alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11

                        Exolon-ESK Company and Subsidiaries
                         Computation of Earnings Per Share
                       (In Thousands, Except Per Share Data)

                                          Three Months      Six Months
                                           Ended March        Ended
                                               31,           June 30,

                                          1997    1996     1997    1996

           Net earnings                   $1,493  $1,604  $2,840  $3,013
           Less Preferred Stock
           Dividends:

                Series A                     (5)     (5)    (11)    (11)

                Series B                     (5)     (5)    (11)    (11)
           Undistributed earnings         $1,482  $1,594  $2,818  $2,991

           Net earnings attributable
           to:

                Common Stock (50.0%)         669     796   1,409   1,495
                Class A Common Stock         669     796   1,409   1,496
                (50.0%)

                                          $1,338  $1,594  $2,818  $2,991

           Net earnings per share of
           Common Stock:
                Primary                    $1.54   $1.65   $2.92   $3.10
                
                Fully Diluted              $1.51   $1.59   $2.84   $2.99

           Net earnings per share of
           Class A Common Stock:
                Primary                    $1.44   $1.55   $2.75   $2.92

                Fully Diluted              $1.42   $1.50   $2.68   $2.82

           Weighted Average Shares
           Outstanding:
                Primary:                 
                Common Stock             482,000 482,000 482,000 482,000  

                Class A Common Stock     513,000 513,000 513,000 513,000
                                             
                Fully Diluted:
                Common Stock             504,000 504,000 504,000 504,000

                Class A Common Stock     535,000 535,000 535,000 535,000
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-645

In Re: WILLIE HORTON, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-89-180, CA-93-439-AM) Submitted: June 10, 1997 Decided: July 30, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie Horton, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 See F ED . R. APP . P. 21.
2 See In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).
3 See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court , 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989). 2 PER CURIAM: Willie Horton filed a mandamus petition in this court alleging undue delay by the district court on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West1994 & Supp. 1997), motion to vacate sentence. Apparently, the district court ordered in January 1995 that counsel be appointed and an evidentiary hearing be conducted, but until the filing of this mandamus petition in November 1996, no other action o ccurred. Because of the nature of the action pending before the district court, this court directed a r esponse to Horton's petition. A response was filed; 1 thus, this matter is ripe for adjudication. Unfortunately, the district court failed to act on Horton's § 2255 motion after the January 1995 order because the case file was lost in the clerk's office. While the Respondent admits that Horton's § 2255 motion was delayed, she contends that granting the petition for a writ of mandamus is unnecessary because of recent action taken by the district court. We agree. Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be granted in extraordinary situations. 2 Horton must demonstrate that he has no other avenue for relief, and that his right to relief is clear and undisputable. 3 In this case, Horton fails to meet his burdenbecause the district court recently reordered that counsel be appointed forthwith and that a magistrate judge hold an evidentiary3 hearing. The actions of the district court demonstrate that Hortonhas other avenues of relief available. Therefore, granting the petition for mandamus would be inappropriate as the district court's recent order accomplishes substantially everything that this court would have directed. Accordingly, we deny Horton's petition for a writ of mandamus without prejudice. If Horton encounters additional, significant delay he may apply again for mandamus relief. Additionally, we deny Horton's motions for the appointment of counsel and to be moved from the federal prison in Marion, Illinois, to a federal prison within the District of Maryland. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### Hollywood Shoe Polish, Inc., Appellant, v. Knomark Mfg. Co., Inc., Respondent.

Motion to dispense with the printing of certain exhibits granted as to all the exhibits enumerated in the list annexed to the moving affidavit on condition that upon *the*argument or submission of the appeal, all of the original exhibits be submitted together with four copies or replicas of the following exhibits: Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1, 2, 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 and 47; and defendant’s Exhibits B, G, H, I, J, M, N, Q, R and T. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00118

- CR

Roxanne Y. CHAVEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR0769 Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The court reporter in this case filed Volumes 1 through 3 and Volume 5 with State’s

Exhibit 1 (Parts 1

- 18) of the reporter’s record on June 16, 2017. The court reporter submitted
Volume 4, but it is not considered filed because it lacks the court reporter’s signature. The clerk of this court informed the court reporter of the need to resubmit Volume 4 of the reporter’s record with a signature via phone voice mail.

Volume 4 of the reporter’s record has not been resubmitt ed with a signature. Accordingly, we ORDER court reporter Mary Beth Sasala t o file Volume 4 of the reporter’s record on or by July 31, 2017

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Ju stice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of July, 2017

.___________________________________ Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
13.104 Promoting competition. The contracting officer must promote competition to the maximum extent practicable to obtain supplies and services from the source whose offer is the most advantageous to the Government, considering the administrative cost of the purchase. ( a ) The contracting officer must not— ( 1 ) Solicit quotations based on personal preference; or
( 2 ) Restrict solicitation to suppliers of well-known and widely distributed makes or brands.
( b ) If using simplified acquisition procedures and not providing access to the notice of proposed contract action and solicitation information through the Governmentwide point of entry (GPE), maximum practicable competition ordinarily can be obtained by soliciting quotations or offers from sources within the local trade area. Unless the contract action requires synopsis pursuant to 5.101 and an exception under 5.202 is not applicable, consider solicitation of at least three sources to promote competition to the maximum extent practicable. Whenever practicable, request quotations or offers from two sources not included in the previous solicitation.
( c ) When conducting a reverse auction, see subpart 17.8.
[62 FR 64917, Dec. 9, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 58593, Oct. 30, 1998; 66 FR 27413, May 16, 2001; 68 FR 56679, Oct. 1, 2003; 72 FR 63076, Nov. 7, 2007; 89 FR 61330, July 30, 2024]
Fiscal Year 2018 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - RHODE ISLAND

FY 2018 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

4400030 Barrington School District 109,117

4400065 Bristol-Warren Regional School District 687,683

4400090 Burrillville School District 489,937

4400120 Central Falls School District 2,966,190

4400150 Chariho Regional School District 394,016

4400210 Coventry School District 805,740

4400240 Cranston School District 2,998,109

4400270 Cumberland School District 754,090

4400300 East Greenwich School District 95,772

4400330 East Providence School District 1,623,977

4400360 Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District 165,280

4400390 Foster Elementary School District 76,045

4400420 Foster-Glocester Regional School District 110,679

4400450 Glocester Elementary School District 91,357

4400510 Jamestown School District 157,704

4400540 Johnston School District 869,753

4400570 Lincoln School District 624,227

4400600 Little Compton School District 51,650

4400630 Middletown School District 367,453

4400660 Narragansett School District 188,891

4400690 New Shoreham School District 1,913

4400720 Newport School District 1,070,335

4400750 North Kingstown School District 526,070

4400780 North Providence School District 863,820

4400810 North Smithfield School District 163,804

4400840 Pawtucket School District 5,243,085

4400870 Portsmouth School District 255,298

4400900 Providence School District 21,022,240

4400960 Scituate School District 292,191

4400990 Smithfield School District 261,201

4401020 South Kingstown School District 444,190

4401050 Tiverton School District 253,823

4401110 Warwick School District 2,130,567

4401140 West Warwick School District 1,417,501

4401170 Westerly School District 866,862

4401200 Woonsocket School District 4,442,346

4499999 PART D SUBPART 2 0

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 7 percent of their allocations for school improvement. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
### §111. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 111 transferred to section 1554 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roderick *802M. Donohue, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered April 20, 1977, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Case remanded to the County Court to hear and report on whether defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial, and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. The People now concede that they learned on November 19, 1975 that the defendant was in Federal custody. The record indicates that it was not until December 16, 1976, that the County of Nassau filed a request for temporary custody pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (see CPL 580.20). Thus, a serious question is raised as to whether the People complied with CPL 30.30, which, under the circumstances of this case, requires that an indictment be dismissed unless the People were ready for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action (see CPL 30.30, subd 1, par [a]). The 13-month period between the time the District Attorney’s office learned of the defendant’s location, and the time the request for temporary custody was filed may be excluded in the computation of the time within which the People must have been ready for trial only if the People can show that they had been diligent and had made reasonable efforts to obtain the defendant’s presence for trial in Nassau County (see CPL 30.30, subd 4, par [e]). While the People allege that they were in fact diligent and did make the required reasonable efforts, the record, as it is presently constituted, is barren of facts supporting such an assertion. Inasmuch as this precise issue arose for the first time on appeal due to the People’s candid admission regarding their knowledge of defendant’s location, it is our view that the People should be permitted to make the requisite statutory showing (cf. *People v Gruden,*42 NY2d 214). We have considered and rejected defendant’s contention that his guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as his criticism of the court’s charge with respect to the inference to be drawn from recent possession of stolen property. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3195-3196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00675]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules; Meeting of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules, notice of open meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules will hold a meeting 
on April 8, 2021 and April 9, 2021 in San Diego, CA. The meeting will 
be open to public observation but not

[[Page 3196]]

participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at 
least 7 days in advance of the meeting at: http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-and-archives-rules-committees/agenda-books.

DATES: April 8-9, 2021, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. (Pacific).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, 
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference 
of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One 
Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-
1820, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c193b4ada4b282aeacaca8b5b5a4a49e92a4a2b3a4b5a0b3b881a0aeefb4b2a2aeb4b3b5b2efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cc9eb9a0a9bf8fa3a1a1a5b8b8a9a9939fa9afbea9b8adbeb58cada3e2b9bfafa3b9beb8bfe2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.

    Dated: January 11, 2021.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf,
Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2021-00675 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §956. Rules and regulations; cooperation with departments, etc.; officers and employees; expenses of administration; authorization of appropriations

The Secretary may make rules and regulations as may be necessary in the administration of this chapter and may cooperate with any department or agency of the Government, any State, Territory, District, or possession, or department, agency, or political subdivision thereof, or any person; and shall have the power to appoint, remove, and fix the compensation of such officers and employees not in conflict with existing law, and make such expenditures for rent outside the District of Columbia, printing, binding, telegrams, telephones, law books, books of reference, publications, furniture, stationery, office equipment, travel, and other supplies and expenses, including reporting services, as shall be necessary to the administration of this chapter in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and as may be appropriated for by Congress; and there is authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary for such purpose.

(June 24, 1936, ch. 745, §6, 49 Stat. 1899.)
#### 1252.239-83 Incident Reporting Timeframes.

As prescribed in 1239.7204(h), insert the following clause:

# Incident Reporting Timeframes (NOV 2022)

(a) The Contractor shall report all computer security incidents to the DOT Security Operations Center (SOC) in accordance with Subpart 1239.70—Information Security and Incident Response Reporting.

(b) Contractors and subcontractors are required to report cyber incidents directly to DOT via the DOT SOC 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week, 365 days a year (24x7x365) at phone number: 571-209-3080 (Toll Free: 866-580-1852) within 2 hours of discovery, regardless of the incident category. See 1252.239-74, Safeguarding DOT Sensitive Data and Cyber Incident Reporting.

(End of clause)
13.002 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to prescribe simplified acquisition procedures in order to— ( a ) Reduce administrative costs;
( b ) Improve opportunities for small, small disadvantaged, women-owned, veteran-owned, HUBZone, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns to obtain a fair proportion of Government contracts;
( c ) Promote efficiency and economy in contracting; and
( d ) Avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors.
[62 FR 64917, Dec. 9, 1997, as amended at 70 FR 14954, Mar. 23, 2005]
March 21, 1975.

M. P. No. 75-59.

#### Diane M. McCaffrey *v.*School Committee of Barrington.

*Natale L. Urso,*for petitioner. *Tillinghast, Collins & Graham, James A. Jackson,*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3149-3150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00687]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Number: PR21-14-000.
    Applicants: Permian Highway Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: Petition for NGPA 
Section 311 Rate Approval to be effective 12/8/2020 under PR21-14.
    Filed Date: 1/7/2021.
    Accession Number: 202101075015.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/28/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-376-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Rate Schedule S-2 Flow Through 
Refund Report TETCO OFO.
    Filed Date: 1/7/21.
    Accession Number: 20210107-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211

[[Page 3150]]

and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on 
or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may 
be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: January 8, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-00687 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
habeas corpus, 2and it constituted an abuse of the writ because he raised a 

claim that was new and different from the claims raised in his first 

petition. See NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2); NRS 34.810(2). Therefore, Malone's 

petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause 

and prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). 

Malone claimed that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. 

Alabama, 567 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), holding that mandatory 

life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional, 

provided good cause to file a post-conviction petition challenging his two 

consecutive sentences of life without the possibility of parole. 

Even assuming that Miller provided good cause for the delay 

and for filing a successive petition, that Malone's additional delay after 

Miller was decided on June 25, 2012, was not unreasonable, see Hathaway 

v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003) (stating that, to 

constitute good cause, a claim cannot itself be procedurally defaulted), and 

that Miller applies where, as here, the life-without-parole sentence was 

not mandatory, see NRS 200.030(4), we conclude that this appeal has been 

rendered moot by the recent enactment of A.B. 267. With A.B. 267, the 

Legislature has made Malone eligible for parole on the murder conviction 

regardless of the life-without-parole sentences imposed, after he "has 

served 20 calendar years of incarceration, including any time served in a 

county jail." 2015 Nev. Stat., ch. 152, §§ 3(1)(b), 5(2), at 618-19. Because 

A.B. 267 provides Malone with any relief Miller even arguably affords in 

2Malone v. State, Docket No. 57222 (Order Dismissing Appeal, 

December 20, 2010). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A etc) 
J. 

Douglas 

,J. 

his case, this appeal is moot. See Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 126 Nev., 

Adv. Op. 56, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010). We therefore 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 3 

4:21631 , 

1H LL 

Cherry 

cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge 

Deangelo Maron Malone 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

sIn light of this disposition, we deny as moot Malone's motion for 

appointment of counsel. We have reviewed all documents that Malone has 

submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we 

conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the 

extent that Malone has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(01 1947A e
###### Editorial Note on Part 724

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

#### § 724.213 Attendance of witnesses.

Arrangement for attendance of witnesses testifying in behalf of the applicant at discharge review hearings is the responsibility of the applicant. The NDRB is not authorized to subpoena or otherwise require their presence.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of American Building Control, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Chris Sharng, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

This Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ CHRIS SHARNG
-----------------------
Chris Sharng
Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2003