alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11.0   STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
               For the Twelve Months Ended March 31, 2000

Statement regarding computation of earnings per share for the twelve months
ended March 31, 2000.

                                                       Weighted     Per-Share
                                           Income   Average Shares    Amount
                                           ----------------------------------
Basic Earnings Per Share
 Income available to common stockholders  $30,108       90,431         $0.33

Effect of Dilutive Securities
 Unearned incentive plan shares                          1,194
                                          -----------------------------------
Diluted Earnings Per Share
  Income available to common stockholders
    and assumed conversion                $30,108       91,625         $0.33
                                          ===================================

The stock options were not dilutive as of March 31, 2000
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1031

In re: TIMOTHY SEAN COOGLE , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 2:17

- cr - 00167

- 1 )

Submitted : March 23, 2021 Decided: March 29, 2021

Before THACKER , QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Timothy Sean Coogle , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Sean Coogle petitions for a writ of mandamus, requesting that this c ourt
direct the district court to act on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court accepted the recommendatio n of the magistrate judge and denied relief on Coogle’s § 2255 motion on January 13, 2021. Accordingly, we deny Coogle’s mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mat erials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
Case: 16-14814 Date Filed: 10/30/2018 Page: 1 of 2 
Case: 16-14814 Date Filed: 10/30/2018 Page: 2 of 2
#### CENTRUST SAVINGS AND LOAN v CRISTOL, etc., et al.

Case No. 85-376 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

February 2, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Gene Essner for appellant.

Julie Feigeles for appellee.

Before SIMONS, SALMON, ROBINSON, JJ.

*180OPINION OF THE COURT

MICHAEL H. SALMON, Judge.

An appeal has been brought before this court by Appellant/Garnishee, Centrust Savings and Loan. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in failing to set aside a default entered by the Clerk and subsequently entering a Final Judgment of Garnishment when an agent for Appellant had previously responded to a Writ of Garnishment with a letter to the Clerk.

The facts are as follows: On June 14, 1985, the trial court entered a Final Judgment by Default against Defendants, customers of Appellant, for failure to file responsive pleadings. On July 2, 1985, Appellees filed a Motion for Garnishment After Judgment against Appellant, a Writ of Garnishment was served on Appellant on July 5, 1985. Five days later a letter in response to the Writ was sent to the Clerk by an agent of Appellant and filed by the Clerk on July 15, 1985. On August 8, 1985, a default was applied for and, without notice thereof, entered against Appellant by the Clerk for failure to serve or file any paper as required by law. On August 27, 1985, Final Default Judgment of Garnishment was entered by the trial judge against Appellant. On October 24, 1985, the Final Default Judgment was modified discharging all funds on deposit in the name of the Defendants and requiring Appellant to pay from its own funds the judgment for Appellee in the amount of $1,553.20.

According to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.500(b), if a party has filed or served *any paper*in an action where affirmative relief is sought he or she shall be served with notice of the application for default. In *Reichenbach v. Southeast Bank, N.A.,*462 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), it was held that a letter filed by an attorney constituted a “paper” within the meaning of Rule 1.500(b). A letter filed by an officer of a corporation was held to constitute a Rule 1.500(a) “paper”, and therefore a default entered by the Clerk with such paper on file was declared unauthorized in *Building Inspection Services of Dade v. Olemberg,*476 So.2d *11A*(Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Even an unfiled letter sent to a landlord asserting an informal defense to the landlord’s action was held to trigger the notice of application for default requirement of Rule 1.500(b). *J.A.R., Inc. v. Universal American Realty Corporation,*485 So.2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

It is our opinion that the trial judge in this case erred in not setting aside the default entered by the Clerk because no notice of the *181application for default was served on Appellant. Accordingly, we reverse the Order rendered October 25, 1985, by the trial judge with directions to set aside the default.

SIMONS and ROBINSON, JJ., concur.
#### § 2706.140 Employment.

No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
```

[Federal Register: June 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 109)]
[Notices]               
[Page 32459]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08jn10-86]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

 
National Energy Rating Program for Homes

AGENCY: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking comments and 
information from interested parties to assist DOE in developing a 
voluntary National Energy Rating Program for Homes. The purpose of this 
program is to encourage consumers to invest in energy improvements in 
existing homes by providing reliable information to them at low cost. 
The Department is considering a wide range of issues including how to 
measure energy performance, what performance metrics to use, and how to 
present the information to consumers, among other questions. For a full 
discussion of these issues, please view www.buildings.energy.gov/home_rating_rfi.html.

DATES: Comments must be postmarked by no later than July 5, 2010. 
Comments must be received by no later than July 10, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ``RFI: National 
Energy Rating Program for Homes,'' by any of the following methods: 
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: 
buildingratingRFI@EE.DOE.GOV. Include ``RFI: National Energy Rating 
Program for Homes'' in the subject line of the message. Mail: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
(EE-1), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 Attn: 
National Energy Rating Program for Homes, Jessica Balsam.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan Glickman at 
buildingratingRFI@ee.doe.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 2, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-13679 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-14-0501 SAT Date: 4/29/2014 Print Date: 7/7/2015

Related cases : Yes Health related cases: Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2 3

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 12

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: Yes
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: IRR/POSS CORR-E,S,L,MM LUNG
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-14-0501/03 FATE: Estimations for low weight ethyl octyl ester MW 238 C10H23O4P Liquid with MP < 25 C (E) log Kow = 3.27 (E) S = 152 mg/L at 25 C (E) VP = 7.4E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP = 345 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E)log Koc = 2.82 (E) log Fish BCF = 1.00 (E) log Fish BAF = 1.94 (E) POTW removal (%) = 0-25 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo Sorption to soils/sediments = moderate PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = moderate

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is poor through the skin and GI tract, and good through the lung, based on physical/chemical properties. There is concern for irritation/ p ossible corrosion to the eye, skin, mucous membranes and lung based on acidity (a 5% solution of the PMN substance is pH 2-3 ) and surfactant properties of the PMN compound. Also, there is concern for surfactant effects on the lung.

Ecotox :

Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.30 daphnid 48-h LC50 0.23 green algal 96-h EC50 0.59 fish

_ chronic value 0.042

daphnid

_ chronic value 0.052

algal

_ chronic value 0.30

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge _ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for neutral organic chemicals; SAR chemical class = organophosphate; MW 294 (representative structure); log Kow = 5.24 (EPI); S = 1.6 mg/L at 20 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) AcuteConcentration of Concern ( p pb) Chronic 4

SARs neutral organic chemicals SAR Class organophosphate TSCA New Chemcial Category N eutral Organics

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: Fate assessor: Ecotox assessor: Health assessor:
#### FITZGERALD v GRAHAM

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

Decided November 11, 1929

Messrs. Anderson & Lamb, Cleveland, for Fitzgerald.

Messrs. Dustin, McKeehan, Merrick, Arter & Stewart, Cleveland, for Graham. MIDDLETON, P. J. & MAUCK, J. (4th Dist)' and HOUCK, J. (5th Dist) sitting

MAUCK, J.

Part of the testimony in this case is somewhat vague as to the circumstances under which the infant plaintiff was injured. As between the opposing interests it is contradictory. This court cannot reverse the judgment as being, opposed to the weight of the testimony for it cannot be said that the jury was clearly wrong in the view it took, that Graham did all that a prudent man should do to avoid the collision.

The only substantial question raised was on the plaintiff’s cross examination of the witness Schnorbus and the effort of plaintiff to put into the record a written statement signed by that witness contradictory to his evidence before the. jury. This document was not competent as tending to establish the truth of any statement therein contained. It was only competent to the extent that it showed that the witness had made a contradictory statement and that his subsequent testimony should be considered in the light of that discrediting circumstance. The witness, however, explicitly admitted that he had made the written statement and that it was in an essential particular untrue. After this admission there was no occasion for the introduction of the document which only tended to prove what was already expresslv admitted.

Middleton, P. J. and Houck, J., concur.
| /s/  Steven L.      Watson                 |   | /s/  Bobby D.      O’Brien               |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Steven      L. WatsonPresident      and Chief Executive OfficerMarch      12, 2009                                              |   | Bobby      D. O’BrienVice      President andChief      Financial OfficerMarch      12, 2009                              |
|                                                                                                                                 |   |                                                                                                                           |
§ 22.39 Appeal to ARB. ( a ) Any defendant who has filed a timely answer and who is determined in an initial decision to be liable for a civil penalty or assessment may appeal such decision to the ARB by filing a notice of appeal with the ARB in accordance with this section and with 29 CFR part 26.
( b ) ( 1 ) A notice of appeal may be filed at any time within 30 days after the ALJ issues an initial decision. However, if another party files a motion for reconsideration under § 22.38, consideration of the appeal shall be stayed automatically pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
( 2 ) If a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, a notice of appeal may be filed within 30 days after the ALJ denies the motion or issues a revised initial decision, whichever applies.
( 3 ) The ARB may extend the initial 30-day period for an additional 30 days if the defendant files with the ARB a request for an extension within the initial 30-day period and shows good cause.
( c ) If the defendant files a timely notice of appeal with the ARB, and the time for filing motions for reconsideration under § 22.38 has expired, the ALJ shall forward the record of the proceeding to the ARB.
( d ) A notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a written brief specifying exceptions to the initial decision and reasons supporting the exceptions.
( e ) The representative for the Government may file a brief in opposition to exceptions within 30 days of receiving the notice of appeal and accompanying brief.
( f ) There is no right to appear personally before the ARB.
( g ) There is no right to appeal any interlocutory ruling by the ALJ.
( h ) In reviewing the initial decision, the ARB shall not consider any objection that was not raised before the ALJ unless a demonstration is made of extraordinary circumstances causing the failure to raise the objection.
( i ) If any party demonstrates to the satisfaction of the ARB that additional evidence not presented at such hearing is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to present such evidence at such hearing, the ARB shall remand the matter to the ALJ for consideration of such additional evidence.
( j ) The ARB may affirm, reduce, reverse, compromise, remand, or settle any penalty or assessment, determined by the ALJ in any initial decision. The ARB's decision is subject to discretionary review by the Secretary as provided in Secretary's Order 01-2020 (or any successor to that order).
( k ) The ARB shall promptly serve each party to the appeal with a copy of the decision of the ARB and a statement describing the right of any person determined to be liable for a penalty or assessment to seek judicial review.
( l ) Unless a petition for review is filed as provided in 31 U.S.C. 3805 after a defendant has exhausted all administrative remedies under this part and within 60 days after the date on which the authority head serves the defendant with a copy of the authority head's decision, a determination that a defendant is liable under § 22.3 is final and is not subject to judicial review.
[52 FR 48492, Dec. 22, 1987, as amended at 86 FR 1781, Jan. 11, 2021]
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0710 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0710

**2000/710/EC: Council Decision of 7 November 2000 on the accession by the European Community to United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No 67 on the approval of special equipment for motor vehicles fuelled by liquefied petroleum gas **

*
Official Journal L 290 , 17/11/2000 P. 0029 - 0029 *

Council Decision

of 7 November 2000

on the accession by the European Community to United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No 67 on the approval of special equipment for motor vehicles fuelled by liquefied petroleum gas

(2000/710/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997 with a view to accession by the European Community to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions ("Revised 1958 Agreement")(1), and in particular Article 3(3) and the second indent of Article 4(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the assent of the European Parliament(2),

Whereas:

(1) The amended version of Regulation No 67 on the approval of special equipment for motor vehicles that are fuelled by liquefied petroleum gas will remove the technical barriers to the trade in motor vehicles between the Contracting Parties in respect of the special equipment fitted to such motor vehicles. The uniform requirements of that Regulation ensure a high level of safety and environmental protection.

(2) The Contracting Parties have been notified of the amended version of Regulation No 67, which will enter into force, in all of the Contracting Parties which have not made known their opposition, on the date(s) specified therein in the form of a regulation annexed to the Revised 1958 Agreement.

(3) Regulation No 67 should be incorporated into the approval system for vehicles and should thus supplement Community legislation currently in force,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The European Community shall accede to United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No 67 on the approval of special equipment for motor vehicles fuelled by liquefied petroleum gas, as amended and as notified to the Contracting Parties, if the measure or amendment enters into force on the date(s) specified therein.

Done at Brussels, 7 November 2000.

For the Council

The President

D. Voynet

(1) OJ L 346, 17.12.1997, p. 78.

(2) Assent of the European Parliament of 3 October 2000 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
§ 1955.31 Preliminary conference. ( a ) Upon his own motion, or the motion of a party, the administrative law judge may direct the parties to meet with him for a conference or conferences to consider: ( 1 ) Simplification of the issues;
( 2 ) The necessity or desirability of amendments to documents for purposes of clarification, simplification, or limitation;
( 3 ) Stipulations of fact, and of the authenticity, of the contents of documents;
( 4 ) Limitations on the number of parties and of witnesses;
( 5 ) Scope of participation of petitioners under § 1955.17 of this part;
( 6 ) Establishment of dates for discovery; and
( 7 ) Such other matters as may tend to expedite the disposition of the proceedings, and to assure a just conclusion thereof.
( b ) The administrative law judge shall enter an order which recites the action taken at the conference, the amendments allowed to any documents which have been filed, and the agreements made between the parties as to any of the matters considered. Such order shall limit the issues for hearing to those not disposed of by admissions or agreements, and control the subsequent course of the hearing, unless modified at the hearing to prevent manifest injustice.
§ 2570.92 Service: Copies of documents and pleadings. For 502(c)(5) penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of 29 CFR 18.3. ( a ) *In general.* Copies of all documents shall be served on all parties of record. All documents should clearly designate the docket number, if any, and short title of all matters. All documents to be filed shall be delivered or mailed to the Chief Docket Clerk, Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), 800 K Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20001-8002, or to the OALJ Regional Office to which the proceeding may have been transferred for hearing. Each document filed shall be clear and legible.
( b ) *By parties.* All motions, petitions, pleadings, briefs, or other documents shall be filed with the Office of Administrative Law Judges with a copy, including any attachments, to all other parties of record. When a party is represented by an attorney, service shall be made upon the attorney. Service of any document upon any party may be made by personal delivery or by mailing a copy to the last known address. The Department shall be served by delivery to the Associate Solicitor, Plan Benefits Security Division, ERISA Section 502(c)(5) Proceeding, P.O. Box 1914, Washington, DC 20013. The person serving the document shall certify to the manner and date of service.
( c ) *By the Office of Administrative Law Judges.* Service of orders, decisions and all other documents shall be made by regular mail to the last known address.
( d ) *Form of pleadings* — ( 1 ) Every pleading shall contain information indicating the name of the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) as the agency under which the proceeding is instituted, the title of the proceeding, the docket number (if any) assigned by the Office of Administrative Law Judges and a designation of the type of pleading or paper (e.g., notice, motion to dismiss, etc.). The pleading or paper shall be signed and shall contain the address and telephone number of the party or person representing the party. Although there are no formal specifications for documents, they should be typewritten when possible on standard size 81 ⁄ 2 × 11 inch paper.
( 2 ) Illegible documents, whether handwritten, typewritten, photocopies, or otherwise, will not be accepted. Papers may be reproduced by any duplicating process provided all copies are clear and legible.
#### § 2200.24 Brief of an amicus curiae.

The brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only by leave of the Commission or the Judge. The brief may be conditionally filed with the motion for leave conforming to § 2200.40. A motion for leave shall identify the interest of the applicant and shall state the reasons why a brief of an amicus curiae is desirable. Any amicus curiae shall file its brief within the time allowed the party whose position the amicus will support unless the Commission or the Judge, for good cause shown, grants leave for later filing. In that event, the Commission or the Judge may specify within what period an opposing party may answer. The brief of an amicus curiae shall conform to § 2200.74 or § 2200.93.
INSPIRE 1

1345 Propeller Locks Quick Start Guide
The Inspire 1 Propeller Lock is designed to secure the 

1345 propellers in place during fight. 

Installation:

1. Tighten the propellers on the motor by hand, and 

ensure they are securely mounted before installing 

the propeller locks. 

2. Align the tips of propeller lock with the ventilation 

holes on the motor and slide the propeller lock onto 

the nut of propeller. Press the propeller lock against 

the motor frmly to ensure it is installed securely.

1

2
Removal:

Press the tips of the propeller locks to release the lock. 

After removing, store the propeller locks in a proper 

place for future use. 

3. Installation complete. Examine to ensure the propeller 

lock is tight on the motor.

Ensure the propeller locks are securely installed 

before each fight. 

© 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved.