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

                         Continental Homes Holding Corp.
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share
                      (In thousands, except per share data)


                                          Three months ended   Six months ended
                                               November 30,       November 30,
                                           -----------------   -----------------
Fully diluted:                               1995      1994      1995      1994
                                           -------   -------   -------   -------
Net income                                 $ 5,315   $ 3,092   $10,539   $ 7,608
Interest expense on convertible
  subordinated notes, net of
  income taxes                                 585       401       994       802
                                           -------   -------   -------   -------
                                           $ 5,900   $ 3,493   $11,533   $ 8,410
Weighted average number of
  shares outstanding                         6,947     6,963     6,937     6,963
Conversion of convertible
  subordinated notes (42.55 shares
  per $1,000 principal amount of
  notes)                                     1,489     1,489     1,489     1,489
Conversion of convertible
  subordinated notes (42.105
  shares per $1,000 principal
  amount of notes)                             737      --         368      --
Incremental shares relating to
  stock options exercisable                     86        59        90        54
                                           -------   -------   -------   -------
Weighted average number of shares
  outstanding assuming
  full dilution                              9,259     8,511     8,884     8,506
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======

Fully diluted net income per share         $   .64   $   .41   $  1.30   $   .99
                                           =======   =======   =======   =======
42548.

#### GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. CAMDEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.

Argued January 10, 1967

Decided February 10, 1967.

*192*Robinson, Thompson, Buice & Harben, B. Carl Buice,*for appellant.

*Telford, Wayne & Greer, Joe K. Telford, Joseph H. Black-shear,*for appellees.

Quillian, Judge.

We recognize the rule that: “Where a provision in an insurance policy is susceptible of two or more constructions, the court will adopt that construction which is most favorable to the insured.” *John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Frazer,*194 Ga. 201 (20 SE2d 915); *North British &c. Ins. Co. v. Mercer,*211 Ga. 161 (84 SE2d 570). “While it is the general rule that ambiguities in an insurance contract must be construed most favorably to the insured, this rule has no application when the contract is unambiguous.” *Hulsey v. Interstate Life &c. Ins. Co.,*207 Ga. 167 (1) (60 SE2d 353); *Queen Ins. Co. of America v. Nalley Discount Co.,*215 Ga. 837 (114 SE2d 21).

While the truck driver testified that during the unloading operations the tractor-trailer was under his “exclusive control,” this can only be construed as a conclusion of law. Thus, the rule is applicable: “A witness will not be permitted to decide the very question which the jury are to pass upon, but must state the relevant facts, and let the jury draw their own conclusion therefrom.” *Georgia R. & Power Co. v. Head,*155 Ga. 337 (1) (116 SE 620). Such testimony is inadmissible and could not be considered on summary judgment. As held in *Moore v. Atlanta Transit System,*105 Ga. App. 70, 72 (1) (123 SE2d 693): “The purpose of the Summary Judgments Act of 1959 was to eliminate the necessity for a jury trial where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in the case. *Scales v. Peevy,*103 Ga. App. 42, 46 (118 SE2d 193); *Dillard v. Brannan,*217 Ga. 179 (121 SE2d 768). The ‘genuine issue’ test is not met unless the evidence offered is competent and admissible.”

There being no conflict in the evidence, here we are faced with a purely legal question, that is: do the facts show that the trailer was in the care, custody or control of Camden or that Camden was for any purpose exercising physical control? We hold that they do. In our view the fact that only the truck driver could move the truck from one site to another, *193as contended for by Camden, is not decisive. For it also appears that the asphalt belonged to Camden, its employees supervised and accomplished the actual unloading, attaching the hose connections from the heater to the tanker, its employees chose the unloading site and directed any changes or moves from that site. Therefore, during the unloading process, control of the tanker was in Camden and the exclusion clause would apply. See Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mason-Moore-Tracy, Inc., 194 F2d 173; International Derrick & Equip. Co. v. Buxbaum, 240 F2d 536, 538. See in this connection *Vaughan v. Home Indemnity Co.,*86 Ga. App. 196 (71 SE2d 111). The trial judge erred in denying General’s motion for summary judgment and in granting Camden’s motion for summary judgment.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
##### 



Exhibit 10(r)
 CDW SENIOR MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN
 I. Introduction
 1.1 Purpose . Plan Company
 1.2 Certain Definitions .
  Agreement 
  Annual Incentive Award 
  Annual Incentive Period 
  Board 
  Change in Control 
  Code 
  Committee 
  Common Stock 
  Company 
  Exchange Act 
  Fair Market Value 




---



##### 



 Incentive Award 
  Incumbent Board 
  Mature Shares 
  Participant 
  Performance Measures 
  Quarterly Incentive Award 
  Quarterly Incentive Period 
  Subsidiary 
 1.3 Administration .
 2




---



##### 



1.4 Eligibility . Subsidiary Subsidiaries
 3




---



##### 



1.5 Shares Available .
  II. Incentive Awards
 2.1 Incentive Awards .
 2.2 Terms of Incentive Awards .
 Amount of Incentive Award
 Performance Measures
 Settlement of Quarterly Incentive Awards
 Settlement of Annual Incentive Awards
 4




---



##### 



Settlement in Common Stock
 Settlement in Restricted Stock
 Settlement in Non-Statutory Stock Options
 2.3 Termination of Employment or Service .
 5




---



##### 



III. General
 3.1 Effective Date and Term of Plan .
 3.2 Amendments.
 3.3 Non-Transferability of Awards .
 3.4 Restrictions on Shares .
 6




---



##### 



3.5 Adjustment
 3.6 Change in Control .
   7




---



##### 



Person Outstanding Company Voting Securities
 8




---



##### 



Incumbent Board provided however provided further
  9




---



##### 



Krasny Family
Group
 3.7 Tax Withholding. Tax Date
 10




---



##### 



provided however
 3.8 No Right of Participation or Employment .
 3.9 Governing Law .
 11
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3147 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3147

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in 
       Ogden, Utah, as the ``James V. Hansen Federal Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3147

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in 
       Ogden, Utah, as the ``James V. Hansen Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 324 Twenty-Fifth Street in Ogden, 
Utah, shall be known and designated as the ``James V. Hansen Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``James V. Hansen 
Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 21, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3209 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 3209

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2003

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 1972 to clarify 
the acreage for which the North Loup division is authorized to provide 
        irrigation water under the Missouri River Basin project.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ACREAGE FOR IRRIGATION WATER.

    Section 501 of the Reclamation Project Authorization Act of 1972 
(43 U.S.C. 615dddd) is amended by striking ``fifty-three thousand 
acres'' and inserting ``approximately 53,000 acres''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# C_2017120EN.01002201.xml

| 13.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/22

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 2 August 2016

in Case E-33/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement Directive 2012/26/EU amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance)

(2017/C 120/10)

In Case E-33/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance) as adapted to the Agreement under Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 August 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

| 2. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
#### BEW v. UNITED STATES

[68 C. Cls. 462; 281 U. S. 750]

Petition for writ of certiorari was *denied*by the Supreme Court May 5, 1930.
[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.
**Title:****Annual report
** 
1997 | 1998
 
SuDoc Number:SBA 1.1:
CGP System Number: 00324070
 
 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
 
July 11, 2017********
§ 411.605 Inspector General report. ( a ) The Inspector General, or other official as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, of each agency shall prepare and submit to Congress each year, commencing with submission of the President's Budget in 1991, an evaluation of the compliance of that agency with, and the effectiveness of, the requirements herein. The evaluation may include any recommended changes that may be necessary to strengthen or improve the requirements.
( b ) In the case of an agency that does not have an Inspector General, the agency official comparable to an Inspector General shall prepare and submit the annual report, or, if there is no such comparable official, the head of the agency shall prepare and submit the annual report.
( c ) The annual report shall be submitted at the same time the agency submits its annual budget justifications to Congress.
( d ) The annual report shall include the following: All alleged violations relating to the agency's covered Federal actions during the year covered by the report, the actions taken by the head of the agency in the year covered by the report with respect to those alleged violations and alleged violations in previous years, and the amounts of civil penalties imposed by the agency in the year covered by the report.
```

[House Report 110-240]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress                                            Rept. 110-240
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 2

======================================================================

 
 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  2008

                                _______
                                

 July 25, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Obey, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following

                          SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

                        [To accompany H.R. 3093]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
supplemental report to clarify the wording of the statement 
related to compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.
    In place of the paragraph appearing on pages 170 and 171 of 
the report to accompany H.R. 3093 under the heading 
``Compliance With Rule XXI, Cl. 9 (Earmarks)'', the Committee 
substitutes the following paragraph:
    Pursuant to clause 9 rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, this bill, as reported, contains the following 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

                                  

```
C AND E HOLDINGS Inc
                            2816 East Windrose Drive
                             Phoenix, Arizona 85032


March 15, 2000

Edward A. Barth
5046 East Blvd. N.W.
Canton, Ohio 44718

Re: Lock-Up Agreement with C and E Holdings, Inc.


Gentlemen,

     In  consideration  of the sale to the  holder  by C and E  Holdings,  Inc.,
(Company)  of its  Common  Stock  ($.001  par  value),  the  undersigned  holder
warrants, covenants and agrees for the benefit of the Company not to sell, offer
to sell, solicit an offer to buy, contract to sell, make any short sale, pledge,
grant,  grant any option to purchase,  or otherwise  transfer or dispose of, any
shares of Common stock,  or any  securities  convertible  into or exercisable or
exchangeable for Common Stock, owned directly or beneficially by the undersigned
or with respect to which the undersigned has the power of disposition, except in
connection  with or following a completed  merger or  acquisition by the Company
and the Company is no longer  classified  as a blank check  company  pursuant to
Section 7 (b) (3) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

     An attempt to sell, transfer or any type of disposition of the shares shall
be a violation of this letter  agreement and shall be  ineffective  and null and
void.

     In  furtherance  of the  foregoing,  the holder agrees to; (1) delivery his
shares to the  Company  for safe  keeping;  (2) allow the  Company to advise its
Transfer Agent not to transfer said  securities and (3) authorize the company to
deliver a copy of this  Agreement to the  transfer  agent with  instructions  to
decline to make any transfer of securities if such transfer  would  constitute a
violation or breach of this Agreement.
<PAGE>
     This  Agreement  shall be  binding  upon the  holder,  its  agents,  heirs,
successors, assignees and beneficiaries.

     A waiver of the terms and  conditions of this  agreement must be in writing
and executed by the proper officer of the Company and the holder.

     If there is a breach or  threatened  breach of this  Agreement,  the holder
agrees  that  there is no  adequate  remedy at law and said  breach  will  cause
irreparable damage. Accordingly,  the holder agrees that the Company is entitled
to the issuance of an immediate injunction without notice to restrain the breach
or  threatened  breach.  This remedy is not exclusive and the holder agrees that
the  Company  and third  party  beneficiaries  shall be  entitled  to seek other
remedies including a claim for other remedies, including money damages.


THE HOLDER


/s/ Edward A. Barth
---------------------------
    Edward A. Barth


                                    Constituting 1,000,000 shares certificate(s)

                                       2
§ 326.8 Bank Secrecy Act compliance. ( a ) *Purpose.* This subpart is issued to assure that all FDIC-supervised institutions as defined in 12 CFR 326.1 establish and maintain procedures reasonably designed to assure and monitor their compliance with the requirements of subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, and the implementing regulations promulgated thereunder by the Department of Treasury at 31 CFR Chapter X.
( b ) *Compliance procedures* — ( 1 ) *Program requirement.* Each institution shall develop and provide for the continued administration of a program reasonably designed to assure and monitor compliance with recordkeeping and reporting requirements set forth in subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, and the implementing regulations issued by the Department of Treasury at 31 CFR Chapter X. The compliance program shall be written, approved by the institution's board of directors, and noted in the minutes.
( 2 ) *Customer identification program.* Each institution is subject to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 5318(l) and the implementing regulation jointly promulgated by the FDIC and the Department of the Treasury at 31 CFR 1020.220.
( c ) *Contents of compliance program.* The compliance program shall, at a minimum: ( 1 ) Provide for a system of internal controls to assure ongoing compliance;
( 2 ) Provide for independent testing for compliance to be conducted by institution personnel or by an outside party;
( 3 ) Designate an individual or individuals responsible for coordinating and monitoring day-to-day compliance; and
( 4 ) Provide training for appropriate personnel.
[85 FR 3246, Jan. 21, 2020]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                    $ 8,405,528
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               2,296,240
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           10,929,410
<PP&E>                                     17,910,040
<DEPRECIATION>                             10,239,028
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             19,111,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       4,109,335
<BONDS>                                     1,120,670
<COMMON>                                   12,970,090
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                   645,460
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,091,313)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               19,111,154
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            2,543,199
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               2,443,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (15,598)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            172,014
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (88,151)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   52,008
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (140,159)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,159)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000494

17-MAR-2017

07:53 AM