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

        EXHIBIT 11 -- STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
        (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)



                                                   Year Ended December 31
                                                   ----------------------
                                                    1996    1995    1994
                                                   ------  ------  ------
Primary earnings per share:

Average shares outstanding                          8,220   8,588   8,537

Net effect of dilutive stock options and
warrants -- based on the treasury stock
method using average market price                     440     311      74
                                                   ------  ------  ------
                                                    8,660   8,899   8,611
                                                   ------  ------  ------
                                                   ------  ------  ------

Net income                                         $9,357  $8,002  $3,356
                                                   ------  ------  ------
                                                   ------  ------  ------

Per share amount                                   $ 1.08  $  .90  $  .39
                                                   ------  ------  ------
                                                   ------  ------  ------



Fully-diluted earnings per share:

Average shares outstanding                          8,220   8,588   8,537

Net effect of dilutive stock options and
warrants -- based on the treasury stock
method using closing market price                     477     581      74
                                                   ------  ------  ------
                                                    8,697   9,169   8,611
                                                   ------  ------  ------
                                                   ------  ------  ------

Net income                                         $9,357  $8,002  $3,356
                                                   ------  ------  ------
                                                   ------  ------  ------

Per share amount                                   $ 1.08  $  .87  $  .39
                                                   ------  ------  ------
                                                   ------  ------  ------

                                      54
**Additional Indirect Cost Information and Example for Training Grants**

If you are applying for a discretionary grant that the U.S. Department of Education considers to be a “Training grant,” your indirect cost reimbursement is limited.  See the Education Department General Administration Regulations (EDGAR), 34 CFR 75.562, Indirect cost rates for educational training projects at:

http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/edgarReg/edlite-part75e.html

Indirect cost reimbursement on ED training grants is limited to the grantee’s actual indirect costs as determined by the grantee’s negotiated indirect cost rate agreement or 8% of a modified total direct cost base, **whichever is less**.  Indirect costs in excess of the 8% limit may not be charged directly, used to satisfy matching or cost-sharing requirements, or charged to another Federal award.

For the purposes of calculating indirect costs for training grants, EDGAR, §75.562(c), defines a modified total direct cost base as:

**“total direct costs less stipends, tuition and related fees, and capital expenditures of $5,000 or more.”**

Note:  This limitation on indirect cost reimbursement for training grants does not apply to agencies of State or local governments, including federally recognized Indian tribal governments.  However, the 8% limit applies to cost-type contracts under grants, if these contracts are for training as defined in EDGAR, §75.562(a).

Below is a simplified example for calculating indirect costs for a training grant using the budget categories from the ED 524 form, Budget Information – Non-construction Programs.  The ED 524 and Instructions can be found at:   http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html

For the purposes of this example, 8% of a modified total direct cost base is used to calculate indirect costs.
Opinion filed August 18 , 201 6



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11

- 1 5

- 00 287

- C V

__________

BHB OPERATING, INC. AND LANCE DUNCAN

INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MARK III ENERGY

HOLDINGS, LLC , Appellant s

V.

ROBERTS INTERESTS, LLP , Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A

- 139,387

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal f

rom a default judgment

. Appellant s have filed a brief in

this court requesting that the default judgment be reversed and that the cause be

remanded for a new trial. Appellee has filed in this court a motion for remand i n

which Appellee states that the default judgment against Appellants “shoul d be

reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings .”2

We grant Appellee’s motion, reverse the judgment of the trial court , and

remand this cause t o the trial court for further proceedings.

PER CURIAM

August 18 , 201 6

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J., and Bailey , J.
----

| (1)          | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-133841) pertaining to the 1991 Employee Stock      Plan of Genentech, Inc., |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)          | Registration      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-37072) of Genentech,  Inc., |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (3)          | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-115219) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan,      1991 Employee Stock Plan, and 2004 Equity Incentive Plan of Genentech,      Inc., |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (4)          | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87444) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan of      Genentech, Inc., |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (5)          | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-94749) pertaining to the Tax Reduction      Investment Plan of Genentech, Inc., |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (6)          | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-90669) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan and      1991 Employee Stock Plan of Genentech,Inc., |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (7)          | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-83989) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Plan and      1991 Employee Stock Plan of Genentech, Inc.,and |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (8)          | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-83157) pertaining to the 1990 Stock      Option/Stock Incentive Plan, 1994 Stock Option Plan, and 1996 Stock      Option/Stock Incentive Plan of Genentech,Inc.; |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/      ERNST & YOUNG LLP |
|--------|--------------------------------|

----
#### Billie Etta ARNOLD, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HALIFAX HOSPITAL DISTRICT, a Special Taxing District in Volusia County, Florida, Defendant.

No. 70-113-Civ-J.

United States District Court, M. D. Florida, Jacksonville Division.

March 10, 1970.

Warren H. Cobb, Daytona Beach, Fla., for plaintiff.

Wesley A. Fink, Fink & Loucks, Daytona Beach, Fla., for defendant.

ORDER

SCOTT, District Judge.

This cause coming on this day to be heard upon the complaint of the plaintiff, and the Court finding from the testimony introduced that some applicants have been denied medical care and treatment at the defendant’s Family Practice Clinic because such applicants have not resided in the Halifax Hospital District for a period of one year, as required by the charter of the Halifax Hospital District, it is thereupon,

Ordered and adjudged:

1. That the defendant Halifax Hospital District shall furnish medical care and treatment through its facilities to indigents without regard to the length of durational residency of such indigents.

2. That the durational residency requirements of one year, as provided in Section 19 of Chapter 11272, Laws of Florida, 1925, as amended, is hereby declared to be null and void as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lonnie Brown, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered November 14, 1961 after a nonjury trial, convicting him of assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence upon him as a second felony offender. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. [As to affirmance of judgment of conviction of the eodefendant Wiley Murphy, see *People*v. *Murphy,*16 A D 2d 961, affd. 12 N Y 2d 1029.] Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of John J. Gill et al., Petitioners, v. Myrtle O’Neil et al., Constituting the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Ithaca, et al., Respondents.

This article 78 proceeding, transferred here pursuant to 7804 (subd. [g]) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, seeks a review of a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Ithaca, which granted to Two Twelve Giles Street Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the owner, a variance to erect a larger unit apartment complex than the zoning ordinance permitted. Under the ordinance, the location of the owner’s property was limited to a multiple-family dwelling, or a student fraternity or sorority house. Applying the zoning formula to the size of the owner’s lot permitted the construction of a 9-unit apartment. The owner applied and sought permission to construct a 24-unit apartment house. The board, following a hearing, by resolution granted a variance to permit the erection of an 18-unit apartment but, in so doing, made no factual findings or gave any substantial reason for its action. The answer to the petition included no factual findings. In *Matter of Gilbert*v. *Stevens*(284 App. Div. 1016) this court stated in a case involving the same city zoning board: *“*Findings of fact which show the actual grounds of a decision are necessary for an intelligent review of a quasi-judicial or administrative determination. * * * Perhaps [the] information is within the personal knowledge of the respondents. In that event, the information should be placed in the record in detail, if a determination is to be based upon it.” Pursuant to the zoning ordinance the Board of Appeals may, under certain conditions, grant a variance when there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in carrying out the law. (Zoning Ordinance, § 12, A[3].) In a letter to the board, the builders stated their intent to proceed, in lieu of a variance, with the construction of the nine units and indicating that the plan would be to rent each facility to eight college students. The letter also indicated that such arrangement would be economically feasible but in deference to the adjacent property owners (we assume not the petitioners) they would much prefer the variance. It would appear that there is a difference of opinion among the adjacent property owners. The petitioners favor the smaller unit, presumably to be occupied by college students, while other owners favor the allowance of a variance to erect a larger number of luxury apartments. Whatever may be the reason, the absence of findings of fact prevents us from making an intelligent review of the board’s determination and thus, we do not determine the merits. The determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Ithaca annulled and the matter remitted to the board for reconsideration and the making of findings in proper form, with leave to the parties to present such other and further proof as they may be advised, with $50 costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-70101 and
No. 333-48781) of PP&L Resources, Inc. and in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 33-50031 and No. 333-02003) of PP&L Resources, Inc. of our report
dated February 1, 1999 appearing on page 50 of this Form 10-K.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 3, 1999
NUMBER                                                             SHARES
+----------+                                                        +----------+
|          |                                                        |          |
+----------+                                                        +----------+
               INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

                                SVE MERGER, INC.

                             TOTAL AUTHORIZED ISSUE
                    100,000,000 SHARES PAR VALUE $.001 EACH
                                  COMMON STOCK

This is to Certify that ________________________________________ is the owner of
_________________________________________________________________ fully paid and
non-assessable shares of the above Corporation transferable only on the books of
the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney
upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

WITNESS, the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized
officers.

DATED


_______________________                                  _______________________
Exhibit 32.1

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Form
10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended December 27, 2009

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 Briggs & Stratton
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 27, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John S. Shiely, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; and

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ John S. Shiely     
|John S. Shiely         
|Chief Executive Officer
|February 3, 2010       

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
161 So. 21

#### MURFF v. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

No. 33099.

April 1, 1935.

See, also, 180 La. 664, 157 So. 383.

Lewis L. Morgan, of Covington, and E. R. Stoker, of Baton Rouge, for appellant

A. J. Murff and D. H. Perkins, both of Shreveport, for appellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The defendant, Louisiana Highway Commission, has appealed from a judgment ordering the commission to enlarge the openings in the embankment over which route No. 80 crosses Cross bayou and Aligator bayou, in Bossier parish, so that the drainage of the plaintiff’s land will not be impeded. The facts of the case are set forth in Murff v. Louisiana Highway Commission (La. App.) 146 So. 328, and Id. (La. App.) 157 So. 134, where the plaintiff in the present suit obtained a judgment against the highway commission, in the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, for damages for the destruction of his crops by the obstruction of the drainage. The facts are set forth also in Grounds v. Louisiana Highway Commission, 180 La. 670, 157 So. 385, where this court al*63lowed the plaintiff damages for the same cause of action.

The attorneys for the highway commission are not now disputing that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief which has been granted. The case was not argued orally for the highway commission. In the brief filed for the commission, the only complaint is that the commission cannot comply with the mandate of the court within the time prescribed, which is only sixty days from the date on which this decree will become final. It is said in the brief that the highway commission will comply with the mandate, and in fact is preparing, in conjunction with the bureau of public roads, to enlarge the openings, for the flow of water where route No. SO crosses Cross bayou and Aligátor bayou, as well as where the route crosses Red chute and Mussel Shell bayou; and that the enlargement of these openings will be even greater than the mandate of the court calls for. But it is said that this work will be a federal aid project, and that the federal aid funds will not be available before the 1st day of July, 1935. It is not suggested that the mandate of the district court should be modified by extending the time in which the work shall be done. In fact, no such plea or defense was made in the district court. If it develops, or has developed since the judgment was rendered, that the mandate of the court cannot be complied with in the time allowed, the court will not undertake to compel the doing of something impossible. That issue, however, cannot be met unless and until it arises. In view of the decisions which have been rendered in the damage suits referred to, we have no doubt that the highway commission will remove the source of trouble as soon as possible.

The judgment is affirmed.
sch_type,n_sch_total,n_sch_offered_alg,pct_offered_algmagnet,202632,177458,0.876traditional,3217594,2594042,0.806charter,204690,123568,0.604alternative_other,20772,9160,0.441vocational,509,221,0.434special_education,7679,1358,0.177
#### 1652.215-71 Investment Income.

As prescribed in 1615.470-1, the following clause shall be inserted in all FEHBP contracts based on cost analysis:

# Investment Income (JAN 1998)

(a) The Carrier shall invest and reinvest all FEHB funds on hand that are in excess of the funds needed to promptly discharge the obligations incurred under this contract. The Carrier shall seek to maximize investment income with prudent consideration to the safety and liquidity of investments.

(b) All investment income earned on FEHB funds shall be credited to the Special Reserve on behalf of the FEHBP.

(c) When the Contracting Officer concludes that the Carrier failed to comply with paragraph (a) or (b) of this clause, the Carrier shall credit the Special Reserve with investment income that would have been earned, at the rate(s) specified in paragraph (f) of this clause, had it not been for the Carrier's noncompliance. “Failed to comply with paragraph (a) or (b)” means: (1) Making any charges against the contract which are not allowable, allocable, or reasonable; or (2) failing to credit any income due the contract and/or failing to place excess funds, including subscription income and payments from OPM not needed to discharge promptly the obligations incurred under the contract, refunds, credits, payments, deposits, investment income earned, uncashed checks, or other amounts owed the Special Reserve, in income producing investments and accounts.

(d) Investment income lost as a result of unallowable, unallocable, or unreasonable charges against the contract shall be paid from the 1st day of the contract term following the contract term in which the unallowable charge was made and shall end on the earlier of: (1) The date the amounts are returned to the Special Reserve (or the Office of Personnel Management); (2) the date specified by the Contracting Officer; or, (3) the date of the Contracting Officer's Final Decision.

(e) Investment income lost as a result of failure to credit income due the contract or failure to place excess funds in income producing investments and accounts shall be paid from the date the funds should have been invested or appropriate income was not credited and shall end on the earlier of: (1) The date the amounts are returned to the Special Reserve (or the Office of Personnel Management); (2) the date specified by the Contracting Officer; or, (3) the date of the Contracting Officer's Final Decision.

(f) The Carrier shall credit the Special Reserve for income due in accordance with this clause. All lost investment income payable shall bear simple interest at the quarterly rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 6621(a)(2) applicable to the periods in which the amount becomes due, as provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this clause.

(g) The Carrier shall incorporate this clause into agreements with underwriters of the Carrier's FEHB plan and shall substitute “underwriter” or other appropriate reference for the term “Carrier.”

(End of clause)

[55 FR 27416, July 2, 1990, as amended at 62 FR 47577, Sept. 10, 1997; 70 FR 31383, June 1, 2005]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leuvenia Smith, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Westchester County, imposed June 28, 1978, upon a conviction of assault in the second degree, on a jury verdict, the sentence being an indeterminate prison term not to exceed three years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to the time already served, with defendant to be continued on probation for a period of five years, less the time already served, and case remanded to the County Court to fix the terms and conditions of probation and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Under the circumstances of this case we believe the sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Gulotta, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.