alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11 - CALCULATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE


                                  MICROAGE, INC
                     NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE CALCULATION
                                 (in thousands)

                                                          Quarter ended
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                   February 2,      January 28,
                                                       1997            1996
                                                   -----------      -----------
PRIMARY
   
Weighted average common shares                        15,313          14,933
Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants            987              93
                                                     -------         -------
Weighted average common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding - primary             16,300          15,026

FULLY DILUTED (1)

Weighted average shares from primary
  calculation                                         16,300          15,026
Additional dilutive effect of stock options
  and warrants                                             1               3
                                                     -------         -------
Weighted average common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding - fully diluted       16,301          15,029

Net income                                           $ 4,668         $ 1,643

Net income per common and common equivalent share:

  Primary                                            $  0.29         $  0.11
  Fully Diluted                                      $  0.29         $  0.11

(1)  Fully diluted share  information is presented in accordance with Regulation
     S-K of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934.  The  amounts  of per  share
     earnings on the fully diluted basis are not required to be presented in the
     consolidated  statements of income under the provisions of APB No. 15 since
     the additional dilution is less than 3%.
NUMBER 13-12-00133-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JOSEPH BURT AND MARCO PIZANA, Appellants,

v.

ANNETTE CERDA AND BELIA CERDA, Appellees. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 275th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellants’ brief in the above cause was due on October 3, 2014. On October 

8, 2014, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely filed 

and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of this 

letter, appellants reasonably explained the failure and the appellees were not significantly
2

injured by the appellants’ failure to timely file a brief. To date, no response has been 

received from appellants. 

Appellants have failed to either reasonably explain their failure to file a brief, file a 

motion for extension of time to file the brief, or file the brief. Accordingly, the appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

30th day of October, 2014.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 11
- 00418
- CR TERRANCE JERMAINE MO ORE , Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11
- 01511
- CRF
- 272

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Terrance Moore was found guilty of state

- jail felony theft and sentenced to eighteen months in state jail. Moore appealed.
Moore’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief , asserting that he has diligently reviewed th e appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. 1 See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396,
18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967)

. Moore filed a pro se response to the Anders brief, but we find that

1 Counsel identified two potential issues but conclude s that Moore could not show harm. We agree.Moore v. State Page 2

it does not raise any potentially arguable issues.
In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, [] decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 ; accord Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals , 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988)

. We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find this appeal to be wholly frivolous , w e affirm the judgment. C ounsel must send Moore a copy of our decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, at Moore’s last known
address. T EX

. R. A PP
. P. 48.4 . Counsel must also notify Moore of h is right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id .; see also Ex parte Owens , 206 S. W.3d 670, 673

- 74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) . We g rant counsel’ s motion to withdraw, effective upon
counsel ’s compliance with this notificati on requirement as evidenced by “ a letter [to
this Co urt] certifying his compliance.” See T EX

. R. A PP
. P. 48.4

.

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opini on delivered and filed March 28 , 2012 Do n ot p ublish [CR25]
# C_2016027EN.01005301.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/53

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Omega International v OHIM (Representation of a white circle and a white rectangle inside a black rectangle)

(Case T-695/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a white circle and a white rectangle inside a black rectangle - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 027/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Omega International (Bad Oldesloe, Germany) (represented by: J. P. Becker, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2014 (Case R 1037/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a white circle and a white rectangle inside a black rectangle as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Omega International GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Omega International GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.1900 Diagnostic pulmonary-function interpretation calculator. ( a ) *Identification.* A diagnostic pulmonary-function interpretation calculator is a device that interprets pulmonary study data to determine clinical significance of pulmonary-function values.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.1575 Force-measuring platform. ( a ) *Identification.* A force-measuring platform is a device intended for medical purposes that converts pressure applied upon a planar surface into analog mechanical or electrical signals. This device is used to determine ground reaction force, centers of percussion, centers of torque, and their variations in both magnitude and direction with time.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 890.9.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 1125, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38816, July 25, 2001]
# C_2016335EN.01001002.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v Innova Vital GmbH

(Case C-19/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Nutrition and health claims made on foods - Article 1(2) - Scope - Foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer - Claims made in a commercial communication addressed exclusively to health professionals))

(2016/C 335/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

Applicant:

Defendant: Innova Vital GmbH

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1047/2012 of 8 November 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that nutrition or health claims made in a commercial communication on a food which is intended to be delivered as such to the final consumer, if that communication is addressed not to the final consumer, but exclusively to health professionals, falls within the scope of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7847 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7847

 To amend title 23, United States Code, to remove the exclusion of the 
State of Minnesota from certain contracting for engineering and design 
                         services requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2024

  Mr. Stauber (for himself, Mr. Finstad, Ms. Craig, Mr. Phillips, and 
 Mrs. Fischbach) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 23, United States Code, to remove the exclusion of the 
State of Minnesota from certain contracting for engineering and design 
                         services requirements.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Parity in Engineering Act''.

SEC. 2. CONTRACTING FOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES.

    Section 112(b)(2)(F) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``the States of West Virginia or Minnesota'' and inserting 
``the State of West Virginia''.
                                 <all>
```
February 1 4, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CITY OF HOUSTON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00091

- CV V.

DAVID JENKINS , Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the trial court’s rulings of January 24, 2011 denying the City of Houston’s plea to the jurisdiction and granting it summary judgment, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record, and we find that the trial court correctly denied the City’s plea to the jurisdiction, but erred in granting the City summary judgment. We therefore AFFIRM the portion of the judgment denying the plea to the jurisdiction; REVERSE the portion of the judgment granting summary judgment; and REMAND the case to the trial court for proceedings in accordance with this court’s opinion.

We order the City of Houston to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further
order this decision certified below for observance.
**Analytical Request XXXXXX** 

**To:** XXXXX
**From:** XXXXXXX

XXXXXX **Date:** 11/16 /10 **Subject:** Physical Properties of [ ] **XXXXXXX ANALYTIC**  **AL LABORATORY Analytical Results**
<PAGE>   1
                                 April 24, 1995

Winston Resources, Inc.
535 Fifth Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017-3663

Gentlemen:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Security Agreements - Accounts
Receivable dated April 16, 1992 between FINOVA Capital Corporation formerly
Ambassador Factors Division Fleet Factors Corp. and Winston Resources, Inc.,
("Contract") we hereby agree to the following effective May 1, 1995:

        1.   The base interest rate as stated in paragraph 6 of the Security
Agreement - Accounts Receivable (AIR Agreement) shall be decreased to 3 1/4% per
annum over the Citibank, N.A. prime rate ("Prime").  In the event that your
average outstanding balance is over $1,500,000 for two consecutive months, the
base interest rate shall be decreased to 2 3/4% over prime. In the event the
average loan balance is less than $1,500,000 for two consecutive months than the
base interest rate shall be increased to 3 1/4%. These rates will remain in
effect as long as Winston Resources, Inc. continues to show earnings on a
quarterly basis. In the event that there is an operating loss the interest rate
will be increased to 4% per annum over the Prime rate effective the first month
following the quarterly loss. The working days allowed to permit bank clearance
and collections pursuant to paragraph 6 of the MR Agreement shall be reduced to
three (3) working days.

        2.   The Contract shall be extended until April 16, 1997.

        3.   The Line of Credit is increased up to $2,500,000 in accordance with
and pursuant to the terms of the Security Agreements.

All other terms and conditions contained in the Contract as originally written
shall remain in full force and effect.

This amendment supersedes and replaces all prior amendments except for paragraph
2 of the Amendment letter dated 5/13/94 and the Amendment letter dated 12/14/93
to the "A/R Agreement" which shall continue to be in effect.

Please sign a copy of this letter to indicate your agreement to the above and
retain a copy for your records.

PC:af                                   Very truly yours,


                                        /s/ PHILIP COTUMACCIO

                                        FINOVA Capital Corporation
AGREED AND ACCEPTED:                    Philip Cotumaccio
                                        Vice President

By: /s/ Sy Kaye
   --------------------
    President
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.5650 Esophageal obturator. ( a ) *Identification.* An esophageal obturator is a device inserted through a patient's mouth to aid ventilation of the patient during emergency resuscitation by occluding (blocking) the esophagus, thereby permitting positive pressure ventilation through the trachea. The device consists of a closed-end semirigid esophageal tube that is attached to a face mask.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
#### Farmers State Bank *v.*Scott.

No. 8455.

February 19, 1932.

*Hollis Fort,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. S. Miller,*and *T. B. Bagley,*contra.

Pee Curiam.

This case comes before this court upon exceptions to the grant of an interlocutory injunction. On this question the Justices of this court are equally divided in opinion. Russell, C. J., and Hill and Hines, JJ., are for affirmance under the pleadings ahd evidence. Beck, P. J., and Atkinson and G-ilbert, JJ., are for reversal. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed by operation of law.
# C_2015354EN.01003001.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION)

(Case T-30/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachinger and M. Zöbisch, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2013 (Case R 1749/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIO INGRÉDIENTS VÉGÉTAUX PROPRE FABRICATION as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Laverana GmbH & Co. KG to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6608

STANFORD EL CHRISTOPHER MCPHERSON, JR., a/k/a

Chris Rattis,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOI CRYSTAL NORFLEET; ERROL DAWSON JARMAN,

Agent, “S.B.I”; SCOTT DAVID SIKKINK, Det.;

TABITHA ANN ADKINS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:04-ct-00713-H)

Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 30, 2006

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanford El Christopher McPherson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Stanford El Christopher McPherson, Jr., appeals the

district court’s order denying his attempt to file motions in his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint that had been dismissed in 2004.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. McPherson v. Norfleet, No. 5:04-ct-00713-H (E.D.N.C. filed

Mar. 28, 2006 & entered Mar. 29, 2006). We deny McPherson’s motion

for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03511

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1090 Haidinger brush. ( a ) *Identification.* A Haidinger brush is an AC-powered device that provides two conical brushlike images with apexes touching which are viewed by the patient through a Nicol prism and intended to evaluate visual function. It may include a component for measuring macular integrity.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9.
[55 FR 48441, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63012, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38810, July 25, 2001; 72 FR 17400, Apr. 9, 2007]
§ 801.20 Label to bear a unique device identifier. ( a ) *In general.* ( 1 ) The label of every medical device shall bear a unique device identifier (UDI) that meets the requirements of this subpart and part 830 of this chapter.
( 2 ) Every device package shall bear a UDI that meets the requirements of this subpart and part 830 of this chapter.
( b ) *Exceptions.* Exceptions to the general rule of paragraph (a) of this section are provided by §§ 801.30, 801.45, and 801.128(f)(2), and § 801.55 provides a means to request an exception or alternative not provided by those provisions.
[78 FR 58818, Sept. 24, 2013]
§ 573.180 Anhydrous ammonia. ( a ) The food additive anhydrous ammonia is applied directly to corn plant material and thoroughly blended prior to ensiling. It is used or intended for use as a source of nonprotein nitrogen in cattle feed in accordance with paragraphs (a)(1), (2), or (3) as follows: ( 1 ) ( i ) The food additive anhydrous ammonia is applied as a component of an aqueous premix containing 16 to 17 percent ammonia, with molasses, minerals, and not less than 83 percent crude protein. The premix is a source of nonprotein nitrogen and minerals.
( ii ) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, the labeling shall bear an expiration date of not more than 10 weeks after date of manufacture; a statement that additional protein should not be fed to lactating dairy cows producing less than 32 pounds of milk per day nor beef cattle consuming less than 1 percent of body weight daily in shelled corn; and a warning not to use additional trace mineral supplementation with treated silage.
( 2 ) ( i ) The food additive anhydrous ammonia is applied directly to corn plant material for use in dairy or beef cattle rations.
( ii ) The anhydrous ammonia is applied at a rate not to exceed the equivalent of 0.35 percent of the corn plant material.
( iii ) It is applied to corn plant material containing 30 to 35 percent dry matter.
( iv ) It is applied so that 75 to 85 percent of the additive is liquid at ambient pressure.
( 3 ) ( i ) The food additive anhydrous ammonia is applied after being diluted to a 15 to 30 percent aqueous ammonia solution (by weight).
( ii ) The anhydrous ammonia solution is applied at a rate not to exceed anhydrous ammonia equivalent to 0.3 percent of the corn plant material.
( iii ) It is applied to corn plant material containing 28 to 38 percent dry matter.
( iv ) The silage treated with aqueous ammonia is to be fed to dairy cattle only.
( b ) Its labeling shall bear, in addition to the other requirements of the act, the name of the additive, the concentration of ammonia, the maximum percentage of equivalent crude protein from nonprotein nitrogen, and directions for use consistent with this section.
[44 FR 40284, July 10, 1979]
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1295 Folic acid test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A folic acid test system is a device intended to measure the vitamin folic acid in plasma and serum. Folic acid measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of megaloblastic anemia, which is characterized by the presence of megaloblasts (an abnormal red blood cell series) in the bone marrow.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987; 53 FR 11645, Apr. 8, 1988]