alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMERICAN INDEMNITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION      EXHIBIT 11
                           AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                   
                COMPUTATION OF FULLY DILUTED NET INCOME
                PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE



                              THREE MONTHS    THREE MONTHS
                                 ENDED           ENDED
                               03-31-97        03-31-96
                              ===========     ===========
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE

 Weighted average shares of
 common stock outstanding      1,959,785       1,947,110
                                          
 Stock options (treasury                   
 stock method) (1)                 1,562           6,247
                              ___________     ___________
 Weighted average shares                   
 out- standing for primary
 earnings per share            1,961,347       1,953,357
 computation                  ===========     ===========


   Net income (loss)               $(.13)           $.55
                              ===========     ===========

FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER
SHARE

 Weighted average shares of
 common stockoutstanding       1,959,785       1,947,110

 Stock options (treasury
 stock method) (1)                 1,809           6,247
                              ___________     ___________
 Weighted average shares
 outstanding for fully
 diluted computation           1,961,594       1,953,357
                              ===========     ===========

   Net income (loss)               $(.13)           $.55
                              ===========     ===========


(1)This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K
   item 601(b)(11) although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph
   14 of APB Opinion No. 15 because it results in dilution of less
   than 3%.
#### § 301-11.32 May I be reimbursed for an advance room deposit in situations where a lodging facility requires the payment of a deposit, prior to the beginning of my scheduled official travel?

Yes, your agency may reimburse you for an advance room deposit, when such a deposit is required by the lodging facility to secure a room reservation, prior to the beginning of your scheduled official travel. However, if you are reimbursed the advance room deposit, but fail to perform the scheduled official travel for reasons not acceptable to your agency, resulting in forfeit of the deposit, you are indebted to the Government for that amount and must repay it in a manner prescribed by your agency.

[FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57965, Sept. 13, 2002]
§ 105-68.435 What must I require of a primary tier participant? You as an agency official must require each participant in a primary tier covered transaction to— ( a ) Comply with subpart C of this part as a condition of participation in the transaction; and
( b ) Communicate the requirement to comply with Subpart C of this part to persons at the next lower tier with whom the primary tier participant enters into covered transactions.
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                      |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- | -
|                                      |  | State or OtherJurisdiction 
ofIncorporation |  | PercentageOwnership |  
|Parent                                |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|Patapsco Bancorp, Inc.                |  | Maryland                                    |  |                    |  
|                                      |  |                                            
|Subsidiary (1)                        |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|The Patapsco Bank                     |  | Maryland                                    |  | 100                 | %
|                                      |  |                                            
|Subsidiaries of The Patapsco Bank (1) |  |                                             |  |                     |  
|PFSL Holding Corp.                    |  | Maryland                                    |  | 100                 | %
|Prime Business Leasing                |  | Maryland                                    |  | 100                 | %
|Patapsco Financial Services, Inc.     |  | Maryland                                    |  | 100                 | %



|(1) | The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in the consolidated financial statements appearing in Item 8 to this Annual Report on Form
10-K.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### § 102-82.25 How do we request a deviation from the provisions of this part?

Refer to §§ 102-2.60 through 102-2.110 of this chapter for information on how to obtain a deviation from this part.
#### § 301-31.7 May my family and I occupy lodging at different locations?

Yes, if authorized by your agency.
UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-14061-CR-CANNON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTOS LEONARDO RAMOS-PEREZ,

Defendant.

/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation entered by 

Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard Following Change of Plea Hearing [ECF No. 18]. On 

November 4, 2022, Magistrate Judge Maynard held a Change of Plea hearing [ECF No. 15] during 

which Defendant pled guilty to the sole count of the Indictment [ECF No. 7]. The Government 

submitted a factual proffer, and Defendant agreed that the Government’s proffer was true and 

correct. Magistrate Judge Maynard thereafter issued a Report recommending that the Court accept 

Defendant’s guilty plea to the sole count in the Indictment, that the Court find Defendant to have 

freely and voluntarily entered his guilty plea, and that the Court adjudicate him guilty of the sole 

count in the Indictment [ECF No. 7]. No party has filed objections to the Report, and the time to 

do so has expired. 

The Court has conducted a review of the record and finds no error in the Report. Therefore, 

it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 18] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. The guilty plea entered into by Defendant Santos Leonardo Ramos-Perez as to the sole 

Case 2:22-cr-14061-AMC Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 22-14061-CR-CANNON

count of the Indictment is ACCEPTED.

3. Defendant Santos Leonardo Ramos-Perez is adjudicated guilty of the sole count of the

Indictment, which charges him with violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) [ECF No. 7]. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 21st day of November

2022.

________________________________

AILEEN M. CANNON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 2:22-cr-14061-AMC Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2022 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16081]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

[Docket No. HCFA-10005]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Health Care Financing Administration, HHS.
    In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing 
Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is 
publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public 
comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this 
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 
including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility 
of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of 
the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology to minimize the information 
collection burden.
    Type of Information Request: New collection: Title of Information 
Collection: Ticket to work and Work Incentives: Medicaid Infrastructure 
Grants; HCFA Form Number: HCFA-1005 (OMB approval #: 0938-NEW); Use: 
Section 203 of the ticket to work and Work Incentives Act of 1999 
provides for the establishment of a grants program for states that 
build infrastructures designed to support people with disabilities. 
State agencies will be applying for these grants; Frequency: Annually; 
Affected Public: State, local or tribal govt.; Number of Respondents: 
56; Total Annual Responses: 56; Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,600.
    To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms 
for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's 
Web Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail 
your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and 
HCFA document identifier, to [email protected], or call the Reports 
Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and 
recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed 
within 60 days of this notice directly to the HCFA Paperwork Clearance 
Officer designated at the following address; HCFA, Office of 
Information Services, Security and Standards Group, Division of NCFA 
Enterprise Standards, Attention: Julie Brown, Room N2-14-26, 7500 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    Dated: June 15, 2000.
John P. Burke III,
Reports Clearance Officer, Security and Standards Group, Division of 
HCFA Enterprise Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-16081 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-03-P
```
§ 102-40.225 How do we handle precious metals? ( a ) You must identify activities in your organization that generate precious metals; recover precious metals created from work processes, such as photographic film developing, and identify equipment or materials containing recoverable precious metals; and adequately control precious metals in your custody. Federal civil agencies may participate in the DOD Precious Metal Recovery Program (PMRP) in accordance with this subpart, and have an Inter-Agency Service Agreement (ISA) in effect between the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and individual Federal civil agencies. You may acquire recovered fine precious metals as Government Furnished Material or for other authorized uses by submitting a request to the Commander, Defense Supply Center, Philadelphia (DSCP), 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111-5096.
( b ) Precious metals will be sold in accordance with this subpart and part 102-38 of this subchapter.
( c ) Sales of precious metals will be processed as follows: ( 1 ) Require a bid deposit appropriate to the circumstances of the sale;
( 2 ) Certify all forms of bid deposit and payments; and
( 3 ) Include in the invitation for bids only precious and semiprecious materials as may be available for sale at that time.
( d ) Each agency generating scrap precious metals and also having a continuing need for fine precious metals may arrange for the acceptance of scrap precious metals for fine precious metals with a private contractor or the DLA.
No. 10-1361.

#### Ray *v.*City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Barbara Alexis, and others, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

Nomi Health, Inc., and Medx 

Staffing, Inc., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 22-23938-Civ-Scola

Order Granting Motion to Stay

This matter is before the Court upon the motion to stay discovery and 

pretrial deadlines pending resolution of the motion to compel arbitration or, in 

the alternative, to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by the Defendants, 

Nomi Health, Inc. (“Nomi”) and Medx Staffing, Inc. (“Medx,” and collectively, the 

“Defendants”). (Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 16.) The Plaintiffs have responded that they 

do not object to the imposition of a stay resolving the Defendants’ motion to 

compel arbitration. (Resp., ECF No. 20.) The Defendants have timely replied. (ECF 

No. 23.) The Court, having reviewed the record, the briefing, and the relevant legal 

authorities, grants the motion. (ECF No. 16.)

District courts are given “broad discretion over the management of pre-trial 

activities, including discovery and scheduling.” Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. 

of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001). And district courts have “broad 

authority to grant a stay.” In re Application of Alves Braga, 789 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 

1307 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (Goodman, Mag. J.) Courts consider the relative prejudice 

and hardship “worked on each party if a stay is or is not granted,” and general 

efficiency. Fitzer v. Am. Institute of Baking, Inc., No. 209-cv-169, 2010 WL 

1955974 (S.D. Ga. May 13, 2010). Moreover, so long as a stay is neither 

“immoderate” nor indefinite, a stay is appropriate in the interest of judicial 

convenience. Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Communications, Inc., 221 F.3d 1262 

(11th Cir. 2000) (provided that a stay will expire within reasonable limits, if it is 

not immoderate).

Here, the Plaintiffs do not object to the stay. (Resp. at 1.) The requested 

stay would be neither immoderate nor indefinite, as it will last only until the 

Court resolves the Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration or to dismiss. (Mot. 

to Stay at 7.) Therefore, the Count finds the stay would be appropriate in these 

circumstances. 

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to stay. (ECF No. 16.) All 

discovery and pretrial deadlines are stayed until the resolution of the Defendants’

pending motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure 

to state a claim. (ECF No. 15.) 

Case 1:22-cv-23938-RNS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2023 Page 1 of 2
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on January 13, 2023.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-23938-RNS Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2023 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Emtec, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending May 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory P. Chandler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Gregory P. ChandlerChief Financial OfficerJuly 15, 2010
Black-Preferred Candidate Performance in Previous RPV Elections

Supplemental Information on Plaintiffs’ Maps 1 and 2 from Dr. Bryant Moy

June 9, 2023 

Dr Moy analyzed the performance of the Black-preferred candidate in six recent contests from 

2022 (Senate, Governor, County Judge Group 5, Chief Financial Officer, Commissioner of 

Agriculture, and Attorney General), within the boundaries of the current District 5 and the 

Plaintiffs’ two proposed maps. 

Next, he re-analyzed five contests from 2020 where he previously showed evidence of racial 

polarization, in his initial report. 

Black-Preferred Candidate Performance in 2022 Elections 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 172-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton 

VIRGINIA LINEN SERVICE AND 

 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 

v. Record No. 2866-05-2 PER CURIAM 

 MARCH 28, 2006 

JOHN W. WISE, JR. (DECEASED), 

 SHANNON WISE, MAKAYLA ELIZABETH WISE, 

 JESSICA DIANNE WISE, JOHN MICHAEL WISE 

 AND MILTON E. WISE 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Roger T. Williams; John T. Cornett, Jr.; Williams & Lynch, on 

brief), for appellants. 

 (B. Mayes Marks, Jr.; Marks and Associates, P.C., on brief), for 

appellees John W. Wise (Deceased), Shannon Wise, Makayla 

Elizabeth Wise and Jessica Dianne Wise. 

 

 (Steven M. Oser, on brief), for appellees John Michael Wise and 

Milton E. Wise. 

 Virginia Linen Service and its insurer appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission finding that Shannon Wise, Makayla Elizabeth Wise, Jessica Dianne Wise, John 

Michael Wise, and Milton E. Wise, the beneficiaries of John W. Wise, Jr. (deceased), were not 

precluded pursuant to Code § 65.2-306 from recovering benefits under the Workers’ 

Compensation Act based upon the deceased’s alleged willful misconduct in failing to use a 

safety harness and the “buddy system.” We have reviewed the record and the commission’s 

opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the commission in its final opinion. See Virginia Linen Service v. John W. Wise, Jr. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 -

(Deceased), et al., VWC File No. 208-22-13 (Nov. 16, 2005). We dispense with oral argument 

and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.
§ 101-4.310 Recruitment. ( a ) *Nondiscriminatory recruitment.* A recipient to which §§ 101-4.300 through 101-4.310 apply shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in the recruitment and admission of students. A recipient may be required to undertake additional recruitment efforts for one sex as remedial action pursuant to § 101-4.110(a), and may choose to undertake such efforts as affirmative action pursuant to § 101-4.110(b).
( b ) *Recruitment at certain institutions.* A recipient to which §§ 101-4.300 through 101-4.310 apply shall not recruit primarily or exclusively at educational institutions, schools, or entities that admit as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if such actions have the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of §§ 101-4.300 through 101-4.310.
ATTACHMENT A



### PROPOSED 2 nd 

### 15-DAY MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSED REGULATION ORDER FOR THE CALIFORNIA ZERO EMISSION VECHICLE REGULATIONS

Amend, adopt or repeal the following sections of ti tle 13, California Code of Regulations, to read as set forth in the following pages: 

### Amend:

Section 1962 Zero-Emission Vehicle Standards for 20 05 through 2008 Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles Test Procedure : 2005 through 2008 Model Years California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2005 through 2008 Model Zero-Emission Vehicles, and 2001 and Subsequent Model Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the Passenger Ca r, Light-Duty Truck and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes 

### Adopt:

Section 1962.1 Zero-Emission Vehicle Standards for 2009 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles Test Procedure: 2009 and Subsequent Model Years California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2009 and Subsequent Model Zero-Emission Vehicles, and 2001 and Subsequent Model Hybrid Electric Vehicles, in the Passenger Ca r, Light-Duty Truck and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes

Note: The proposed amendments to section 1962 and i ncorporated 2005-2008 modelyear test procedure, presented to the Board on Marc h 27, 2008, are shown in single underline to indicate additions and single s trikeout to indicate deletions. At the March 27 meeting, the Board directed staff to m ake modifications to the proposed amendments. The modifications as released in the First Notice of modifications to the amendments are shown in double underline to indicate additions and double strikeout to indicate deletions. Modifications for this Second Notice of modifications to the amendments ar e shown in bold double underline to indicate additions and bold double strikeout to indicate deletions.

The proposed new section 1962.1 and incorporated 2 009 and subsequent model-year test procedure, presented to the Board o n March 27, 2008, are shown without underline as permitted by California Code of Regulations, title 1, section 8. Modifications as released in the First Notice of modifications to the amendments are shown in single underline to indicate additions and single strikeout to indicate deletions. Modifications for this Sec ond Notice of modifications to the amendments are shown in double underline to indicate additions and double strikeout to indicate deletions.
EXHIBIT 32











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMREP Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  March 10, 2010





/s/ Peter M. Pizza


Peter M. Pizza*


Vice President and


Chief Financial Officer





/s/ James Wall


James Wall*





/s/ Michael P. Duloc


Michael P. Duloc*











___________________


*The Registrant is a holding company which does substantially all of its business through two indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries (and their subsidiaries).  Those indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries are AMREP Southwest Inc. (“ASW”) and Kable Media Services, Inc. (“Kable”).  James Wall is the principal executive officer of ASW, and Michael P. Duloc is the principal executive officer of Kable.  The Registrant has no chief executive officer.  Its executive officers include James Wall, Senior Vice President and Peter M. Pizza, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Michael P. Duloc, who may be deemed an executive officer by reason of his position with Kable.
#### § 109-1.106 Applicability of FPMR/FMR.
No. 10-10732.

#### Ennis *v.*Neven, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Emtec, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen
C. Donnelly, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
     Company.

                                                /s/ Stephen C. Donnelly
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                January 22, 2007