alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11.


                                 ENDOCARE, INC.
                       CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Year Ended
                                                             December 31, 1996
                                                             -----------------
<S>                                                          <C>
Net loss                                                     $     (1,531,448)
                                                             =================


Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding during the period                                  5,634,561
                                                             =================



Primary net loss per share                                            $  (.27)
                                                                      ========

Fully diluted net loss per share                                      $  (.27)
                                                                      ========
</TABLE>




    Notes:    Earnings per share data is not presented for 1995 because ENDOcare
              was operating as a division of Medstone International, Inc.
              at that time.

              The effect of potential exercise of common stock options is not
              included in these calculations because such effect would be
              anti-dilutive.





                                     - 54 -
#### § 102-118.495 May my agency appeal a decision by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA)?

No, your agency may not appeal a decision made by the CBCA.

[65 FR 24569, Apr. 26, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 30476, June 26, 2009]
Exhibit 21**Subsidiaries of the Registrant**Banco Santander Puerto Rico and Subsidiaries is a commercial banking entity incorporated underthe laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and is a 100% owned subsidiary of the Registrant.Santander Mortgage Corporation is a mortgage banking entity incorporated under the laws of theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico and is a 100% owned subsidiary of Banco Santander Puerto Rico.Santander Securities Corporation is a registered broker-dealer incorporated under the laws of theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico and is a 100% owned subsidiary of the Registrant.Santander Asset Management provides portfolio management and advisory services. It is incorporatedunder the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and is a 100% owned subsidiary of SantanderSecurities Corporation.Santander Insurance Agency is an insurance and general agent incorporated under the laws of theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico and is a 100% owned subsidiary of the Registrant.Santander International Bank is an international banking entity incorporated under the laws of theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico and is a 100% owned subsidiary of Banco Santander Puerto Rico.Santander Financial Services, Inc. is a consumer finance company incorporated under the laws of theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico and is a 100% owned subsidiary of the Registrant.Island Insurance Corporation is a life insurance company licensed by the Puerto Rico Commissionerof Insurance, incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and is a 100% ownedsubsidiary of the Registrant. Island Insurance is currently not in operation.Santander Puerto Rico Capital Trust I is a statutory trust organized under the Statutory Trust Actof the state of Delaware. It was formed for the purpose of issuing trust redeemable preferredsecurities and is a 100% owned subsidiary of the Registrant.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides:

"The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the

legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-10216

Summary Calendar

JAMES HENRY HERRING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

KENNETH DOUGLAS, Judge

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(No. 3:95-CV-102-T)

(May 22, 1995)

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant James Henry Herring appeals the dismissal of his 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d) civil rights suit brought against Judge Ke nneth

Douglas, a Texas Court Judge. Appellant's claims stem from the

act ions of the state judge in conducting an extradition hearing.2

We AFFIRM.

Judic i al officers are entitled to absolute immunity from

d amages brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Except in the clear

absence of jurisdiction, "[a] judge will not be deprived of

immunity because the action he took was in error, was done

maliciously, or was in excess of his authority." S tump v.

Sparkman

, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). "[T]he scope of the judge's

jurisdiction must be construed broadly where the iss ue is the

immunity of the judge." Id. at 356.

A review of the Texas Code reveals that Judge Douglas did have

some subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. Ann. art. 51.13 § 10 (West 1978) provides that Texas state

court judges are vested with the authority to conduct extradition

hearings.

Her ring's allegations against Judge Douglas are based upon

Judge Douglas's actions in conducting an extradition hearing, which

is within the scope of his jurisdiction, thus affording him

absolute judicial immunity. Judge Douglas did not act in the clear

absence of all jurisdiction. S ee Stump

, 435 U.S. at 356-57.

Herring's claim is based upon an indisputably meritless legal

theory and was thus properly dismissed with prejudice. Graves v.

Hampton , 1 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court did

not abuse its discretion by dismissing Herring's complaint pursuant

to § 1915(d).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart 101-6.2 of Part 101-6

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 101-6 appear at 68 FR 51373, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 101-6.210-1 Periodic compliance reviews.

The responsible GSA official or his designee shall from time to time review the practices of recipients to determine whether they are complying with this regulation.
#### ROBINSON *v.*GRANDY, SKINNER, WALKER & CO.

*Pleading.*

In assumpsit on a promissory note the declaration alleged that on, &c., defendants *“ made*their promissory note,” and thereby promised to pay in a certain time “after date ” thereof. On demurrer thereto for that it was not alleged that the note had any date whereby it might appear that it had become due, it was held that it would be intended that the date of the note was the day on which the note was alleged to , have been made, and that the declaration was sufficient.

Assumpsit on two promissory notes. The first count alleged that on, &c., the defendants made their promissory note in writing . . . and thereby promised, for value received, to pay . . . $3,635.63, six months after the date thereof. The second count was like the first except as to the amount, names of parties, and time of payment, which was alleged to be in one year from date. Each count contained an allegation that the time of payment had elapsed.

The defendants demurred, for that although the notes were described as being severally payable in six months and one year from date, yet it was not alleged that they bore date at any time, *123or had any date, so that it did not appear that time for payment had ever elapsed.

The court, at the September Term, 1876, Powers, J., presiding, overruled the demurrer, and adjudged the declaration sufficient ; to which the defendants excepted.

*W. D.*Crane, for the defendants.

The declaration was insufficient for lack of an allegation-showing that the notes were due. As the notes were payable at a time certain after date, the dates should have been alleged. The declaration should be construed most strongly against the pleader.

*Theophilus*Grout, for the plaintiff.

The word *made*means that the notes were written, signed, dated, and delivered. 3 Vt. 82; 5 Vt. 500 ; 1 Chit. PI. 257 ; 6 M. *&*S. 75 ; 4 East, 477; Gould PI. 82.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Ross, J.

The only question arising on the exceptions is, whether an averment that the defendants *made*their promissory note on a specified day, and that the note was payable “ six months ” or “ one year ” after its date, without particularly specifying the date of the note, is good on demurrer. Says Mr. Chitty in his work on Pleadings, vol. 1, 258: “ So in an action on a bill or note, though it be payable at a particular time ‘ after date,’ it is not necessary to describe the instrument as ‘ bearing-date ’ on a given day ; it suffices to state that ‘ heretofore, to wit, on, &c.,’ it was made, &c.; and the court said they would intend that the date of the instrument was the day on which it was alleged to have been made ” ; citing 6 M. *&*S. 75. The authority is satisfactory, and in accordance with the ordinary and plain meaning of the language employed.

Judgment affirmed.-
Xact 640 Multi-Metals CEMS Estimated PURCHASE Cost a

Description Unit Cost Quantity Total Price

Purchase Cost $250,000 3 $750,000

Fixed Cost for Probe, Heater Controllers, Flow 

Measurement, etc $19,325 3 $57,975

Transport Line $469 60 $28,140

Filter Tape $40,560 3 $121,680

Site Visit for Instrument Placement $0 $0

Site Visit for Kickoff Meeting $0 $0

Installation and Training b

$26,855 3 $80,565

Shipping $7,000 3 $21,000

Quantitative Aerosol Generator (QAG) Testing $20,555 3 $61,665

Full Suite of standards (23 Analytes and interfering 

elements) $241 36 $8,676

Annual Maintenance (Includes tube) $7,412 3 $22,236

Annual Maintenance Labor (All maintenance 

including running standards for XRF recalibration) $7,990 3 $23,970

Remote Control Package $9,500 3 $28,500

$1,204,407

a. Quote is based on a quote dated 2/5/2014 and prepared by Cooper Environmental Services, LLC, for the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (SCAQMD). See email from Krag Petterson to David Ogulei, 3-26-14.

b. Site Requirements: Infrastructure as necessary including power, compressed air, appropriate sample port, crane and labor

to lift instrument into position, and labor for regular instrument operation (e.g. tape changes)

TOTAL
or the South Coast Air 

le port, crane and labor
Xact 640 Multi-Metals CEMS Estimated RENTAL Cost a

Description Unit Cost Quantity Total Price

Per month rental b, c $16,875 36 $607,500

Fixed Cost for Probe, Heater Controllers, Flow 

Measurement, etc $19,325 3 $57,975

Transport Line $469 60 $28,140

Filter Tape $40,560 3 $121,680

Site Visit for Instrument Placement $0 $0

Site Visit for Kickoff Meeting $0 $0

Installation and Training d

$26,855 3 $80,565

Shipping $7,000 3 $21,000

Quantitative Aerosol Generator (QAG) Testing $20,555 3 $61,665

Full Suite of standards (23 Analytes and interfering 

elements) $241 36 $8,676

Annual Maintenance (Includes tube) $7,412 3 $22,236

Annual Maintenance Labor (All maintenance including 

running standards for XRF recalibration) $7,990 3 $23,970

Remote Control Package $9,500 3 $28,500

$1,061,907

a. Quote is based on a quote dated 2/5/2014 and prepared by Cooper Environmental Services, LLC, for the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (SCAQMD). See email from Krag Petterson to David Ogulei dated 3-26-14.

b. Facility is responsible for day to day instrument operation

c. Rental is for operating time - rent is not charged during set up or during any maintenance events should they occur.

d. Site Requirements: Infrastructure as necessary including power, compressed air, appropriate sample port, crane and labor

to lift instrument into position, and labor for regular instrument operation (e.g. tape changes)

TOTAL
LLC, for the South Coast Air 

nts should they occur.

 sample port, crane and labor
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

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

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 27, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40433 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMES ALAN RAZSI, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-85-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Alan Razsi (Razsi), a federal inmate, appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for assaulting Elmer Sorrell (Sorrell), another inmate, with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3). Razsi asserts that the district court erred when it increased his base offense level by five levels under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(3)(B) after finding that Sorrell had sustained serious bodily injury.No. 05-40433 -2- Section 2A2.2(b)(3)(B) of the Sentencing Guidelines requires a five-level increase to a base offense level if the victim of the offense sustained serious bodily injury. “‘Serious bodily injury’ means injury involving extreme physical pain or the protracted impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or requiring medical intervention such as surgery, hospitalization, or physical rehabilitation.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(L) (2004); see U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 cmt. n.1 (2004). The record indicates that Sorrell was treated, hospitalized, and given pain medication for multiple lacerations, depressed fractures in his frontal sinus cavity, bleeding from his left ear, swelling of his right cheek, and other scratches and abrasions. As a result of his injuries and pain, Sorrell received medical treatment, was hospitalized, was on a liquid diet, was unable to retrieve his own pain medication, and was only able to take the pain medication after it was crushed. Because of these facts, the district court’s application of the five-level increase to Razsi’s base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(3)(B) because Sorrell did sustain serious bodily injury was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
§ 102-74.35 What building services must Executive agencies provide? Executive agencies, upon approval from GSA, must provide— ( a ) Building services such as custodial, solid waste management (including recycling), heating and cooling, landscaping and grounds maintenance, tenant alterations, minor repairs, building maintenance, integrated pest management, signage, parking, and snow removal, at appropriate levels to support Federal agency missions; and
( b ) Arrangements for raising and lowering the United States flags at appropriate times. In addition, agencies must display P.O.W. and M.I.A. flags at locations specified in 36 U.S.C. 902 on P.O.W./M.I.A. flag display days.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         427,005
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,186,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                    82,165
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,823,518
<PP&E>                                       4,453,114
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,140,816
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,160,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,713,160
<BONDS>                                         45,880
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,035,294
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,366,548
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,160,882
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,872,075
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,990,839
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,405,919
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                20,088
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,953
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (459,037)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (135,403)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (323,634)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (51,389)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (375,023)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
#### § 101-39.307 Grounds for withdrawal of vehicle.

GSA may withdraw the issued vehicle from further use by the agency or its contractor if it is determined that the using agency has not complied with the provisions of subpart 101-39.3, that the vehicle has not been maintained in accordance with GSA IFMS maintenance standards, that the vehicle has been used improperly, or that the using agency has not reimbursed GSA for vehicle services. Improper use includes, but is not limited to, credit card abuse and misuse, continued violation of traffic ordinances, at-fault accidents, reckless driving, driving while intoxicated, use for other than official purposes, and incidental use when not authorized by the using agency.

[56 FR 59891, Nov. 26, 1991]
### Hydrology of the Mississippi River valley alluvial aquifer, south-central United States

By: D. J. Ackerman

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1416D

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Hydrology of the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer, South-Central United States(1990)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 102-3.160 What activities of an advisory committee are not subject to the notice and open meeting requirements of the Act? The following activities of an advisory committee are excluded from the procedural requirements contained in this subpart: ( a ) *Preparatory work.* Meetings of two or more advisory committee or subcommittee members convened solely to gather information, conduct research, or analyze relevant issues and facts in preparation for deliberation by advisory committee members in a public meeting of the advisory committee, or deliberation by subcommittee members in a public meeting of the subcommittee (where applicable). These meetings to conduct preparatory work do not include deliberation among advisory committee or subcommittee members; and
( b ) *Administrative work.* Meetings of two or more advisory committee or subcommittee members convened solely to discuss administrative matters of the advisory committee or subcommittee (such as meeting logistics) or to receive administrative information from a Federal officer or agency (such as a briefing on ethics or FACA procedural requirements).
#### § 102-118.585 May a TSP appeal a prepayment audit decision of the CBCA?

No, a ruling by the CBCA is the final administrative remedy available and the TSP has no statutory right of appeal. This subpart governs administrative actions only and does not affect any of the TSP's rights. A TSP may still pursue a legal remedy through the courts.

[65 FR 24569, Apr. 26, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 30476, June 26, 2009]
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

Plaintiff, COLLECTIVE ACTION 

vs.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC,

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

RJ RIVER, LLC AND 

ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF FILING CONSENT TO JOIN 

(Anthony Mejia, Duygu Koctuerk and Julian Garzon) 

 

Plaintiff, Octavio Collado, notices the Court and all parties of the filing of the Consent to 

Join in these proceedings by Anthony Mejia, Duygu Koctuerk and Julian Garzon.

Dated this 23rd day of August 2023. 

s/Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Brian H. Pollock, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 174742

brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff(s)

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2023 Page 1 of 1
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

James Friend, Appellant

No. 06-15-00099-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 102nd District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

14F0439-102). Opinion delivered by 

Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, James Friend, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 2, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk