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

EXHIBIT 11

                                 SYNTELLECT INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three Months Ended Sep. 30        Nine Months Ended Sep. 30
                                                        ---------------------------       -------------------------
                                                           2000            1999            2000             1999
                                                           ----            ----            ----             ----
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Numerator:
      Numerator for basic and diluted income (loss)
           per share -- net income (loss)               $ 1,001,000     $ 2,133,000     $ 2,198,000     $ (2,195,000)
                                                        ===========     ===========     ===========     ============
Denominator:
      Denominator for basic income (loss) per
           share - - weighted average number
           of common shares outstanding during
           the period                                    11,895,000      13,170,000      11,845,000       13,373,000
      Incremental common shares attributable to
           assumed exercise of outstanding common
           stock options                                  1,152,000         380,000       1,011,000             --
                                                        -----------     -----------     -----------     ------------
Denominator for diluted income (loss) per share          13,047,000      13,550,000      12,856,000       13,373,000
                                                        ===========     ===========     ===========     ============
Basic net income (loss) per share                       $      0.08     $       .16     $      0.19     $      (0.16)
                                                        ===========     ===========     ===========     ============
Diluted net income (loss) per share                     $      0.08     $       .16     $      0.17     $      (0.16)
                                                        ===========     ===========     ===========     ============


Common equivalent shares not included in the
diluted weighted average shares outstanding,
because they were antidilutive                                    0         811,298         121,546          905,459
                                                        ===========     ===========     ===========     ============
</TABLE>






                                       15
162 So.2d 10

#### Robert HOLDER v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 47127.

March 30, 1964.

In re: Robert Holder applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Lincoln. 159 So.2d 292.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.

SANDERS, J.,

is of the opinion that the writ should be granted for error of law in rejecting proof by probabilities under the preponderance of evidence rule. See Perkins v. Texas & N. O. Railroad, 243 La. 829, 147 So.2d 646, and Naquin v. Marquette Casualty Co., 244 La. 569, 153 So.2d 395.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATTHEW FAISON, JR.,

FDOC Inmate No. 038634,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:21cv49-MCR-EMT

SOCIAL SECURITY COMISSIONER,

et al.,

Defendants.

/

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on February 

16, 2021. ECF No. 7. The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Case 3:21-cv-00049-MCR-EMT Document 10 Filed 06/10/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:21cv49-MCR-EMT

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 7,

is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 

the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of June 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:21-cv-00049-MCR-EMT Document 10 Filed 06/10/21 Page 2 of 2
Case 5:97-cr-00020-LC Document 107 Filed 08/18/97 Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 27, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00396

- CV

TEXAS ARMORING CORPO RATION

, Appellant

v.

Tinyan OKUNBO

, Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 18380

Honorable Michael E. Mery , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. The costs of this appeal are taxed against the appellant.

It is so ORDERED on March 27, 2019

.

_____________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

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

court on this 27th da y of March, 2019

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
#### § 621.21 Who may obtain assistance.

Assistance is available to conservation districts, communities, county governments, regional planning boards, other planning groups, and State and Federal agencies.
116 STAT. 2022 PUBLIC LAW 107–285—NOV. 6, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5336 (S. 2918):

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

Sept. 9, considered and passed House.

Oct. 17, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–285

107th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 380 Main

Street in Farmingdale, New York, as the ‘‘Peter J. Ganci, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

380 Main Street in Farmingdale, New York, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Peter J. Ganci, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Peter J.

Ganci, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

Approved November 6, 2002.

Nov. 6, 2002

[H.R. 5336]
The HONORABLE ELSIJANE TRIMBLE ROY, United States District Judge 1 for the Eastern District of Arkansas.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1939

___________ Vellis Redden, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Springfield Engineering Company; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Local 36 Sheet Metal Workers & * International Association, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 28, 1998 Filed: December 29, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Vellis Redden appeals the district court’s dismissal of his employmen t 1 discrimination action as untimely filed. Redden asks this court to apply the doctrin e of equi table tolling to excuse his late filing, because he was misled by the person h e had hire d to represent him in his discrimination case. We conclude that th e circum stances presented do not warrant the application of equitable tolling. Se e Shempert v. Harwick-2-

Chem. Corp. , 151 F.3d 793, 798 (8th Cir.) (where circums tances relating to filing were never beyond plaintiff’s control, equitable tolli ng did not apply), petition for cert. filed , 67 U.S.L.W. 3323 (U.S. Oct. 29, 1998) (No. 98-709); cf. James v. Unite d States Postal Serv. , 835 F.2d 1265, 1267 (8th Cir. 1988) (even though plaintiff was unassisted b y counsel, unable to find lawyer, and unfamiliar with legal process, equitable tolling did not excuse untimely filing ). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Subpart 23.6 - Notice of Radioactive Material

Parent topic: Part 23 - Environment, Energy and Water Efficiency, Renewable Energy

Technologies, Occupational Safety, and Drug-Free Workplace

23.601 Requirements.

(a) The clause at 52.223-7, Notice of Radioactive Materials, requires the contractor to notify the

contracting officer prior to delivery of radioactive material.

(b) Upon receipt of the notice, the contracting officer shall notify receiving activities so that

appropriate safeguards can be taken.

(c) The clause permits the contracting officer to waive the notification if the contractor states that

the notification on prior deliveries is still current. The contracting officer may waive the notice only

after consultation with cognizant technical representatives.

(d) The contracting officer is required to specify in the clause at 52.223-7, the number of days in

advance of delivery that the contractor will provide notification. The determination of the number of

days should be done in coordination with the installation/facility radiation protection officer (RPO).

The RPO is responsible for insuring the proper license, authorization or permit is obtained prior to

receipt of the radioactive material.

23.602 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.223-7, Notice of Radioactive Materials, in

solicitations and contracts for supplies which are, or which contain-(a) radioactive material requiring

specific licensing under regulations issued pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of1954; or (b)

radioactive material not requiring specific licensing in which the specific activity is greater than

0.002 microcuries per gram or the activity per item equals or exceeds 0.01 microcuries. Such

supplies include, but are not limited to, aircraft, ammunition, missiles, vehicles, electronic tubes,

instrument panel gauges, compasses and identification markers.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2818 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2818

      To reduce temporarily the duty on automatic shower cleaners.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 17, 2006

   Mr. Kohl introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To reduce temporarily the duty on automatic shower cleaners.

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

SECTION 1. ELECTRIC AUTOMATIC SHOWER CLEANERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.98.08      Bath and shower     2.1%         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         cleaner electric                                                   31/2009
                         device that
                         dispenses a
                         dilute solution
                         of detergents and
                         bleach
                         alternative into
                         a shower
                         enclosure using a
                         button activated,
                         battery powered
                         piston pump
                         controlled by a
                         microchip that
                         automatically
                         releases a
                         measured amount
                         of solution on
                         demand (provided
                         for in subheading
                         8509.80.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please submit the attached Grant Letter to Docket No. FAA-2001-10356 that allows properly equipped USASOC aircraft to conduct low-level operations without complying with en route minimum altitudes for flights under instrument flight rules (IFR) or direction of flight requirements for IFR en route segments in uncontrollable airspace.
#### § 701.34 Appeals.

Part 11 of this title and parts 614 and 780 of this chapter apply to determinations made under this part.

[69 FR 10302, Mar. 4, 2004, as amended at 75 FR 70088, Nov. 17, 2010]
§ 51.1323 Serious damage. *Serious damage* means any injury or defect which seriously affects the appearance, or the edible or shipping quality. ( a ) Russeting which in the aggregate exceeds the following shall be considered as serious damage: ( 1 ) On all varieties, excessively rough russeting (russeting which shows “frogging” or slight cracking) when the aggregate area exceeds three-fourths inch in diameter.2
( 2 ) On all varieties, thick russeting such as is characteristic of frost injury, 15 percent of the surface.
( 3 ) On Anjou, smooth solid or smooth netlike russeting when the aggregate area exceeds two-thirds of the surface, except that, in addition, any amount of characteristic smooth russeting shall be permitted on that portion of the calyx end not visible for more than one-half inch along the contour of the pear, when it is placed calyx end down on a flat surface. On Flemish Beauty smooth russeting shall be permitted on the entire surface.
( b ) Any one of the following defects or combination thereof, the seriousness of which exceeds the maximum allowed for any one defect, shall be considered as serious damage: ( 1 ) Limbrubs which are more than slightly cracked, or excessively rough limbrubs or dark brown or black discoloration caused by limbrubs which exceeds an aggregate area of three-fourths inch in diameter.2
( 2 ) Other limbrubs which affect an aggregate area of more than one-tenth of the surface.
( 3 ) Hail marks or other similar depressions or scars which affect an aggregate area of more than three-fourths inch in diameter, or which materially deform or disfigure the fruit.2
( 4 ) Cork spot when more than two in number are visible externally or when the flesh is seriously affected.
( 5 ) Drought spot when more than two in number, or where the external injury affects an aggregate area of more than three-fourths inch in diameter, or when the appearance of the flesh is seriously affected by corky tissue or brownish discoloration.2
( 6 ) Sunburn or sprayburn where the skin is blistered, cracked or shows any brownish color, or where the shape of the pear is materially flattened, or the flesh is softened or materially changed in color, except that sprayburn of a russet character shall be considered under the definition of russeting.
( 7 ) Insects: ( i ) Worm holes. More than three healed codling moth stings, of which not more than two may be over three thirty-seconds of an inch in diameter, or other insect stings affecting the appearance to an equal extent.2
( ii ) Blister mite or canker worm injury which affects an aggregate area of more than three-fourths inch in diameter or which materially deforms or disfigures the fruit.2
( 8 ) Disease: ( i ) Scab spots which are black, and which cover an aggregate area of more than one-half inch in diameter, except that scab spots of a russet character shall be considered under the definition of russeting.2
( ii ) Sooty blotch which is thinly scattered over more than 15 percent of the surface, or dark heavily concentrated spots which affect an area of more than three-fourths inch in diameter.2
§ 760.1501 Administration. ( a ) Programs under this subpart are administered under the general supervision of the Administrator, Farm Service Agency (FSA), and the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs, FSA. Programs under this subpart are carried out by FSA State and county committees with instructions issued by the Deputy Administrator.
( b ) FSA State and county committees, and representatives and their employees, do not have authority to modify or waive any of the provisions of the regulations in this subpart or instructions issued by the Deputy Administrator.
( c ) The FSA State committee will take any action required by the regulations in this subpart that the FSA county committee has not taken. The FSA State committee will also: ( 1 ) Correct, or require an FSA county committee to correct, any action taken by the FSA county committee that is not in accordance with the regulations in this subpart; or
( 2 ) Require an FSA county committee to withhold taking any action that is not in accordance with this subpart.
( d ) No delegation to an FSA State or county committee precludes the FSA Administrator, the Deputy Administrator, or a designee, from determining any question arising under this subpart or from reversing or modifying any determination made by an FSA State or county committee.
( e ) The Deputy Administrator has the authority to permit State and county committees to waive or modify a non-statutory deadline specified in this part.
( f ) Items of general applicability to program participants, including, but not limited to, application periods, application deadlines, internal operating guidelines issued to FSA State and county offices, prices, yields, and payment factors established under this subpart, are not subject to appeal in accordance with part 780 of this chapter.
[83 FR 33801, July 18, 2018, as amended 84 FR 48528, Sept. 13, 2019]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Charles Ellert, Appellant, v Ellert Brothers & Sons, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 4, 1979. Claimant incurred a serious injury to his right knee on November 2, 1972 when he fell into a well pit while working for the employer. On February 21, 1975, he was found to have a permanent partial disability with a 75% loss of earning capacity; 40% of the permanent partial disability was found to be related to the accident on November 2, 1972, and 60% was found to be causally related to a pre-existing condition described as grossly advanced arthritis. Claimant’s average weekly wage prior to the accident was $250. These facts are not in dispute. Section 15 (subd 6, par [c]) of the Workers’ Compensation Law, applicable to accidents occurring on or after July 1, 1970 and prior to July 1, 1974, provides that the compensation for permanent partial disability shall not exceed $80 per week. Subdivision 3 of that section provides that in a case of permanent partial disability, the compensation shall be 66%% of the average weekly wage. Since 66%% of claimant’s average weekly wage of $250 would exceed $80 per week in the event of full liability on carrier’s part, claimant would be entitled to the weekly maximum of $80, reduced in the proportion that causation is assigned to the pre-existing condition *(Matter of Burch v General Elec. Co.,*33 AD2d 613). The board made an award in the amount of $32 per week calculated at 40% of the maximum weekly rate of $80 per week. The apportionment of liability in the proportion that causation is assignable to the noncompensable injury is proper *(Matter of Engle v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*6 NY2d 449; *Matter of Murillo*v *Ogden Corp. [Nedick Corp. Stores],*51 AD2d 1085); and the maximum, partial disability rate has a rational basis, and is uniformly applied to claimants with and without preexisting disabilities. The decision of the board should, therefore, be affirmed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Main, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur; Staley, Jr., J., not taking part.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2542 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2542

         To suspend temporarily the duty on tricholorobenzene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2006

  Mr. Talent introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on tricholorobenzene.

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

SECTION 1. TRICHOLOROBENZENE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.06.03       Tricholorobenzene  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (CAS No. 120-82-                                                   31/2009
                         1) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2903.69.10)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```