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

                                                                   Exhibit 11

                              ROSLYN BANCORP, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
               (In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
                                   (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                               For the                        For the
                                                                          Three Months Ended            Three Months Ended
                                                                            March 31, 2002                March 31, 2001
                                                                            --------------                -------------
<S>                                                                       <C>                              <C>
Net income                                                                   $     33,584                  $    25,327
                                                                             ------------                  -----------

Weighted average common shares outstanding (1)                                 80,718,120                   87,530,141
                                                                             ------------                  -----------

Basic earnings per common share (1)                                          $       0.42                  $      0.29
                                                                             ============                  ===========

Weighted average common shares outstanding (1)                                 80,718,120                   87,530,141

Potential common stock due to dilutive effect of stock options (1)              1,764,100                    1,424,746
                                                                             ------------                  -----------

Total shares for diluted earnings per share (1)                                82,482,220                   88,954,887
                                                                             ============                  ===========

Diluted earnings per common share (1)                                        $       0.41                  $      0.28
                                                                             ============                  ===========
</TABLE>


(1)  Prior period amounts have been adjusted to reflect the 3-for-2 stock split
     on August 22, 2001.
§ 224.17 Rights of parties. Except as otherwise limited by this part, all parties may: ( a ) Be accompanied, represented, and advised by a representative;
( b ) Participate in any conference held by the ALJ;
( c ) Conduct discovery;
( d ) Agree to stipulations of fact or law, which shall be made part of the record;
( e ) Present evidence relevant to the issues at the hearing;
( f ) Present and cross-examine witnesses;
( g ) Present oral arguments at the hearing as permitted by the ALJ; and
( h ) Submit written briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after the hearing.
#### § 1500.3 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Board or Board of Directors* means the collegial body that conducts the business of the African Development Foundation as specified in title V, section 507 of the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-533 (22 U.S.C. 290 h-5).

*Meeting* means the deliberations of a quorum of the Directors of the Foundation required to take action on behalf of the Foundation where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official Foundation business, but does not apply to deliberations to take action to open or close a meeting. (See § 1500.5.)

*Member* means an individual who belongs to the ADF Board of Directors.

*Public Observation* means attendance at any meeting but does not include participation, or attempted participation, in such meeting in any manner.
§ 224.1 Basis and purpose. ( a ) *Basis.* This part implements the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-509, sections 6101-6104, 100 Stat. 1874 (October 21, 1986), to be codified at 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812. 31 U.S.C. 3809 of the Statute requires each authority head to promulgate regulations necessary to implement to provisions of the statute.
( b ) *Purpose.* This part ( 1 ) establishes administrative procedures for imposing civil penalties and assessments against persons who make, submit, or present, or cause to be made, submitted, or presented, false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or written statements to the Agency for International Development or to its agents, and
( 2 ) specifies the hearing and appeal rights of persons subject to allegations of liability for such penalties and assessments.
(July 13, 1977)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Gloria Cusano, Respondent, v Stanley Leone, Respondent, and Frank Cusano, Appellant.

On the court’s own motion, its decision dated July 11,1977 (58 AD2d 846) is amended by adding the following to the first decretal paragraph "It is directed that custody of the children be immediately transferred to appellant Frank Gusano.” Order dated July 11, 1977 entered on the decision is amended accordingly. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and Mollen, JJ., concur.
### §4853a. Coordination between Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Labor

The Secretary of Labor, in promulgating regulations under section 4853 of this title, shall consult and coordinate with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for the purpose of achieving the maximum enforcement of title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act [15 U.S.C. 2681 et seq.] and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 [29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.] while imposing the least burdens of duplicative requirements on those subject to such title and Act and for other purposes.

(Pub. L. 102–550, title X, §1032, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3924.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Toxic Substances Control Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 94–469, Oct. 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 2003. Title IV of the Act is classified generally to subchapter IV (§2681 et seq.) of chapter 53 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2601 of Title 15 and Tables.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 91–596, Dec. 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 1590, which is classified principally to chapter 15 (§651 et seq.) of Title 29, Labor. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 651 of Title 29 and Tables.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN W. GRIGSBY, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

M. S. EVANS, et al., 

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1843 CRB (PR)

ORDER 

(Docket # 49)

On January 22, 2010, the court found that, when liberally construed,

plaintiff's allegations that defendants prevented him from sending mail to his

family state a cognizable First Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve the named defendants. Docket # 22 at 2. 

On May 5, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff did not file an opposition; instead

he filed a belated motion for an extension of time, claiming that he did not

receive a copy of the complaint served on the defendants by the marshal. 

On July 21, 2010, the court noted that plaintiff was not entitled to service

of a copy of the complaint served on the defendants by the marshal because he 

presumably had a copy of his own complaint. But in the interest of expediting

these proceedings, the clerk was instructed to send plaintiff a copy of the

complaint (docket # 1) served on the defendants by the marshal. The court

granted plaintiff an extension of time until August 31, 2010 to file an opposition

to defendants' motion to dismiss and advised him that no further extensions of

time will be granted.

Case 3:08-cv-01843-CRB Document 50 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

On August 3, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion "seeking copy of exhibits and

evidence sent with original complaint." He claims that the copy of the complaint

he received from the clerk is incomplete because it does not include any of the

"exhibits of evidence or CDCR documents sent with my civil complaint." The

motion (docket # 49) is DENIED. The document filed as plaintiff's complaint

and appearing in the case docket as item number one is comprised of 23 pages –

two consecutive copies of plaintiff's eleven-page complaint and a copy of the

front side of the envelope in which the two copies of the complaint were received

by the court. There are no exhibits or documents in support of plaintiff's

complaint in case docket item number one or in any other part of the docket. 

Defendants and plaintiff were served with a copy of the same document –

plaintiff's eleven-page complaint.

A further extension of time is not warranted. Plaintiff shall file an

opposition, or notice of opposition, to defendants' motion to dismiss by no later

than August 31, 2010, and defendants shall file a reply to any opposition within

15 days thereafter.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Aug. 5, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.08\Grigsby, J1.or3.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-01843-CRB Document 50 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 2
### §6398. Authorization of appropriations

Any authorization of appropriations in this Act, or in any amendment to any other law made by this Act, for the fiscal year 1976 shall be deemed to include an additional authorization of appropriations for the period beginning July 1, 1976, and ending September 30, 1976, in amounts which equal one-fourth of any amount authorized for fiscal year 1976, unless appropriations for the same purpose are specifically authorized in a law hereinafter enacted.

(Pub. L. 94–163, title V, §528, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 964.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, means Pub. L. 94–163, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 871, known as the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which is classified principally to this chapter (§6201 et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6201 of this title and Tables.
#### Mosab Hoidink EL BEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CELEBRATION STATION; Whiteco Industrial Incorporated, Defendants—Appellees, and Officer T.R. Stamp, Defendant.

No. 06-2138.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 21, 2007.

Decided: June 26, 2007.

Mosab Hoidink El Bey, Appellant Pro Se. David Erik Albright, Travis Aaron Crump, Smith & Moore, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mosab Hoidink El Bey appealed the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Celebration Station and dismissing El Bey’s civil action against defendant without prejudice for failure to serve. El Bey’s complaint alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 (2000) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See El Bey v. Celebration Station,*No. 3:02-cv-00461, 2006 WL 2792394, 2006 WL 2811497 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 27 & 28, 2006). We deny El Bey’s motion for misconduct proceedings against the district judge and Celebration Station’s request for sanctions against El Bey. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
### §5791a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5791a was editorially reclassified as section 20502 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER REGARDING 

UNTIMELY OPT OUTS

At yesterday’s hearing, the undersigned heard from the following class members (or their

legal representatives) seeking permission to opt out of the class after the deadline: (1) Professor

Jack Garvey, (2) The Union Mission, (3) and Mr. Robert Westervelt. The requests by these three

class members will be ruled on shortly. Based upon the declarations submitted by counsel,

however, there are additional class members that did not file timely opt-out requests but now seek

to opt out. One of these class members — Mr. Thomas Chowattukunnel — filed a formal motion

during the hearing yesterday seeking permission to opt out of the class. A briefing schedule will

be set forth as to Mr. Chowattukunnel’s request, and it will also be decided in due course. 

The remaining class members who filed untimely opt-out requests with Gilardi, however,

have not made formal requests to the Court seeking permission to opt out of the class. For these

class members, counsel should meet and confer and have these individuals and entities in mind in

their negotiations with respect to the adjustment clause. They should also promptly notify all 

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 720 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

such persons that any motion to be allowed to opt out late due to excusable neglect should be

filed BY MAY 14, 2010, as a formal motion in court. To be clear, any class member who has

made an untimely request to opt out of the class — with the exception of those mentioned in this

order or others who, by stipulation between the parties, have had their late requests granted —

should be given notice that they must file a formal motion by this deadline.

Dated: April 27, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 720 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 71.4 Real property of deceased American citizens.

In the absence of special provisions by treaty the devolution and transfer of real property are covered by the law of the place where the property is situated. When real property is left by the decedent within the country where death occurs, or where the decedent was domiciled at the time of death, the consular officer, or diplomatic officer, if there be no consular officer, should if feasible informally observe the proceedings and report to the diplomatic mission or the Department any apparent irregularity or unnecessary delay in settling the estate.
#### § 712.210 Reporting.

No reporting is required with respect to payments of reasonable compensation made to regularly employed officers or employees of a person.
Editorial Note on Part 62
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 62 appear at 64 FR 54539, Oct. 7, 1999, and 67 FR 17612, 17613, Apr. 11, 2002.

§ 62.62 Termination of, or denial of redesignation for, a class of designated programs. The Department may, in its sole discretion, determine that a class of designated programs compromises the national security of the United States or no longer furthers the public diplomacy mission of the Department of State. Upon such a determination, the Office shall: ( a ) Give all sponsors of such class of designated programs not less than thirty (30) days' written notice of the revocation of Exchange Visitor Program designations for such programs, specifying therein the grounds and effective date for such revocations; or
( b ) Give any sponsor of such class of designated programs not less than thirty (30) days' written notice of its denial of the sponsor's application for redesignation, specifying therein the grounds for such denial and effective date of such denial. Revocation of designation or denial of redesignation on the above-specified grounds for a class of designated programs is the final decision of the Department.
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999.

§ 63.2 Applicability of this part under special circumstances. ( a ) *Funds administered by another department or agency.* The regulations in this part shall apply to payments made to or on behalf of participants from funds appropriated or allocated to the Agency and transferred by the Agency to some other department, agency or independent establishment of the Government unless the terms of the transfer provide that such regulations shall not apply in whole or in part or with such modification as may be prescribed in each case to meet the exigencies of the particular situation.
( b ) *Funds administered by private organizations.* The regulations in this part shall apply to payments made to or on behalf of participants from funds appropriated or allocated to the Agency and administered by an institution, facility, or organization in accordance with the terms or a contract or grant made by the Agency with or to such private organizations, unless the terms of such contract or grant provide that the regulations in this part are not to be considered applicable or that they are to be applied with such modifications as may be prescribed in each case to meet the exigencies of the particular situation.
( c ) *Appropriations or allocations.* The regulations in this part shall apply to payments made by the Agency with respect to appropriations or allocations which are or may hereafter be made available to the Agency for the program so far as the regulations in this part are not inconsistent therewith.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

LARRY SMALL, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. CV-08-5423 MMC (PR)

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues

have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The

issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the respondent’s motion to dismiss the

petition as untimely is hereby GRANTED.

Dated: August 6, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Tracy Lucero

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-05423-MMC Document 16 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Coplin Yaras, Petitioner, against Martin Schenck, as Albany County Judge, et al., Respondents.

Motion for an order modifying an order made at Special Term on April 11, 1955, by striking therefrom the following: *“*Ordered that further proceedings or the part of the respondents herein shall be stayed pending the argument, determination and the entry of a final order herein or until the further direction of this Court.” Motion granted, by default. Present — Foster, P. J., Coon, Halpern, Imrie and Zeller, JJ.
Case 3:09-cr-01017-EDL   Document 7   Filed 01/28/10   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:09-cr-01017-EDL   Document 7   Filed 01/28/10   Page 2 of 2
### §3741. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3741 was editorially reclassified as section 10141 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

#### Prior Provisions

For prior sections 3741 of this title, see note set out preceding this section.
#### Baso E. HARPER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; William T. Fisher; Kristin W. Knutson; George C. Webster, Captain; Wayne A. Bowman, Counsel Substitute, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-20537

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 23, 2007.

Baso E. Harper, Jr., Huntsville, TX, pro se.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Baso E. Harper, Jr., Texas prisoner # 1079380, has appealed the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Harper alleged in his complaint that he suffered injuries when a prison guard pushed him in the chest following an altercation and that prison officials delayed obtaining him medical treatment for one hour and a half, thereby demonstrating deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

Harper’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Because the appeal is frivolous it is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. 42.2.

Harper has previously accumulated one strike for 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) purposes. *See Harper v. Bell County Texas,*No. W-02-CA-161 (S.D.Tex.6/17/2003). The district court’s dismissal of Harper’s complaint and this court’s dismissal of this appeal both count as additional strikes. *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Harper may no longer proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) SANCTIONS IMPOSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
§ 96.18 Scope. ( a ) Agencies are eligible to apply for “accreditation.” Persons are eligible to apply for “approval.” Applications for accreditation or approval will be processed in accordance with §§ 96.19 and 96.20.
( b ) If an agency or person is reapplying for accreditation or approval following cancellation of its accreditation or approval by an accrediting entity or refusal by an accrediting entity to renew its accreditation or approval, it must comply with the procedures in § 96.78.
( c ) If an agency or person that has been accredited or approved is seeking renewal, it must comply with the procedures in § 96.63.
[79 FR 40634, July 14, 2014]