alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMERICAN GENERAL CORPORATION
               FORM 10-Q
For the Quarter Ended March 31, 1997




                                                                   Exhibit 11 


                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                    (Unaudited)
                        (In millions, except share data)

                                                       Three Months Ended
                                                            March 31,        
                                                       1997          1996    
Primary:

   Net income available to common stock .......           $ 182         $ 169 

   Average shares outstanding
     Common stock .............................     201,414,263   205,083,849 
     Assumed conversion of convertible
       preferred stock ........................       1,915,349       652,481 
     Assumed exercise of stock options ........         832,698       635,510 

       Total ..................................     204,162,310   206,371,840 

   Net income per share .......................           $ .89         $ .82 


Fully Diluted:

   Net income .................................           $ 182         $ 169 
   Plus:  Net dividends on convertible 
    preferred securities of subsidiary ........               3             3 

       Net income available to common stock ...           $ 185         $ 172 


   Average shares outstanding
     Common stock .............................     201,414,263   205,083,849 
     Assumed conversion of convertible 
      preferred securities of subsidiary ......       6,144,016     6,144,016 
     Assumed conversion of convertible 
       preferred stock ........................       2,317,701       789,546 
     Assumed exercise of stock options ........         832,698       635,510 

       Total ..................................     210,708,678   212,652,921 

   Net income per share .......................           $ .88         $ .81 
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
§ 102-76.75 What costs are included in the costs of alterations to provide an accessible path of travel to an altered area containing a primary function for facilities subject to the standards in § 102-76.65(a)? For facilities subject to the standards in § 102-76.65(a), the costs of alterations to provide an accessible path of travel to an altered area containing a primary function include the costs associated with— ( a ) Providing an accessible route to connect the altered area and site arrival points, including but not limited to interior and exterior ramps, elevators and lifts, and curb ramps;
( b ) Making entrances serving the altered area accessible, including but not limited to widening doorways and installing accessible hardware;
( c ) Making restrooms serving the altered area accessible, including, but not limited to, enlarging toilet stalls, installing grab bars and accessible faucet controls, and insulating pipes under lavatories;
( d ) Making public telephones serving the altered area accessible, including, but not limited to, placing telephones at an accessible height, and installing amplification devices and TTYs;
( e ) Making drinking fountains serving the altered area accessible; and
( f ) Making parking spaces serving the altered area accessible.
#### Rebecca Lasky, Respondent, v George B. Lasky, Appellant.

[628 NYS2d 532]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 1, 1986, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered March 14, 1994, as granted the plaintiff wife temporary maintenance pending determination of her application to modify the judgment of divorce to provide for permanent maintenance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court *367properly granted the plaintiffs motion to the limited extent of awarding her temporary maintenance in the amount of $1,500 per month and setting the matter down for a hearing. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60926 Summary Calendar

NGOY DESIRE BANZE; SARAH KABUTU; KABULO OLOVIER BANZE,

Petitioners,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A29-916-157 BIA No. A29-916-158 BIA No. A29-916-159

-------------------- December 13, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ngoy Desire Banze, Sarah Kabutu , and Kabulo Olovier Banze,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal s (BIA)

denial of an asylum and withholding of deportatation application.

As the application was filed prior to the effectiv e date of the

1996 amendments to the Immigration and Nation ality Act, the preamendment law governs.No. 99-60926 -2-

The Attorney General may grant an asylum request to an alien

who demonstra tes past “persecution or a well-founded fear of

persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership

in a particular social group, or political opinion . . . .”

8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1101 (a)(42)(A). As the BIA conducted a d e

novo review, we review only the decision of the BIA. S ee CarbajalGonzalez v. INS
, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The BIA’s

deportation order will be sustained if “‘supported by reasonable,

substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a

whole’”. I NS v. Elias-Zacarias

, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (quoting

8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4)). Under this standard, the evidence must

not merely support the asylum claim; it must “compel[] it”. Id. at

481 n.1.

The evidence does not compel the conclusion that Banze was

persecuted in the past for political opinion or that he has a wellfounded fear of future persecution. The BIA’s determination that

Banze’s testimony was not su fficiently detailed with respect to

Banze’s activities in the Union for Democracy and Social Progress

(UDPS), or with respect to his second arrest is not an unreasonable

view of the record. See Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir.

1994). Although Banze may have been arrested, and although UDPS

members have been targeted and harassed by forces aligned with the

Zairean government, Banze has not demonstrated that his arrests

were actually motivated by his UDPS membership or that he has a

reasonable fear of persecution upon returning to Zaire. As Banze

h a s not met the burden for asylum, he cannot meet the more

stringent burden for withholding of deportation. S ee Adebisi v.No. 99-60926 -3-

INS
, 952 F. 2d 910, 914 (5th Cir. 1992). We DENY the petition for

review.

DENIED.
§ 102-192.115 Why must we use performance measures? Performance measures gauge the success of your mail management plans and processes by comparing performance over time and among organizations. Performance measures— ( a ) Define goals and objectives;
( b ) Enhance resource allocation; and
( c ) Provide accountability.
#### § 105-72.200 Purpose.

Sections 105-72.201 through 105-72.207 prescribes forms and instructions and other pre-award matters to be used in applying for Federal awards.
597 P.2d 1076

#### Dean A. SCHWARTZMILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The STATE of Idaho, BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLE, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 12755.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

July 24, 1979.

Dean A. Schwartzmiller, pro se.

Wayne L. Kidwell, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Atty. Gen., P. Mark Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for defendant-respondent.

Before SHEPARD, C. J., DONALDSON, BAKES and BISTLINE, JJ., and SCOGGIN, J., Pro Tem.

PER CURIAM:

Following a 1976 conviction on a criminal charge, appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate term not to exceed 8 years. He appealed that judgment of conviction to this Court. In May, 1977, appellant petitioned the district court to establish his present eligibility for parole. His petition was dismissed and he has appealed that dismissal to this Court.

His conviction was reversed by an opinion announced March 10, 1978. *Schwartzmiller v. Winters,*99 Idaho 18, 19, 576 P.2d 1052, 1053 (1978). We noted in that opinion that even though appellant was scheduled for parole release, that:

> *387“Since parole may be revoked, I.C. § 20-229, and creates at best a ‘conditional liberty’ interest, . and because of the collateral consequences of a felony conviction, e. g., Idaho Const., art. 6, § 3; I.C. § 32-603(6), the fact that appellant may have been released on parole before this opinion issued does not moot the case.” (Citations omitted)

99 Idaho at 19, 576 P.2d at 1053. The supplemental record now establishes that appellant was granted a parole release on or about February 8, 1978; subsequent to the reversal of the judgment of his conviction appellant was released from parole supervision, with the Commission no longer claiming any jurisdiction over him, and appellant has not been re-committed to the Idaho Department of Corrections.

The issue sought to be raised by the appeal is moot, for which reason the appeal is dismissed.
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

EXHIBIT

“A”

EXHIBIT “A”

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 5 of 7
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

EXHIBIT 

“1” 

EXHIBIT “1” 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 7 of 7
#### § 102-40.130 What categories of personal property require special handling?

Many categories of personal property have special handling requirements in compliance with applicable Federal, state, and local regulations and ordinances for their handling, transportation, storage, disposal and use. See appendix A to this part for a listing of Federal Supply Classifications (FSCs) containing predominately hazardous items and appendix B to this part for a listing of FSCs containing a significant number of hazardous items. See §§ 102-40.130 through 102-40.235 for special handling instructions for some categories of property for which Federal property managers are likely to have responsibility.
Case 1:88-cr-00825-RNS Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:88-cr-00825-RNS Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:88-cr-00825-RNS Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 3 of 3
#### § 109-40.306-1 Recommended rate tender format.

Only those rate tenders which have been submitted by the carriers in writing shall be considered for use. Carriers should be encouraged to use the format “Uniform Tender of Rates and/or Charges for Transportation Services” when preparing and submitting rate tenders to the Government. Rate tenders that are ambiguous in meaning shall be resolved in favor of the Government.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
       
<S>                                       <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-2-1998
<CASH>                                          22348
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26713
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                    499911
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               564041
<PP&E>                                         141887
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 670538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          411304
<BONDS>                                         29823
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          227
<OTHER-SE>                                     172148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   670538
<SALES>                                        499048
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               505234
<CGS>                                          360614
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  360614
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               145910
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3344)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1226)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2118)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2118)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                        AAVID THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                      Computation of Net Income Per Share
            (Amounts in thousands, except share and per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Year Ended December 31,
                                                            1996           1995            1994
                                                            ----           ----            ----
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>             <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding                      6,251,385       527,301          527,301

Convertible preferred series A shares                           --            --        2,684,699

Convertible preferred series B shares                           --            --          275,000

Cheap stock                                                     --       197,144          197,144

Net effect of the assumed exercise of stock options
and warrants--based on the treasury method                      --            --          852,026
                                                         ---------       -------       ----------

Total                                                    6,251,385       724,445        4,536,170
                                                         ---------       -------       ----------
Net income before extraordinary item                      $    141      $   (715)      $    2,835

Extraordinary item                                            (171)           --               --
                                                         ---------      --------       ----------

Net income                                                     (30)         (715)           2,835

Accretion to redemption value of warrant                        --          (775)            (331)
                                                         ---------      --------       ----------

Net income available to common stockholders              $     (30)     $ (1,490)      $    2,504
                                                         ---------      --------       ----------

Net income per share before extraordinary item           $    0.02      $  (0.99)      $     0.62

Extraordinary item per share                                 (0.03)           --               --
                                                         ---------      --------       ----------

Net income per share                                         (0.01)        (0.99)            0.62

Accretion to redemption value of warrant                        --         (1.07)           (0.07)
                                                         ---------      --------       ----------

Net income per share available to common stockholders    $   (0.01)     $  (2.06)      $     0.55
                                                         ---------      --------       ----------

</TABLE>



                                      -70-
### 1



# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17

- 1556V
Filed: April 7, 2021

* * * * * * * * * * * * * ROBIN COOLEY, * UNPUBLISHED

* Petitioner, * Decision on Joint Stipulation;

* Shoulder Injury Related to

v. * Vaccine Administration

* (“SIRVA”); Influenza (“Flu”)

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccine. AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mari Bush Esq.

, Mari C. Bush LLC

, Boulder

, CO

, for petitioner.

Adriana Teitel

, Esq

. , US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1

Roth

, Special Master:

On October 18, 2017

, Robin Cooley [ “ Ms. Cooley” or “petitioner”] filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

. 2 Petitioner allege s that
she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving an influenz a (“flu”) vaccine on December 13, 2016

. Stipulation

, filed April 7, 2021 , at ¶¶ 1

- 4. Respondent denies that t

he immunization caused petitioner ’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the

Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is

a trade se cret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the who le Decision will be available to the public. Id

.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Sta t. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).

### 2

Nevertheless, the parties h ave agreed to settle the case. On April 7, 2021 , the p arties filed a joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

Respondent agrees to issue the fol lowing payment :

A lump sum of $ 27, 500 .00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Robin Cooley

. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would b e av ailable under § 300aa

- 15(a).

I adopt the parties’ stipula tion attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and
on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance
with this decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth Mindy Michaels Roth Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
#### § 105-8.170 Compliance procedures.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-81881-CIV-SINGHAL

DANIEL LUGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZERBY HOTEL, LLC,

Defendant.

/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal with 

Prejudice (DE [15]). The Court having considered the Stipulation along with the docket

and being otherwise advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

with each side to bear its own fees and costs unless as otherwise agreed. The Clerk of

Court is directed to CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any pending motions.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 20th day of 

March 2023.

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF

Case 9:22-cv-81881-AHS Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/20/2023 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,499
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,629
<PP&E>                                         114,322
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,810,341
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,044,736
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     98,497
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               724,479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              76,225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (800,704)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (801,504)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (801,504)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.19)


</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate c ase name: Joel D. Mallory v. J. P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , as successor by

merger to Chase Home Finance, L.L.C.

, and Codilis & Stawiarski,

P.C.

Appel late case number: 01

- 12

- 00707

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 10

- 64487

Trial court: 151st District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: June 18, 2013

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that “Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Dismissal” is

denied

.

Justice’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle

Date: July 11, 2013