,758
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,303
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Percent Positive - User Note

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/0273bc3d-2363-45b3-befb-1190c25f3c8b/MLG-41.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

# FY2023Q3
**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 Euramax International, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 25, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, R. Scott Vansant, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial position and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/   R. Scott Vansant           |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| R. Scott Vansant                      |
| Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |
| August 9, 2004                   |

 

----
USDA

— U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

4Esté listo ya? INo se puede saber solo con mirar'

Use un termometro para alimentos para verificar la temperatura interna minima segura.

Carne Roja Carne Molida Comidas a
Base de Huevo

Carne de res, cerdo, Carne de res, cerdo, Pavo, pollo y pato
ternero y cordero ternero y cordero (Entero, piezas y molida)
(Filetes, asados y chuletas) (Molida)

Mor 64°F OBO SIBO"F stb

(permita un tiempo de reposo de 3 minutos)

iTiene mas preguntas? Visite nuestro sitio web www.FSIS.USDA.gov 0 pongase en contacto con

La Linea de Informacion sobre Carnes y Aves al 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) o MPHotline@usda.gov

Food Safety and Inspection Service USDA es un proveedor, empleador y prestamista que ofrece igualdad de oportunidades. Revisado Septiembre 2022
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1915

In re: JHA’VAUGHN CLARK,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:19-cv-00014-GMG-RWT)

Submitted: March 19, 2020 Decided: March 27, 2020

Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jha’Vaughn Clark, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jha’Vaughn Clark petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court 

has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition. He seeks an order 

from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket 

reveals that the magistrate judge recently took significant action on Clark’s § 2241 petition. 

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus 

petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 10.6


 


EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Expense Reimbursement Agreement (“Agreement”)
is made as of July 17, 2020 (“Effective Date”) by and between Majesco, a California corporation, on behalf of
itself and its affiliates with offices located at 412 Mt. Kemble Avenue, Suite 110C, Morristown, NJ 07960, (collectively “Majesco”),
and Prateek Kumar Solanki (referred to throughout this Agreement as “Employee”).


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, Company has an expense
policy outlined in the “Addendum For The Company’s Expense Policy” attached to the Majesco Employee Handbook
(“Expense Policy”);


 


WHEREAS, Employee did not submit
claims for past expenses within the ninety (90) day timeframe outlined by the Expense Policy;


 


WHEREAS, the parties have agreed
to resolve these outstanding expenses on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement; and


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the foregoing and the terms of this Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	On the Company’s next regularly-scheduled payroll date following the Effective Date, Company
shall pay Employee the amount of $100,000 as a one (1) time payment in full and final reimbursement of all past expenses incurred
by Employee prior to August 31, 2019.



 


		2.	Employee releases and gives up any and all claims, causes of actions, suits, debts, dues, sums
of money, bills, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, obligations, damages, liabilities, judgments, and demands whatsoever,
at law or in equity, which against Company Employee ever had, now has, or can, shall or may have, by reason of any matter, cause
or thing from the beginning of the world to the date of this Agreement related to reimbursement of expenses incurred by Employee
prior to August 31, 2019. Employee releases all claims, including those of which Employee is not aware and those not mentioned
in this Agreement.



 


Employee intends that this Agreement
shall discharge Company to the maximum extent permitted by law.


 


		3.	Employee agrees to adhere by the Expense Policy without exception to the ninety (90) day timeframe
effective as of July 1, 2020.



 


		4.	This Agreement shall be governed in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey without
regard to its conflicts of law principles.



 


		5.	This Agreement may not be changed, modified or otherwise amended orally.



 






     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.


 


	Prateek Kumar Solanki	 	Majesco
	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Prateek Kumar	 	By: 	/s/ Bithindra Bhattacharya
	 	Name: Prateek Kumar	 	 	Name: Bithindra Bhattacharya
	 	Date: 7/18/2020	 	 	Date: 7/18/2020
#### R.S. McCULLOUGH; Darrell F. Brown, Sr., Appellants, v. Stark LIGON, in his capacity of Executive Director of Arkansas Committee on Professional Conduct; J. Michael Cogbill, in his capacity as Chairman of APCC Panel; State of Arkansas; Tom Glaze, in his official capacity as Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court; Robert Brown, in his official capacity as Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, Defendants-Appellees, Betty Dickey, in her official capacity as Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, Defendant, James Hannah, in his official capacity as Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court; Annabelle Clinton Imber, in her official capacity as Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court; Donald Corbin, in his official capacity as Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court; Jim Gunter, in his official capacity as Justice of the Arkansas Supreme *984Court; Paul E. Danielson, in official capacity as Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-2144.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 29, 2010.

Filed: Feb. 15, 2011.

R.S. McCullough, Little Rock, AR, pro se.

Darrell F. Brown, Sr., Horatio, AR, pro se.

Sherri L. Robinson, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

R.S. McCullough and Darrell Brown, Sr., appeal the district court’s1 order dismissing without prejudice, their civil rights action, for lack of service and failure to prosecute. Upon reviewing for abuse of discretion, *see Boyle v. Am. Auto Serv., Inc.,*571 F.3d 734, 742 (8th Cir.2009) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) dismissal); *Moore v. Jackson,*123 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) dismissal), this court finds none and affirms. *See 8th*Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
ANNUAL
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
 Pooling
and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 11, 2007 (the "Pooling and
Servicing
 Agreement"),
between Structured Asset Securities Corporation II as Depositor,
LaSalle
 Bank
National Association as Trustee, Wachovia Bank, National Association as
Master
 Servicer
and LNR Partners, Inc., as Special Servicer
 LBUBS
2007-C2
 I, Susan
K. Chapman, a Vice President of LNR Partners, Inc. as Special Servicer under the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement, on behalf of the Special Servicer and not in my
individual capacity, hereby certify that:
 1.
                I
      have reviewed the activities performed by the Special Servicer under the
      Pooling and
      Servicing Agreement during the period ending the end of the fiscal year
      2007 (the
      "Reporting
      Period"') and the Special Servicer's performance under the Pooling
      and
      Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision;
      and
 
 2.
                To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has

                    fulfilled
      its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material
      respects throughout the Reporting
Period.
 
 LNR
PARTNERS, INC.
  By:/s/
Susan K.
Chapman
 Susan K. Chapman
 Vice President
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2821

To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on Ethambutol hydrochloride.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 2, 1993

Mr. GILMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on Ethambutol

hydrochloride.

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

3 SECTION 1. ETHAMBUTOL HYDROCHLORIDE.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.31.12 Ethambutol hydrochloride

(CAS No.

10704–11–7)

(provided for in

subheading

2922.19.50) ...... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/96 ’’.
2

•HR 2821 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by section

3 1 shall apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn

4 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day

5 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

6 (b) RETROACTIVE PROVISION.—Notwithstanding sec7 tion 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision

8 of law to the contrary, upon a request filed with the appro9 priate customs officer before the 90th day after the date

10 of the enactment of this Act, any entry or withdrawal from

11 warehouse for consumption of goods to which the amend12 ment made by section 1 applies and that was made—

13 (1) after December 31, 1992; and

14 (2) before the 15th day after the date of the en15 actment of this Act;

16 and with respect to which there would have been no duty

17 or a lower duty if the amendment made by section 1 had

18 applied to such entry or withdrawal, shall be liquidated

19 or reliquidated as though such entry or withdrawal had

20 occurred on such 15th day.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacobo ZETINA-SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-10373.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 7, 2014.*

Filed April 11, 2014.

Ann L. Demarais, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Mark Willimann, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jacobo Zetina-Sandoval appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Zetina-Sandoval contends that the district court erred by applying a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) because his conviction for making criminal threats, in violation of section 422 of the California Penal Code, is not a categorical crime of violence. This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel,*608 F.3d 556, 563 (9th Cir.2010). Zetina-Sandoval’s argument that we are not bound by *Villavicen-cio-Burruel*is without merit. *See New-dow v. Lefevre,*598 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir.2010) (a three judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless it is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.