alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 11   Computation of Earnings Per Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED                   NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                SEPTEMBER 30,                        SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                       ------------------------------        ------------------------------
                                                           1997               1996               1997              1996
                                                       -----------        -----------        -----------        -----------
<S>                                                    <C>                <C>                <C>                <C>       

PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:
  Weighted average and common equivalent shares         26,488,219         26,265,693         26,331,254         26,186,500
                                                       -----------        -----------        -----------        -----------
  Net income                                           $ 8,928,174        $ 3,479,007        $26,708,818        $24,003,163
                                                       ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========
  Net income per share                                 $      0.34        $      0.13        $      1.01        $      0.92
                                                       ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========

FULLY DILUTED:
  Weighted average and common equivalent shares         26,488,219         26,265,693         26,331,254         26,186,500
                                                       -----------        -----------        -----------        -----------
  Net income                                           $ 8,928,174        $ 3,479,007        $26,708,818        $24,003,163
                                                       ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========
  Net income per share                                 $      0.34        $      0.13        $      1.01        $      0.92
                                                       ===========        ===========        ===========        ===========
</TABLE>


                                       36
#### § 1120.205 Organization and wording of award-specific terms and conditions.

DoD Components should organize and word award-specific terms and conditions to make them as clear and easy to understand as possible for the benefit of recipients, award administrators, auditors, and others who may need to use them. The DoDGARs specify neither a standard organization nor standard wording for award-specific terms and conditions.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Directory of National ParkService historians**
 
2004 | 2005| 2009
 
SuDoc Number:I 29.126/2:
Item Number:0648-V-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:
 
September 27, 2018
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 724 

Honoring Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director of the Administrative Office 

of the United States Courts and Secretary of the Judicial Conference 

of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2006 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. CANNON, Mr. SMITH

of Texas, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, and Mr. COBLE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and Secretary 

of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 

Whereas Ralph Mecham has served under three chief justices 

for more than 20 years as the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, earning him 

the distinction of the longest serving director in the agency’s history; 

Whereas Ralph Mecham has focused on enhancing support to 

the Judicial Conference; 

Whereas Ralph Mecham has worked to secure sufficient resources for the judiciary in tight budget climates; 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 724 IH 

Whereas Ralph Mecham assisted in the creation of a program 

to obtain funding for new courthouses to replace aging, 

unsafe facilities, and to enhance judicial security; 

Whereas Ralph Mecham championed innovations that have 

enhanced court administration by decentralizing financial 

and management responsibilities, thereby providing more 

flexibility to district and circuit courts; and 

Whereas Ralph Mecham encouraged the development and incorporation into the judicial system of the latest technology, which has resulted in major improvements in 

court efficiency, presentation of evidence, and access to 

court records: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) commends Leonidas Ralph Mecham for his 

3 steadfast loyalty and unwavering dedication to the 

4 judiciary and to the public; 

5 (2) recognizes Leonidas Ralph Mecham for his 

6 more than 20 years of outstanding public service to 

7 the Federal judiciary and to the Nation; and 

8 (3) honors Leonidas Ralph Mecham on the oc9 casion of his retirement from the Administrative Of10 fice of the United States Courts. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
226 So.2d 519

#### SUCCESSION of E. W. K. ANDRAU.

No. 49993.

Sept. 29, 1969.

In re: Southwest National Association, Houston, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

The application is denied. There is no error in the ruling complained of.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000812076
<NAME> TOPPS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-29-1997
<CASH>                                          21,817
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,687
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,426
<INVENTORY>                                     18,727
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,715
<PP&E>                                          18,206
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,974
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          114,837
<BONDS>                                         33,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              475
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,596
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   181,974
<SALES>                                        169,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,198
<CGS>                                          117,731
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  180,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   245
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,629)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,479)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,479)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

# “Federal Register” CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 

75 FR 80810, Thursday, December 23, 2010.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 

Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 10 a.m. (Eastern Time).

# CHANGE IN THE MEETING: 

The meeting has been cancelled.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer on (202) 663-4070.

Dated: December 27, 2010.

Stephen Llewellyn,

Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 2010-32962 Filed 12-27-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
* Pursuant to 5 THC IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 97-10010

_____________________ JOHN P. BEARD, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

_______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Northern District of Texas

(7:96-CV-84-X)

_______________________________________________________ April 9, 1998 Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John Beard was convicted of murder and sentenced to 99 years in prison by a Texas court in 1955. He was paroled in 1965. In 1983 he stopped making annual reports to the Director of Parole Supervision as he was required to do as a condition of his parole. In 1992 a warrant was issued for his arrest for his failure to make the annual reports. He waived hearing and his parole was revoked. Now he brings this habeas corpus action,2

claiming that his constitutional right to due process was violated by Texas in the nine year delay between 1983 to 1992. The district court denied his claim and we affirm. Beard cites the case of United States v. Tyler , 605 F.2d 851 (5th Cir. 1979) as authority supporting his claim. There we held that the federal probation officer could not, after a denied petition for revocation, file a new petition for revocation based on misdemeanor conduct known prior to the first hearing. We said that the decision not to file those charges in the first petition, coupled with lengthy delay, made the later action fundamentally unfair. The Tylercase has no bearing on Beard’s claim. Beard complains only of delay. This court has said that a state’s inaction must be “so grossly negligent that it would be unequivocally inconsistent with ‘fundamental principles of liberty and justice’ to require a legal sentence to be served in the aftermath of such .... inaction.” Piper v. Estelle , 485 F.2d 245, 246 (5th Cir. 1973). It has also been held that inaction by the state for ten years neither waived jurisdiction nor offended due process rights of the prisoner. Clifton v. Beto , 298 F.Supp. 134 (S.D.Tex. 1968), affirmed , 411 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir. 1969). We do not see that Beard has suffered any prejudice and, instead, continued to make no annual reports up to the date of his arrest in 1992. See Cortinas v. U. S. Parole Com’n , 938 F.2d 43, 45 (5th Cir. 1991). AFFIRMED
§ 200.425 Audit services. ( a ) A reasonably proportionate share of the costs of audits required by, and performed in accordance with, the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501-7507), as implemented by requirements of this part, are allowable. However, the following audit costs are unallowable: ( 1 ) Any costs when audits required by the Single Audit Act and subpart F of this part have not been conducted or have been conducted but not in accordance therewith; and
( 2 ) Any costs of auditing a non-Federal entity that is exempted from having an audit conducted under the Single Audit Act and subpart F of this part because its expenditures under Federal awards are less than $750,000 during the non-Federal entity's fiscal year.
( b ) The costs of a financial statement audit of a non-Federal entity that does not currently have a Federal award may be included in the indirect cost pool for a cost allocation plan or indirect cost proposal.
( c ) Pass-through entities may charge Federal awards for the cost of agreed-upon-procedures engagements to monitor subrecipients (in accordance with subpart D, §§ 200.331-333) who are exempted from the requirements of the Single Audit Act and subpart F of this part. This cost is allowable only if the agreed-upon-procedures engagements are: ( 1 ) Conducted in accordance with GAGAS attestation standards;
( 2 ) Paid for and arranged by the pass-through entity; and
( 3 ) Limited in scope to one or more of the following types of compliance requirements: activities allowed or unallowed; allowable costs/cost principles; eligibility; and reporting.
[78 FR 78608, Dec. 26, 2013, as amended at 85 FR 49564, Aug. 13, 2020]
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT STEPHEN DAR

R YL PEFLEY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. M IC HAEL F. GOW ER ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-35361 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-01103-B R M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . Form e r Ore gon sta

te prisone r Ste phe n Da

rry l Pe fle y

a p pe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c o urt’ s orde rs de ny ing his post-judgm e nt m otions for re c o nside rat ion in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging c onstitutiona l viola tions. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wfor an a buse of disc re t ion. Sc h. Dist. N o. 1J , 

# FIL ED AUG 22 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Multnomah C nty ., Or. v . AC

andS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th C ir. 1993). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it de nie d Pe fle y ’ s m otions for re lie f unde r Fe de ra l R ule s of C i vil Proc e dure 59(e ) and 60(b) be c a use Pe fle y fa i le d to e sta

blish a ny ba sis for re lie f. Se e Sc h. Dist. N o. 1J , 5 F.3d a t 1263 (se tting forth grounds for re c onside ration under Fe d. R . C i v. P. 59(e ) a nd 60(b)). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r the unde rly ing m e rits be c a use Pe fle y

fa ile d to filea tim e ly notic e of a

ppe a l from

distric t c ourt’ s e ntry

of judgm e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 4(a)(1). W e do not c onside r argum e nts a n d a l le gations raise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l, inc luding Pe fle y ’ s c o nte ntions re ga rding theprison m a il sy s te m , his c ustody sta tus, his m ilita ry se rvic e , or his he a lth problem s a nd nutrition. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 5 3 6 1 2
H. Res. 830

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

May 23, 2006.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 5384) making appropriations for Agriculture, 

Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, 

and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 

rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure 

to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except for 

sections 749, 751, and 752. During consideration of the bill 

for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
2

•HRES 830 EH 

may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 

Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed 

in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for 

that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 

reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 

that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest: 

Clerk.
§ 600.314 Program income. ( a ) DOE must apply the standards in this section to the disposition of program income from projects financed in whole or in part with Federal funds.
( b ) Unless program regulations or the terms and conditions of the award provide otherwise, recipients, without any further accounting to DOE, may retain program income earned: ( 1 ) From license fees and royalties for copyrighted material, patents, patent applications, trademarks, and inventions produced under an award.
( 2 ) After the end of the project period.
( c ) Unless program regulations or the terms and conditions of the award provide otherwise, costs incident to the generation of program income for which there is some obligation to the Government may be deducted from gross income to determine program income, provided these costs have not been charged to the award.
( d ) Other than any program income excluded pursuant to paragraph (b) and (c) of this section, program income earned during the project period must be retained by the recipient and used in one or more of the following ways, as specified in program regulations or the terms and conditions of the award: ( 1 ) Added to funds committed to the project by DOE and recipient and used to further eligible project or program objectives.
( 2 ) Used to finance the non-Federal share of the project or program.
( 3 ) Deducted from the total project or program allowable cost in determining the net allowable costs on which the Federal share of costs is based.
( e ) If the program regulation or terms and conditions of an award authorize the disposition of program income as described in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section, and stipulate a limit on the amounts that may be used in those ways, program income in excess of the stipulated limits must be used in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
( f ) In the event that the program regulation or terms and conditions of the award do not specify how program income is to be used, paragraph (d)(3) of this section applies automatically to all projects or programs except research. For awards that support basic or applied research, paragraph (d)(1) of this section applies automatically unless the terms and conditions specify another alternative or the recipient is subject to special award conditions, as indicated in § 600.304.
( g ) Proceeds from the sale of property that is acquired, rather than fabricated, under an award are not program income and must be handled in accordance with the requirements of §§ 600.320 through 600.325 of this part.
Editorial Note on Part 851
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 851 appear at 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023.

§ 851.34 Requests for conferences. ( a ) Within the time allotted by a notice of the filling of an application, any affected contractor or worker may file with the EHSS Director a request for a conference on the application for a variance.
( b ) A request for a conference filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must include: ( 1 ) A concise statement explaining how the contractor or worker would be affected by the variance applied for, including relevant facts;
( 2 ) A specification of any statement or representation in the application which is denied, and a concise summary of the evidence that would be adduced in support of each denial; and
( 3 ) Any other views or arguments on any issue of fact or law presented.
( c ) The EHSS Director, or designee, must respond to a request within fifteen days and, if the request is granted, indicate the time and place of the conference and the DOE participants in the conference.
[71 FR 6931, Feb. 9, 2006, as amended at 71 FR 68733, Nov. 28, 2006; 80 FR 5009, Jan. 30, 2015; 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023]