alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11--COMPUTATIONS OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                       May 31,         May 25,
                                                        1997            1996
                                                    ------------    ------------
Primary:  (1)
  Net income ...................................    $ 19,320,000    $ 18,203,000
                                                    ============    ============


  Weighted average common shares outstanding ...      42,078,000      43,086,000

  Net effect of dilutive stock options--based on 
   the treasury stock method using the average
   market price for the period .................         323,000         341,000
                                                    ------------    ------------

  Totals .......................................      42,401,000      43,427,000
                                                    ============    ============


  Earnings per common share ....................    $        .46    $        .42
                                                    ============    ============




Fully diluted:  (1)
  Net income ...................................    $ 19,320,000    $ 18,203,000
                                                    ============    ============


  Weighted average common shares outstanding ...      42,078,000      43,086,000

  Net effect of dilutive stock options--based on 
   the treasury stock method using the quarter-
   end market price which is higher than the 
   average market price ........................         375,000         432,000
                                                    ------------    ------------

  Totals .......................................      42,453,000      43,518,000
                                                    ============    ============


  Earnings per common share ....................    $        .46    $        .42
                                                    ============    ============



(1) The primary and fully diluted earnings per share were not presented on the
    face of the Consolidated Income Statements because fully diluted earnings
    per share differed by less than three percent from earnings per share
    calculated based on weighted average common shares.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 92 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 92

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
limit the terms of office for Representatives and Senators in Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 1995

    Ms. Danner introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
limit the terms of office for Representatives and Senators in Congress.
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``No person may serve more than four consecutive terms as 
Representative or two consecutive terms as Senator, not counting any 
term that began before the adoption of this article of amendment.''.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136969 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 136969 COA: 285220 Wayne CC: 04-005943 CHUCKIE LEDORIAN OWNEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for le ave to appeal the June 5, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1117 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2008

Clerk
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.7701(i)-0 Outline of taxable mortgage pool provisions.

This section lists the major paragraphs contained in §§ 301.7701(i)-1 through 301.7701(i)-4.

## § 301.7701(i)-1 Definition of a taxable mortgage pool.

(a) Purpose.

(b) In general.

(c) Asset composition tests.

(1) Determination of amount of assets.

(2) Substantially all.

(i) In general.

(ii) Safe harbor.

(3) Equity interests in pass-through arrangements.

(4) Treatment of certain credit enhancement contracts.

(i) In general.

(ii) Credit enhancement contract defined.

(5) Certain assets not treated as debt obligations.

(i) In general.

(ii) Safe harbor.

(A) In general.

(B) Payments with respect to a mortgage defined.

(C) Entity treated as not anticipating payments.

(d) Real estate mortgages or interests therein defined.

(1) In general.

(2) Interests in real property and real property defined.

(i) In general.

(ii) Manufactured housing.

(3) Principally secured by an interest in real property.

(i) Tests for determining whether an obligation is principally secured.

(A) The 80 percent test.

(B) Alternative test.

(ii) Obligations secured by real estate mortgages (or interests therein), or by combinations of real estate mortgages (or interests therein) and other assets.

(A) In general.

(B) Example.

(e) Two or more maturities.

(1) In general.

(2) Obligations that are allocated credit risk unequally.

(3) Examples.

(f) Relationship test.

(1) In general.

(2) Payments on asset obligations defined.

(3) Safe harbor for entities formed to liquidate assets.

(g) Anti-avoidance rules.

(1) In general.

(2) Certain investment trusts.

(3) Examples.

## § 301.7701(i)-2 Special rules for portions of entities.

(a) Portion defined.

(b) Certain assets and rights to assets disregarded.

(1) Credit enhancement assets.

(2) Assets unlikely to service obligations.

(3) Recourse.

(c) Portion as obligor.

(1) In general.

(2) Example.

## § 301.7701(i)-3 Effective dates and duration of taxable mortgage pool classification.

(a) Effective dates.

(b) Entities in existence on December 31, 1991.

(1) In general.

(2) Special rule for certain transfers.

(3) Related debt obligation.

(4) Example.

(c) Duration of taxable mortgage pool classification.

(1) Commencement and duration.

(2) Testing day defined.

## § 301.7701(i)-4 Special rules for certain entities.

(a) States and municipalities.

(1) In general.

(2) Governmental purpose.

(3) Determinations by the Commissioner.

(b) REITs. [Reserved]

(c) Subchapter S corporations.

(1) In general.

(2) Portion of an S corporation treated as a separate corporation.

[T.D. 8610, 60 FR 40088, Aug. 7, 1995]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gilbert Alicea, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 645]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered January 5, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to support his conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under the fifth count of the indictment, based on a sale of crack cocaine which occurred on September 24, 1999 *(see People v Kaplan,*76 NY2d 140 [1990]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt of that crime was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CEL 470.15 [5]).

However, the defendant correctly contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree on October 1, 1999, beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant did not reside in, occupy, or rent the apartment where the supply of crack cocaine was found. Several other individuals, who had never been seen with the defendant, had access to the drugs and were arrested in the apartment three days after the defendant last sold drugs from the building to an undercover officer *(see People*
      *573
      *v Echeverri,*3 AD3d 576 [2004]; *People v Webb,*179 AD2d 707 [1992]). The defendant’s mere presence in a hallway outside of the apartment during the seizure did not establish his dominion and control over the drugs *(see People v Harvey,*163 AD2d 532 [1990]). Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree must be vacated and that count of the indictment dismissed.

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Dillon, JJ., concur.
§ 31.3306(c)(10)-3 Services before 1962 in employ of certain employees' beneficiary associations. ( a ) *Voluntary employees' beneficiary associations.* Services performed by an employee in the employ of a voluntary employees' beneficiary association providing for the payment of life, sick, accident, or other benefits to the members of such association or their dependents are excepted from employment if— ( 1 ) No part of its net earnings inures (other than through such payments) to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual,
( 2 ) 85 percent or more of the income consists of amounts collected from members for the sole purpose of making such payments and meeting expenses, and
( 3 ) The services are performed before 1962, or remuneration for the services is paid before 1962.
( b ) *Federal employees' beneficiary associations.* Services performed by an employee in the employ of a voluntary employees' beneficiary association providing for the payment of life, sick, accident, or other benefits to the members of such association or their dependents or their designated beneficiaries are excepted from employment if— ( 1 ) Admission to membership in the association is limited to individuals who are officers or employees of the United States Government,
( 2 ) No part of the net earnings of the association inures (other than through such payments) to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, and
( 3 ) The services are performed before 1962, or remuneration for the services is paid before 1962.
( c ) *Application of tests.* For purposes of this section, the type of services performed by the employee, the amount of remuneration for the services, and the place where the services are performed are immaterial; the test is the character of the organization in whose employ the services are performed.
[T.D. 6658, 28 FR 6640, June 27, 1963]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 33 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                     

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 33

                  For the relief of Alexander Vraciu.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

    Mr. Jacobs introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
                  For the relief of Alexander Vraciu.

Whereas the World War II commanding officer of then Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander 
        Vraciu and all of the 7 firing line commanders who were there and knew 
        what happened, recommended Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu for the 
        Congressional Medal of Honor;
Whereas Admiral G.D. Murray, at Pearl Harbor Headquarters, improperly processed 
        the recommendation and wrongfully deleted part of the 4 mission citation 
        indicating with tortuous, if not contorted logic, to wit: ``His superior 
        performance of normal duties brought distinction upon himself. His 
        failure, if it had occurred, to engage the enemy, on 19 June 1944, would 
        have brought censure upon himself'';
Whereas at that time Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu was the leading Navy 
        flying ace, having shot down 19 enemy aircraft and destroyed 21 planes 
        on the ground;
Whereas in one engagement alone, Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu, dismissing 
        thoughts of self, plunged into the fray and destroyed 6 attacking enemy 
        bomber aircraft in 8 minutes' time, quite clearly performing far above 
        and beyond the call of duty;
Whereas Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu alone sank a large and significant 
        enemy cargo vessel and shot down 2 additional enemy planes and 
        materially assisted our bombers in sinking an enemy carrier--all in a 
        matter of a few days; and
Whereas Lieutenant (jg.) Alexander Vraciu was shot down 2 different times in the 
        thick of battle and welter of anti-aircraft enemy fire, selflessly and 
        repeatedly venturing his entire moral being for the life of his country: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO ALEXANDER VRACIU.

    Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 6248 of title 10, 
United States Code (relating to the award of the Medal of Honor), the 
President shall award a Medal of Honor to Alexander Vraciu of Danville, 
California, in accordance with the decision of Vraciu's commanding 
officer at sea and pursuant to section 6241 of that title, for his 
superlatively heroic service to our Nation.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 81 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 81

    Expressing the policy of the United States with respect to the 
   normalization of relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 30, 1995

  Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Dornan, Mr. 
 Cunningham, Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr. Solomon) submitted the following 
     concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                        International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing the policy of the United States with respect to the 
   normalization of relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Whereas the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has the ability to 
        resolve the fate of the vast majority of unaccounted for American 
        prisoners of war and missing in action (POW/MIA) of the Vietnam era, yet 
        has failed to do so; and
Whereas the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has failed to grant 
        the United States Government unrestricted access to archival information 
        in connection with unaccounted for Vietnam era American POW/MIAs: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the United States should not normalize relations with, or extend 
or provide any trade or development assistance to, the Government of 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam until the issue of unaccounted for 
Vietnam era POW/MIAs is resolved and the President determines and 
certifies to the Congress that the following conditions have been met:
            (1) The United States Government is allowed unrestricted 
        access to the written, photo, and film archives of the 
        Socialist Republic of Vietnam, including all Politburo, Central 
        Committee, and military records in Vietnam and areas under 
        Vietnamese communist control.
            (2) The United States Government is allowed unrestricted 
        access to any and all areas of the Socialist Republic of 
        Vietnam to search for evidence of the fate of American POW/
        MIAs.
            (3) The Socialist Republic of Vietnam has initiated the 
        immediate return of all readily available remains of Vietnam-
        era American POW/MIAs.
            (4) Representatives of the United States Government have 
        and will protect the confidentiality of all witnesses with 
        information regarding the fate of American POW/MIAs.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 52 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 52

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
providing for 4-year terms for Representatives and limiting the service 
              of Senators and Representatives to 12 years.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 1995

  Mr. Peterson of Florida introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
providing for 4-year terms for Representatives and limiting the service 
              of Senators and Representatives to 12 years.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States 
within 7 years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of 
Members chosen every 4th year by the people of the several States. The 
terms of Representatives shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January 
of the years that occur 2 years after the years in which the term of 
the President begins.
    ``Section 2. A person may not be a Senator if the person has been a 
Senator for more than 12 years during the lifetime of the person. A 
person may not be a Representative if the person has been a 
Representative for more than 12 years during the lifetime of the 
person. Any term as a Senator or Representative for which a person is 
elected or appointed to fill a vacancy in the representation of any 
State in the Congress may not be counted for purposes of computing the 
12-year limits in this section.
    ``Section 3. Sections 1 and 2 shall apply only to Representatives 
who are elected on or after the date occurring 1 year after the 1st day 
that this article is valid as part of the Constitution and on which the 
electors of the President and the Vice President are chosen.
    ``Section 4. Section 2 shall apply only to Senators who are elected 
or appointed on or after the date occurring 1 year after the 1st day 
that this article is valid as part of the Constitution and on which the 
electors of the President and the Vice President are chosen.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 53.4965-9 Effective/applicability dates. ( a ) *In general.* The taxes under section 4965(a) and § 53.4965-7 are effective for taxable years ending after May 17, 2006, with respect to transactions entered into before, on or after that date, except that no tax under section 4965(a) applies with respect to income or proceeds that are properly allocable to any period ending on or before August 15, 2006.
( b ) *Applicability of the regulations.* As of July 6, 2010, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, §§ 53.4965-1 through 53.4965-8 of this chapter will apply to taxable years ending after July 6, 2007. A tax-exempt entity may rely on the provisions of §§ 53.4965-1 through 53.4965-8 for taxable years ending on or before July 6, 2007.
( c ) *Effective/applicability date with respect to certain knowing transactions* — ( 1 ) *Entity-level tax.* The 100 percent tax under section 4965(b)(1)(B) and § 53.4965-7(a)(1)(i)(B) does not apply to prohibited tax shelter transactions entered into by a tax-exempt entity on or before May 17, 2006.
( 2 ) *Manager-level tax.* The IRS will not assert that an entity manager who approved or caused a tax-exempt entity to become a party to a prohibited tax shelter transaction is liable for the entity manager tax under section 4965(b)(2) and § 53.4965-7(b)(1) with respect to the transaction if the tax-exempt entity entered into such transaction prior to May 17, 2006.
[T.D. 9492, 75 FR 38702, July 6, 2010]