alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 11.1**

 

**DUKEREALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIPEARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES CALCULATION(in thousands)**

 
|                                                                      |   | **DECEMBER 31,  2002** |       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------|------------|
|                                                                      |   |                   |       |
| Net income from continuing  operations less dividends on preferred equity |   | $                      | 173,814    |   |
| Dividends on preferred units                                              |   | 52,613                 |       |
| Loss on land and depreciated  property sales                              |   | 410                    |       |
| Interest expense                                                          |   | 117,073                |       |
| Earnings before fixed charges                                             |   | $                      | 343,910    |   |
|                                                                      |   |                   |       |
| Interest expense                                                          |   | $                      | 117,073    |   |
| Dividends on preferred units                                              |   | 52,613                 |       |
| Interest costs capitalized                                                |   | 13,529                 |       |
| Total fixed charges                                                       |   | $                      | 183,215    |   |
|                                                                      |   |                   |       |
| **Earnings to fixed charge ratio**                                        |   | **1.88**               | ** ** |

 

----
No. 11-9457.

#### Dalzell *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 10.10
 [LETTERHEAD OF IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC.]
  
          √
    
    Kaiser or Health Net Healthcare, Guardian Dental, and VSP Vision (coverage effective
October 1, 2004).√
    
    401(k) (participation begins the first quarter following three (3) months of
continuous service).√
    
    Short- and Long-Term Disability Insurance, Life, and Accidental Death &
Dismemberment, after 90 days with the company.




---



##### 



√
    
    128 Hours of Personal Time Off, and 10 Holidays designated yearly.√
    
    Eligibility to participate in the Employee Stock Purchase Plan after one year of
service at a 15% discount.√
    
    Executive Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan
   510-429-2146
   
 Cc:
    
    Larry Hsu, PresidentNai Chang, Controller
 /s/
Charles V. Hildenbrand
    

Start Date: August
31, 2004Signature
*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
IN RE AVA W.—CONCURRENCE

MULLINS, J., concurring. I agree with the result. In

the present case, it was the child who originally sought

posttermination visitation. The child consistently requested

posttermination visitation throughout the termination

proceeding and joins the respondent’s appeal, asserting

that the trial court has authority to consider that request

for posttermination visitation. For that reason, I agree

with the majority that the court in the present case

had the authority to consider posttermination visitation

orders under General Statutes § 46b-121 (b) (1).

Accordingly, I concur in the majority opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5   
<LEGEND>      

         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. for the three
months ended March 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>            0000893657
<NAME>           TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000,000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            107
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,250
<ALLOWANCES>                                      410
<INVENTORY>                                     3,511
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,338
<PP&E>                                         10,987
<DEPRECIATION>                                  4,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 22,012
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,761
<BONDS>                                         7,108
<COMMON>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           1,140
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                      6,128
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   22,012
<SALES>                                         2,910
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,910
<CGS>                                           1,946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   123
<INCOME-TAX>                                       15
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               108
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      108
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        




</TABLE>
#### § 302-3.309 Where should my travel and transportation begin?

Your travel and shipment of your HHG should begin from your last official station.
H. R. 705

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To make technical corrections with respect to the monthly reports submitted by

the Postmaster General on official mail of the House of Representatives.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS REGARDING REPORTS BY

POSTMASTER GENERAL ON OFFICIAL MAIL OF HOUSE

OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 311(b)(2) of the Legislative Branch

Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 59e(b)(2)) is amended by striking

‘‘any person with an allocation under subsection (a)(2)’’ and inserting

the following: ‘‘any person with an allocation under subsection

(a)(2)(A) as to the amount that has been used and any person

with an allocation under subsection (a)(2)(B)’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a)

shall apply with respect to January 1999 and each succeeding

month.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### § 109-38.204 Exemptions.
No. 11-8683.

#### Mize *v.*Woosley et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15703]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3264]


State of Florida

    Broward County and the contiguous counties of Collier, Dade, 
Hendry, and Palm Beach in the State of Florida constitute a disaster 
area due to damages caused by heavy rains that occurred on May 12, 
2000. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this 
disaster may be filed until the close of business on August 14, 2000 
and for economic injury until the close of business on March 13, 2001 
at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. 
Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore 
Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308.
    The interest rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   In
                                                                 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For physical damage:
    Homeowners with credit available elsewhere................     7.375
    Homeowners without credit available elsewhere.............     3.687
    Businesses with credit available elsewhere................     8.000
    Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit         4.000
     available elsewhere......................................
    Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit        6.750
     available elsewhere......................................
For economic injury:
    Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without         4.000
     credit available elsewhere...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The numbers assigned to this disaster are 326406 for physical 
damage and 9H5400 for economic injury.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008).

    Dated: June 13, 2000.
Kris Swedin,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-15703 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# Comments on: 23-1249: DALI WIRELESS INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS LLC [ORDER], Nonprecedential
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING,
INC. FOR THE TREEE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             752
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,640
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,590
<PP&E>                                           5,004
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,111
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,261
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,360
<SALES>                                         14,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,316
<CGS>                                            9,871
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,970
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (37)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    309
<INCOME-TAX>                                       117
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                192
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       192
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
No. 10-11009.

#### Murphy *v.*Grenier et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
* 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 May 2, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50677 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MIGUEL SERRANO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-868-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Miguel SerranoMartinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67343-67344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26954]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2013-OS-0170]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, 
the following proposal for collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 
12, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: DefenseReady; OMB Control 
Number 0704-TBD.
    Type of Request: New.
    Number of Respondents: 150.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.

[[Page 67344]]

    Annual Responses: 150.
    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 38.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
to obtain, track and record the personnel security data, training 
information and travel history within White House Military Office 
(WHMO) and White House Communications Agency (WHCA).
    Affected Public: DoD Contractors, retired military members, and 
agency visitors.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of 
Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD Information Management 
Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, 
VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: November 6, 2013.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2013-26954 Filed 11-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
§ 105-74.500 How are violations of this part determined for recipients other than individuals? A recipient other than an individual is in violation of the requirements of this part if the Administrator of General Services determines, in writing, that— ( a ) The recipient has violated the requirements of subpart B of this part; or
( b ) The number of convictions of the recipient's employees for violating criminal drug statutes in the workplace is large enough to indicate that the recipient has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug-free workplace.
How to Prepare an AmeriCorps VISTA Project Application
No. 11-9313.

#### Dame *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MARCH 20, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-12376 

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 3:07-cv-01098-WKW-TFM

ROBERT C. KELLER, 

individually and as representative of all

other persons similarly situated,

FRANK RUSSO, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

MACON COUNTY GREYHOUND PARK, INC., 

d.b.a. Victoryland, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee, 

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Alabama

 ________________________

(March 20, 2012)
Before BARKETT, HULL, Circuit Judges, and Hinkle, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff class representative Robert C. Keller and plaintiff Frank Russo

1

(the “plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the

defendant Macon County Greyhound Park (“MCGP”) on the plaintiffs’ claim that

MCGP willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act

(“FACTA”). FACTA prohibits merchants from printing more than the last five

digits of a customer’s credit or debit card number on a customer’s receipt. 15

U.S.C. § 1681c(g). Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a), “[a]ny person who willfully fails

to comply with [this] requirement . . . with respect to any consumer is liable to that

consumer.” In Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 56–57, 127 S. Ct.

2201, 2208–09 (2007), the Supreme Court construed “willfully” in § 1681n(a) as

including both “knowing” and “reckless” violations of FACTA. Recklessness

entails “an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it

should be known.” Safeco, 551 U.S. at 68, 127 S. Ct. at 2215 (quotation marks

omitted). 

 Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, *

sitting by designation.

 The district court excluded Plaintiff Russo from the Keller class because Russo’s claim 1

was not typical of the class. 

2
In December 2007, the plaintiffs filed a single count complaint alleging that

MCGP willfully violated FACTA between October and December 2007 by issuing

receipts to the plaintiffs and other MCGP customers showing customers’ full

credit and debit card numbers. The district court granted summary judgment to

MCGP because the evidence created no issue of material fact as to whether MCGP

“willfully” violated FACTA; the evidence, if anything, showed that MCGP’s

FACTA violations were neither “knowing” nor “reckless.” See Burr, 551 U.S. at

56–57, 127 S. Ct. at 2208–09. 

After oral argument and review of the record, we conclude that the district

court properly granted summary judgment to MCGP.2

AFFIRMED.

 

 Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute 2

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(a). We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Greenberg v.

BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 498 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2007).

3
7/3/97 Branch Article

Karen Branch, Voting Districts to be Chosen Today, 

MIA. HERALD, July 3, 1997, at 4B

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 24-56 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2023 Page 1 of 2
The Miami Herald (Miami, Florida) · Thu, Jul 3, 1997 · Page 28

https://www.newspapers.com/image/641044487 Downloaded on Jan 30, 2023

Copyright © 2023 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved.

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 24-56 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2023 Page 2 of 2