alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11.
 
                            TICKETMASTER GROUP, INC.
 
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 
       (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE INFORMATION) (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED          NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                            OCTOBER 31,                 OCTOBER 31,
                                     -------------------------   -------------------------
                                        1995          1996          1995          1996
                                     -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------
<S>                                  <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Weighted average number of 
  common shares outstanding .......   15,310,405    15,310,405    15,310,405    15,310,405
Common Stock equivalents 
  from outstanding stock options...          n/a        39,636           n/a        39,636
                                     -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------
                                      15,310,405    15,350,041    15,310,405    15,350,041
                                     ===========   ===========   -----------   -----------
Net income (loss)..................  $    (2,660)  $     2,849   $    (4,986)  $       431
                                     ===========   ===========   -----------   -----------
Net income (loss) per share........  $     (0.17)  $      0.19   $     (0.33)  $      0.03
                                     ===========   ===========   ===========   ===========
</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Forest Service has reviewed the Forest Service system of records, USDA/FS-43, Emergency Fire Mobilization Plan Director, and concluded that the system is obsolete. That system is being abolished from the Forest Service Systems of Records in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

# DATES:

This notice is effective on December 28, 2004.

# ADDRESSES:

For additional information contact Rita Morgan, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer, Forest Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 1143, Washington, DC 20250-1143.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rita Morgan, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer, at (703) 605-4913.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, requires that each agency publish a notice of the existence and character of each new or altered “system of records.” 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(5). This Notice identifies and abolishes an obsolete Forest Service system of records. the Forest Service is abolishing the following system of records which, upon review, is no longer used, and is, therefore, obsolete: USDA/FS-43, Emergency Fire Mobilization Plan Directory.

Dated: December 13, 2004.

Robin L. Thompson,

Associate Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry.

[FR Doc. 04-28241  Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
§ 203.259a Scope. ( a ) The Commissioner shall charge a one-time MIP pursuant to § 203.280 for mortgages that: ( 1 ) Are insured pursuant to § 203.43(c) (if the mortgage to be refinanced was executed prior to July 1, 1991 and the new mortgage is executed on or after April 24, 1992); or insured pursuant to § 203.43i; or
( 2 ) ( i ) Are obligations of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund under this part (except insured open-end advances as provided by § 203.270);
( ii ) Are insured pursuant to: ( A ) An application for a conditional commitment received on or after September 1, 1983; or
( B ) An application for mortgage insurance endorsement under the single family Direct Endorsement program as provided in § 203.255, where the property appraisal report is signed by the mortgagee's underwriter on or after September 1, 1983; and
( iii ) Are executed before July 1, 1991.
( b ) Except as provided in § 203.284(h) or § 203.285(d), the Commissioner shall charge an up-front MIP pursuant to § 203.284 or § 203.285 for mortgages executed on or after July 1, 1991 that are obligations of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund. In the cases that the Commissioner deems appropriate, the Commissioner may require, by means of instructions communicated to all affected mortgages, that up-front MIP be remitted electronically.
( c ) The periodic MIP provision of §§ 203.260 through 203.268 shall not apply to mortgages referred to in paragraph (a) of this section, nor shall they apply to mortgages to which the provision of § 203.284 or § 203.285 apply.
[57 FR 15211, Apr. 24, 1992, as amended at 57 FR 46983, Oct. 14, 1992; 58 FR 12902, Mar. 8, 1993; 58 FR 41003, July 30, 1993; 59 FR 13882, Mar. 24, 1994; 60 FR 34138, June 30, 1995; 61 FR 36453, July 10, 1996]
### §9502. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §902(e)(1), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 560

Section, Pub. L. 96–398, title V, §502, Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1601, related to grants for protection and advocacy programs.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 902(h) of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as an Effective Date of 1981 Amendment note under section 238l of this title.
Amendment No. 2 to Severance, Proprietary Interest Protection Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.12

 AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO 
 SEVERANCE, PROPRIETARY INTEREST 
 PROTECTION AND NON-SOLICITATION
AGREEMENT 
 WHEREAS, Rewards Network Services Inc. (the “Company”) and Megan E. Flynn (the “Executive”)
have heretofore entered into a Severance, Proprietary Interest Protection and Non-Solicitation Agreement dated as of March 18, 2005, which was previously amended effective as of January 1, 2009 (the “Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to further amend the Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 13 of the Agreement, Section 1(c)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to
read as follows: 
 “(i) a diminution in Executive’s duties resulting from a Change in Control (as such term is defined
in the Company’s 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as the same may be amended from time to time),” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized officer and the Executive has executed this instrument as of the 16th day of August, 2010. 

 

			
	REWARDS NETWORK INC.
		
	By:	 	       /s/ Ronald L. Blake

	Name:  Ronald L. Blake
	Title:  President and CEO
	
	               /s/
Megan E. Flynn

	Megan E. Flynn
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 297 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 297

To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild 
                    free-roaming horses and burros.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2005

  Mr. Rahall (for himself and Mr. Whitfield) introduced the following 
         bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild 
                    free-roaming horses and burros.

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

SECTION 1. SALE OF WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(d)(5) of Public Law 92-195 (16 U.S.C. 
1333(d)(5)) is amended--
            (1) by striking the period and inserting the following: 
        ``Provided, That no wild free-roaming horse or burro or its 
        remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for 
        processing into commercial products.''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (e).
    (b) Criminal Provisions.--Section (8)(a)(4) of Public Law 92-195 
(16 U.S.C. 1338(a)(4)) is amended by striking ``except as provided in 
section 3(e),''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2506 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 3-(2,2- 

Dichlorovinyl)–2,2-dimethyl-, 3-phenoxybenzyl ester, (+-)-,(cis,trans)-. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Cyclopropanecarboxylic 

acid, 3-(2,2-Dichlorovinyl)–2,2-dimethyl-, 3- 

phenoxybenzyl ester, (+-)-,(cis,trans)-. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CYCLOPROPANECARBOXYLIC ACID, 3-(2,2- 

4 DICHLOROVINYL)–2,2-DIMETHYL-, 3- 

5 PHENOXYBENZYL ESTER, (+-)-,(CIS,TRANS)-. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 
2 

•HR 2506 IH 

‘‘ 9902.08.16 Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 

3-(2,2-Dichlorovinyl)–2,2-dimethyl-, 3-phenoxybenzyl 

ester, (+-)-,(cis,trans)- (CAS 

No. 52645–53–1) (provided 

in subheading 2916.20.50) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Dominick Zizzo, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

— In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, made July 27, 1961 and entered August 1, 1961, after a hearing, which dismissed the writ and remanded him to the custody of respondent. Order affirmed, without costs. The writ was based on relator’s claim that his trial in 1936 for murder in the first degree proceeded in his absence. More specifically, relator alleges that the jury, after retiring to deliberate, returned on several occasions to the courtroom in his absence and had certain testimony read to them. The minutes of the trial show that the jury returned three times to the courtroom and requested that certain testimony and certain portions of the charge be read to them. The minutes do not affirmatively indicate whether relator was present or absent on these occasions. At the hearing on the writ, relator testified that he was present when the jury first returned, but was absent on the two subsequent occasions when they returned to the courtroom. The relator produced no corroborating witness although the record of the hearing indicates that at least two of his trial counsel were then still living. Respondent in his return failed to controvert the factual allegations of the petition and offered no evidence to rebut those allegations. The issue now presented was not raised on the appeal to the Court of Appeals from the judgment of conviction *(People*v. *Zizzo,*272 N. Y. 602), despite the fact that relator was represented by experienced and able counsel. Under the circumstances, the trier of the facts in this proceeding was justified *659in refusing to credit the relator’s testimony, even though it was not directly contradicted (cf. *People*v. *Page,*12 A D 2d 984, and cases there cited). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ,, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,447
<INVENTORY>                                    147,769
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,576
<PP&E>                                          76,543
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 240,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,941
<BONDS>                                         67,909
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           221
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   240,586
<SALES>                                        427,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               427,140
<CGS>                                          316,080
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,990
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,099
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,891
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        1,074<F1>
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,817
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
<FN>
<F1>Represents a charge for pre-opening costs recorded as a cumulative effect of a
change in accounting principle, net of tax
</FN>


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7831
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BOBBY LYNN COOPER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-90-49, CA-98-713-R) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 10, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Lynn Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Bobby Lynn Cooper seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Cooper , Nos. CR-90-49;CA-98-713-R (W.D. Va. Nov. 18, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2726 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2726

  To prohibit municipal governments from offering telecommunications, 
  information, or cable services except to remedy market failures by 
              private enterprise to provide such services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2005

 Mr. Sessions introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit municipal governments from offering telecommunications, 
  information, or cable services except to remedy market failures by 
              private enterprise to provide such services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act 
of 2005''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON MUNICIPAL SERVICES.

    (a) Amendment.--Section 253 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 253) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(g) Provision of Services by State and Local Governments and 
Their Affiliates.--
            ``(1) Prohibition.--Effective 60 days after the date of 
        enactment of the Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005, 
        neither any State or local government, nor any entity 
        affiliated with such a government, shall provide any 
        telecommunications, telecommunications service, information 
        service, or cable service in any geographic area within the 
        jurisdiction of such government in which a corporation or other 
        private entity that is not affiliated with any State or local 
        government is offering a substantially similar service.
            ``(2) Grandfather provision.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
        prohibit a State or local government or affiliated entity 
        thereof from providing in any geographic area within the 
        jurisdiction of such government any service that such 
        government or entity was providing on the date of enactment of 
        the Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (f) of section 621 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 541(f)) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2932 

To amend the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979 

to modify restrictions on the provisions of air transportation to and 

from Love Field, Texas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2005 

Mrs. BLACKBURN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the International Air Transportation Competition 

Act of 1979 to modify restrictions on the provisions 

of air transportation to and from Love Field, Texas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFY CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS. 

4 Subsection (c) of section 29 of the International Air 

5 Transportation Competition Act of 1979 (Public Law 96– 

6 192; 94 Stat. 48 et seq.) is amended by inserting ‘‘Ten7 nessee,’’ before ‘‘and Texas’’. 

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1158

NEW YORK MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a

New York corporation,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES BECKER,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

BECK ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Carl Horn, III, Chief

Magistrate Judge. (3:05-cv-00373)

Submitted: August 29, 2007 Decided: November 19, 2007

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Becker, Appellant Pro Se. Brenda Krebs Orrison, James

Alexander Porter, PORTER & ORRISON, LLP., Atlanta, Georgia, for

Appellee.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
1

Although plaintiff also brought suit against Beck Electric

and Frances and Rachel Loth, a default judgment was entered against

the Loths in May 2006, and Beck Electric was dismissed as a party

to the appeal in May 2007. 

2

The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

James E. Becker, president of Beck Electric Co., Inc.,1

appeals the magistrate judge’s2 order granting in part and denying

in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s

claim for breach of an indemnity agreement, denying plaintiff’s

motion to strike Becker’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the

motion for summary judgment, denying Becker’s “Motion for Judicial

Notice of Adjudicative Facts,” and awarding plaintiff attorneys’

fees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate

judge. See New York Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Becker, No. 3:05-cv00373 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2007). 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
Order entered October 7, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01228-CR

BRANDY MECHELLE HARRIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1300510-X

ORDER

The State’s October 6, 2015 motion to extend time to file a brief is GRANTED, and the 

brief received on October 6, 2015 is ORDERED filed as of that date.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### Edward Conrad, Appellant, v Ruth Conrad, Respondent.

Appeal from an amended order of the Family Court of Greene County, entered October 8, 1976, which denied petitioner’s application to modify a prior *672order of child support dated May 8, 1972. By order dated May 8, 1972 the petitioner was directed to pay $25 per week for the support of his then 15-year-old daughter. Since that time, the petitioner has lost his employment as a truck driver; however, he is self-employed and has substantial assets without any substantial indebtedness. The finding of the Family Court that the petitioner failed to establish a financial inability to pay support is not against the weight of the evidence. The petitioner further contends that because the child is now out of high school and in college he is relieved from any obligation of support for a child over the age of 18. However, he concedes that he is liable unless his daughter is emancipated (Domestic Relations Law, §§ 2, 31, subd 3; § 32, subd 2). The record does not demonstrate that the daughter became emancipated from her legal custodian, her mother, or that she is financially independent. Assuming that the conduct of the daughter could be a basis for relieving the petitioner from the terms of the order of May 8, 1972 (cf. *Johanny v Johanny,*41 AD2d 568), the present record does not establish any such conduct (see *Matter of Roe v Doe,*29 NY2d 188). Since the petitioner is not being required to pay tuition or otherwise provide a college education for his daughter (although indirectly his support will aid the child in attending college) his contention that as a matter of law he need not provide a college education has no merit. Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.