alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                   Exhibit 11
                       Computation of Earnings per Share
                     (In thousands except per share amount)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                Three Months Ended          Six Months Ended
                                                                  September 30                September 30
                                                               1997          1996          1997           1996
                                                              -------       -------       -------       -------
<S>                                                           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>    

Net income                                                    $10,512       $ 9,277       $19,494       $17,689
                                                              =======       =======       =======       =======

Common stock outstanding, net of treasury stock,
     beginning of period                                       16,697        17,401        16,803        17,594
Weighted average treasury stock issued during the period           24            25            65            96
Weighted average common stock equivalents                         705           837           645           756
Weighted average treasury stock repurchased                         0          (349)         (119)         (340)
                                                              -------       -------       -------       -------

Weighted average common stock outstanding, net of
     treasury stock, end of period                             17,426        17,914        17,394        18,106
                                                              =======       =======       =======       =======

Income per common share                                       $  0.60       $  0.52       $  1.12       $  0.98
                                                              =======       =======       =======       =======
</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.1

**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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Doron Birger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

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

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

 

 

 

| Date:          July 13, 2005 |   |   |                                                                              |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              |   |   |    /s/ Doron Birger                                                |
|                         |   |   |  

 

 

Doron BirgerPresident and Chief Executive Officer

  |
§ 37.915 What requirement for access to a for-profit participant's records do I include in a TIA? ( a ) If a for-profit participant currently grants access to its records to the DCAA or other Federal Government auditors, your TIA must include for that participant the standard access-to-records requirements at 32 CFR 34.42(e). If the agreement is a fixed-support TIA, the language in 32 CFR 34.42(e) may be modified to provide access to records concerning the recipient's technical performance, without requiring access to the recipient's financial or other records. Note that any need to address access to technical records in this way is in addition to, not in lieu of, the need to address rights in data (*see* § 37.845).
( b ) For other for-profit participants that do not currently give the Federal Government direct access to their records and are not willing to grant full access to records pertinent to the award, there is no set requirement to include a provision in your TIA for Government access to records. If the audit provision of an expenditure-based TIA gives an IPA access to the recipient's financial records for audit purposes, the Federal Government must have access to the IPA's reports and working papers and you need not include a provision requiring direct Government access to the recipient's financial records. For both fixed-support and expenditure-based TIAs, you may wish to negotiate Government access to recipient records concerning technical performance. Should you negotiate a provision giving access only to specific Government officials (*e.g.,* the agreements officer), rather than a provision giving Government access generally, it is important to let participants know that the OIG, DoD, has a statutory right of access to records and other materials to which other DoD Component officials have access.
Lexter Kossie#700661 ,William McConnell Unit 

### 3001 South Emily Drive rBeeville, Texas 78102



### April 26, 2015
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. BOX 12308, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711
RE: WR HOs. 10,978-01 thru 10,978-16 Tr.Ct.NOs. 679887-A thru 679887-K 

### 185thDistrict Court - Harris County 

# torn01,07,03,tH&Bfto-ft



# COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS APR292015

Dear Clerk: 

### Recently Ihave been cited for abuse of the writ. In order for me to show that the claims I intend to raise inmy 

### subsequent writ are not barred by Sec 4 I am requesting the docket sheet of all the writs mentioned above with a list of all of the claims presented in each of those application. With out a list of all of the claims I cannot show that the claims I intend to raise have not been raised before in those prior applications. 

### Thankyou for anyconsideration given in this matter. Sincerely,
cc:File 

### Lextsif Kennon Kossie
#### KRAKAUER v. LAVELLE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 16, 1903.)

Action by Fanny Krakauer against George A. Lavelle and others.

No opinion. Motion granted so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs.
#### § 516.14 Service of process on DA or Secretary of Army.

The Chief, Litigation Division, shall accept service of process for Department of the Army or for the Secretary of the Army in his official capacity.
### §7371. Mandatory removal from employment of law enforcement officers convicted of felonies

(a) In this section, the term—

(1) "conviction notice date" means the date on which an agency that employs a law enforcement officer has notice that the officer has been convicted of a felony that is entered by a Federal or State court, regardless of whether that conviction is appealed or is subject to appeal; and

(2) "law enforcement officer" has the meaning given that term under section 8331(20) or 8401(17).

(b) Any law enforcement officer who is convicted of a felony shall be removed from employment as a law enforcement officer on the last day of the first applicable pay period following the conviction notice date.

(c)(1) This section does not prohibit the removal of an individual from employment as a law enforcement officer before a conviction notice date if the removal is properly effected other than under this section.

(2) This section does not prohibit the employment of any individual in any position other than that of a law enforcement officer.

(d) If the conviction is overturned on appeal, the removal shall be set aside retroactively to the date on which the removal occurred, with back pay under section 5596 for the period during which the removal was in effect, unless the removal was properly effected other than under this section.

(e)(1) If removal is required under this section, the agency shall deliver written notice to the employee as soon as practicable, and not later than 5 calendar days after the conviction notice date. The notice shall include a description of the specific reasons for the removal, the date of removal, and the procedures made applicable under paragraph (2).

(2) The procedures under section 7513(b)(2), (3), and (4), (c), (d), and (e) shall apply to any removal under this section. The employee may use the procedures to contest or appeal a removal, but only with respect to whether—

(A) the employee is a law enforcement officer;

(B) the employee was convicted of a felony; or

(C) the conviction was overturned on appeal.

(3) A removal required under this section shall occur on the date specified in subsection (b) regardless of whether the notice required under paragraph (1) of this subsection and the procedures made applicable under paragraph (2) of this subsection have been provided or completed by that date.

(Added Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(3) [title VI, §639(a)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–168.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(3) [title VI, §639(c)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–168, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [enacting this subchapter] shall take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 21, 2000] and shall apply to any conviction of a felony entered by a Federal or State court on or after that date."
EXHIBIT 21
                              
                       ROUNDY'S, INC.
                        Subsidiaries
                              
Roundy's, Inc. has twelve wholly-owned first-tier subsidiaries, each a
Wisconsin corporation (except as otherwise noted) doing
business under their corporate names.  These subsidiaries are:

Badger Assurance, Ltd.(1)          Kee Wholesale, Inc.
CD of Wisconsin, Inc.              Midland Grocery of Michigan, Inc.(6)
Holt Public Storage, Inc.          Old Time, Inc.
I.T.A., Inc.                       Ropak, Inc.
Jondex Corp.                       Scot Lad Foods, Inc.
Kee Trans, Inc.                    WFC Foods, Inc.(2)

Five Wisconsin corporations doing business under their
corporate names are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Ropak, Inc.
These corporations are:

Insurance Planners, Inc.           Shop-Rite, Inc.
Pick 'n Save Warehouse Foods, Inc. Villard Avenue Shop-Rite, Inc.
Sheboygan Land Corporation

Four corporations doing business under their corporate names
are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Scot Lad Foods, Inc.  These
corporations are:

Bonnie Baking Co., Inc.(3)         Cardinal Foods, Inc.(5)
Spring Lake Merchandise, Inc.(4)   Scot Lad-Lima, Inc.(4)

One corporation doing business under its corporate name is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Cardinal Foods, Inc.  The corporation is:

Wilson's Cardinal Supermarket, Inc.(4)

One corporation doing business under its corporate name is a
subsidiary of Shop-Rite, Inc. and is partially owned by
Cardinal Foods, Inc.  The corporation is:

The Midland Grocery Company(4)


_____________

(1) A Bermuda corporation.    (4) An Ohio corporation.
(2) An Illinois corporation.  (5) A Delaware corporation.
(3) An Indiana corporation.   (6) A Michigan corporation.
### §454. Future Years Homeland Security Program

#### (a) In general

Each budget request submitted to Congress for the Department under section 1105 of title 31 shall, at or about the same time, be accompanied by a Future Years Homeland Security Program.

#### (b) Contents

The Future Years Homeland Security Program under subsection (a) shall—

(1) include the same type of information, organizational structure, and level of detail as the future years defense program submitted to Congress by the Secretary of Defense under section 221 of title 10;

(2) set forth the homeland security strategy of the Department, which shall be developed and updated as appropriate annually by the Secretary, that was used to develop program planning guidance for the Future Years Homeland Security Program; and

(3) include an explanation of how the resource allocations included in the Future Years Homeland Security Program correlate to the homeland security strategy set forth under paragraph (2).

#### (c) Effective date

This section shall take effect with respect to the preparation and submission of the fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Department and for any subsequent fiscal year, except that the first Future Years Homeland Security Program shall be submitted not later than 90 days after the Department's fiscal year 2005 budget request is submitted to Congress.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title VIII, §874, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2244; Pub. L. 108–330, §5, Oct. 16, 2004, 118 Stat. 1278.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–330 added subsec. (b) and struck out heading and text of former subsec. (b). Text read as follows: "The Future Years Homeland Security Program under subsection (a) of this section shall be structured, and include the same type of information and level of detail, as the Future Years Defense Program submitted to Congress by the Department of Defense under section 221 of title 10."

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

#### Administrative Provisions

Pub. L. 115–141, div. F, title I, §101, Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 606, provided that: "Hereafter, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives, at the time the President's budget proposal is submitted pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the Future Years Homeland Security Program, as authorized by section 874 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 454)."
November 14, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KAREN WAKEFIELD, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00686-CV V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A., signed June 25, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the 

judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Karen Wakefield, to pay all costs incurred in this 

appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
### §7115. Allotments to representatives

(a) If an agency has received from an employee in an appropriate unit a written assignment which authorizes the agency to deduct from the pay of the employee amounts for the payment of regular and periodic dues of the exclusive representative of the unit, the agency shall honor the assignment and make an appropriate allotment pursuant to the assignment. Any such allotment shall be made at no cost to the exclusive representative or the employee. Except as provided under subsection (b) of this section, any such assignment may not be revoked for a period of 1 year.

(b) An allotment under subsection (a) of this section for the deduction of dues with respect to any employee shall terminate when—

(1) the agreement between the agency and the exclusive representative involved ceases to be applicable to the employee; or

(2) the employee is suspended or expelled from membership in the exclusive representative.

(c)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, if a petition has been filed with the Authority by a labor organization alleging that 10 percent of the employees in an appropriate unit in an agency have membership in the labor organization, the Authority shall investigate the petition to determine its validity. Upon certification by the Authority of the validity of the petition, the agency shall have a duty to negotiate with the labor organization solely concerning the deduction of dues of the labor organization from the pay of the members of the labor organization who are employees in the unit and who make a voluntary allotment for such purpose.

(2)(A) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply in the case of any appropriate unit for which there is an exclusive representative.

(B) Any agreement under paragraph (1) of this subsection between a labor organization and an agency with respect to an appropriate unit shall be null and void upon the certification of an exclusive representative of the unit.

(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title VII, §701, Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1203.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 1101 of this title.
### §726. Basic life supporting first aid and education

The Administrator shall enter into agreements with organizations to provide funds to emergency response providers to provide education and training in life supporting first aid to children.

(Pub. L. 109–295, title VI, §639, Oct. 4, 2006, 120 Stat. 1423.)
### §102. Military departments

The military departments are:

The Department of the Army.

The Department of the Navy.

The Department of the Air Force.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

The section is supplied to avoid the necessity for defining "military departments" each time it is used in this title. See section 101(7) of title 10.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

Wniteh ~tates <!Court of §ppeaIs 

for tbe jf eheraI <!Cirruit 

KEN NOLEN, 

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, 

AND 

MATTICKS & EASTHAM, LLP, 

Movant-Cross Appellant, 

AND 

SAM G. GIBBS, 

Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, 

AND 

COTTON, BLEDSOE, TIGHE & DAWSON, P.C., 

Movant-Cross Appellant, 

v. 

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC., GARY BUSH AND 

ANDREWS KURTH, LLP, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

2011-1251, -1265, -1278, -1279, -1499, -1500, -1522, -1523 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Texas in case no. 1O-CV-0048, Senior 

Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth. 
NOLEN v. LUFKIN INDUSTRIES 2 

ORDER 

Upon review of these appeals, the appeals are consolidated. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The revised official caption is reflected above. 

FEB 01 2012 

Date 

cc: Kenneth E. Carroll, Esq. 

s21 

Kenneth R. Matticks, Esq. 

Richard D. Milvenan, Esq. 

Charles C. Aycock, Esq. 

FOR THE COURT 

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

rilED 

u.s. COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

FEB 01 2012 

JAN HORBALY 

CLERK
### §1334a–1. Summer fallow farms; upper limit on required set aside acreage for 1971 through 1977 wheat, feed grain, and cotton crops

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the 1971 through 1977 crops of wheat, feed grains and cotton, if in any year at least 55 per centum of the cropland acreage on an established summer fallow farm is devoted to a summer fallow use, no further acreage shall be required to be set aside under the wheat, feed grain and cotton programs for such year.

(Pub. L. 91–524, title IV, §410, Nov. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1367; Pub. L. 93–86, §1(17), Aug. 10, 1973, 87 Stat. 230.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Agricultural Act of 1970, and not as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1973—Pub. L. 93–86 substituted "1971 through 1977" for "1971, 1972, and 1973".
#### Suzanne A. Guacci, Respondent, v Ogden Bros. Collision, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Danielle Virgil, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[834 NYS2d 521]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered on or about April 11, 2006, which denied the motion of defendants Ogden Bros. Collision and Lynch for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Ogden and Lynch dismissing the complaint as against them.

Lynch’s parking at an accident scene to tow a disabled vehicle was not one of the causes of the accident, but merely furnished the instrumentality by which plaintiff was injured when defendant Virgil’s car hit Lynch’s tow truck, causing the tow truck, in turn, to hit plaintiff *(see Sheehan v City of New York,*40 NY2d 496, 503 [1976]). It is also clear that defendant Virgil’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries *(see*id.; see *also Baptiste v New York City Tr. Auth.,*28 AD3d 385, 387 [2006]).

Plaintiff identified no facts in the record possibly demonstrating that Ogden had failed to make appropriate inquiries upon hiring Lynch, or that Ogden had notice of any allegedly negligent conduct by Lynch while he was an employee of Ogden. As a result, the cause of action for negligent hiring and retention should have been dismissed *(see Honohan v Martin’s Food of S. Burlington,*255 AD2d 627 [1998]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, Gonzalez, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
```

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

I,  Paul M.  Joeckel,  the  Secretary  and Vice  President  Operations  of Eagle
Exploration Company,  (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1)  the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal  quarter
     ended   September  30,  2004  (the   "Report")   fully  complies  with  the
     requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of
     1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: November 15, 2003

                                       /s/  Paul M. Joeckel
                                       --------------------
                                       Name: Paul M. Joeckel
                                       Title: Secretary and Vice President of Operations
```
### §1306. Projected yields; determination; base period

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the determination of farm yields the Secretary may use projected yields in lieu of normal yields. In the determination of such yields the Secretary shall take into account the actual yield proved by the producer for the base period used in determining the projected yield, and the projected yield shall not be less than such actual yield proved by the producer.

(Pub. L. 89–321, title VII, §708, Nov. 3, 1965, 79 Stat. 1211; Pub. L. 91–524, title IV, §405(b), as added Pub. L. 93–86, §1(12)(a), Aug. 10, 1973, 87 Stat. 229.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965, and not as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1973—Pub. L. 91–524, §405(b), as added by Pub. L. 93–86, temporarily inserted "(except that in the case of wheat, if the yield is abnormally low in any one of the calendar years of the base period because of drought, flood, or other natural disaster, the Secretary shall take into account the actual yield proved by the producer in the other four years of such base period)" after "determining the projected yield". See Effective and Termination Dates of 1973 Amendment note below.

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

#### Effective and Termination Dates of 1973 Amendment

Pub. L. 91–524, title IV, §405(b), as added by Pub. L. 93–86, §1(12)(a), Aug. 10, 1973, 87 Stat. 229, provided that the amendment made by Pub. L. 91–524 is effective with respect to the 1974 through 1977 crops.