alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
             PLANET HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              FISCAL       FISCAL
                                                               1995         1996
                                                              -------     --------
<S>                                                           <C>         <C>
Income before extraordinary item............................  $20,727     $ 48,080
                                                              =======     ========
Net income..................................................  $20,727     $ 37,659
                                                              =======     ========
Weighted average shares outstanding:
  Common stock..............................................   80,100      100,741
  Assumed conversion of stock options and warrants..........    6,714(1)     2,314(2)
                                                              -------     --------
     Total shares...........................................   86,814      103,055
     Earnings per share -- before extraordinary item........  $  0.24     $   0.47
                                                              =======     ========
     Earnings per share -- net income.......................  $  0.24     $   0.37
                                                              =======     ========
</TABLE>
 
---------------
 
(1) Stock options and warrants granted subsequent to January 1, 1995 to the date
    of the Initial Public Offerings (using the treasury stock method and the
    initial offering price of $18 per share) have been included in the
    computation of common and common equivalent shares as if they were
    outstanding since January 2, 1995.
(2) Stock options and warrants granted subsequent to December 31, 1995 to the
    date of the Initial Public Offerings (using the treasury stock method and
    the initial offering price of $18 per share) have been included in the
    computation of common and common equivalent shares as if they were
    outstanding since January 1, 1996.
4:15-cv-10322-LVP-APP Doc # 30 Filed 05/11/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 490
§ 196.37-5 General alarm bell contact makers. ( a ) Each general alarm contact maker must be marked in accordance with requirements in Subchapter J (Electrical Engineering Regulations) of this chapter. [CGD 74-125a, 47 FR 15279, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58289, Sept. 29, 2014]

Cross Reference:
See also § 113.25-20 of Subchapter J (Electrical Engineering) of this chapter.
# C_2012006EN.01000801.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 10 October 2011 — SIA Ablessio v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-527/11)

2012/C 6/09

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA Ablessio

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as prohibiting refusal of the individual registration number that identifies a taxable person, on the basis that the holder of the taxable person’s shares previously obtained on various occasions the individual number for other undertakings, which did not carry out any real economic activity, and the shares of which were transferred by the holder to other persons immediately after obtaining the individual number? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as prohibiting refusal of the individual registration number that identifies a taxable person, on the basis that the holder of the taxable person’s shares previously obtained on various occasions the individual number for other undertakings, which did not carry out any real economic activity, and the shares of which were transferred by the holder to other persons immediately after obtaining the individual number?

1

| 2. | Is Article 214 of that Directive to be interpreted, in relation to Article 273 thereof, as permitting the tax authority, before assigning the individual number, to verify the capacity of the taxable person to carry out the activity that is subject to tax, where this verification is intended to ensure correct collection of the tax and prevent tax evasion? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 214 of that Directive to be interpreted, in relation to Article 273 thereof, as permitting the tax authority, before assigning the individual number, to verify the capacity of the taxable person to carry out the activity that is subject to tax, where this verification is intended to ensure correct collection of the tax and prevent tax evasion?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20094-10 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

D10, VERDELL KENNEDY, 

 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TERMIANTE 

SUPERVISED RELEASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 329) 

 In 2015, Defendant Verdell Kennedy pleaded guilty in this Court to one count 

of conspiracy to commit wire fraud persuant to a Rule 11 Plea Agreement. (See Plea 

Agmt., ECF No. 142.) The district judge then assigned to this case, the Honorable 

Marianne Battani, sentenced Kennedy to a term of 105-months in custody followed 

by three years of supervised release. (See Judgment, ECF No. 223.) Kennedy began 

his term of supervised release on May 2, 2023. 

 On May 2, 2024, Kennedy filed a motion in which he asked the Court to 

terminate his term of supervised release. (See Mot., ECF No. 329.) It appears that 

Kennedy is doing well on supervised release. However, the Court believes that it is 

too early to terminate supervised release at this time. Thus, the Court will DENY 

Kennedy’s motion without prejudice. 

Case 2:15-cr-20094-MFL-EAS ECF No. 330, PageID.1648 Filed 06/11/24 Page 1 of 2
2 

 The Court invites Kennedy to file a renewed motion to terminate his 

supervsised release in 180 days. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 11, 2024 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on June 11, 2024, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126 

Case 2:15-cr-20094-MFL-EAS ECF No. 330, PageID.1649 Filed 06/11/24 Page 2 of 2
##### 



Fiscal Year2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Net earnings
    
    $
    96,461
    
    
    $
    2,551,072
    
    
    $
    557,676Average shares outstanding
    
    
    9,195,415
    
    
    
    9,121,369
    
    
    
    9,067,816Stock options
    
    
    428,976
    
    
    
    631,271
    
    
    
    287,352Warrants assumed converted
    
    
    750,000
    
    
    
    750,000
    
    
    
    Assumed treasury stock buyback
    
    
    (652,045
    )
    
    
    (1,077,590
    )
    
    
    (121,848
    )Convertible redeemable preferred stock
assumed converted
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Number of shares used in per common share
computation
    
    
    9,722,346
    
    
    
    9,425,050
    
    
    
    9,233,320Basic net earnings per share of common Stock
    
    $
    .01
    
    
    $
    .28
    
    
    $
    .06Diluted net earnings per share of common stock
    
    $
    .01
    
    
    $
    .27
    
    
    $
    .06
§ 28.225 Navigational information. ( a ) Each vessel must have at least the following navigational information on board: ( 1 ) Marine charts of the area to be transited, published by the National Ocean Service, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or a river authority that— ( i ) Are of a large enough scale and have enough detail to make safe navigation of the area possible; and
( ii ) Are currently corrected.
( 2 ) For the area to be transited, a currently corrected copy of, or applicable currently corrected extract from, each of the following publications: ( i ) U.S. Coast Pilot; and
( ii ) Coast Guard Light List.
( 3 ) For the area to be transited, the current edition of, or applicable current extract from, each of the following publications: ( i ) Tide tables promulgated by the National Ocean Service; and
( ii ) Tidal current tables promulgated by the National Ocean Service, or a river current publication issued by the U.S. Corps of Engineers or a river authority.
( b ) Each vessel of 39.4 feet (12 meters) or more in length that operates shoreward of the COLREG Demarcation Lines, as set forth in 33 CFR part 80, must carry on board and maintain for ready reference a copy of the Inland Navigation Rules, as set forth in 33 CFR chapter I, subchapter E.
[CGD 88-079, 59 FR 40393, Aug. 14, 1991, as amended by CGD 96-046, 61 FR 57275, Nov. 5, 1996; CGD 96-046, 62 FR 46677, Sept. 4, 1997; USCG-2001-10224, 66 FR 48619, Sept. 21, 2001; USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58279, Sept. 29, 2014]
**Coffee        Holding Co., Inc.**

**Computation        of Per Share Earnings **

**Exhibit        11.1**

|                                                          |   | **Years                  Ended October 31,** |          |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|---------------|
|                                                          |   | **2007**                                     |          | 2006 |   | 2005 |   |
| **Net                  Income (Loss)**                        |   | **$**                                        | **937,316**   |   | $ | 700,082 |   | $ | 1,185,135 |   |
|                                                          |   |                                         |          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| **BASIC                  EARNINGS:**                          |   |                                         |          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| **Weighted                  average number of common**        |   |                                         |          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| **Shares                  outstanding**                       |   |                                         | **5,525,408** |   |   | 5,529,830 |   |   | 4,721,327 |   |
|                                                          |   |                                         |          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| **Basic                  earnings (loss) per common share**   |   | **$**                                        | **.17**       |   | $ | .13 |   | $ | .25 |   |
|                                                          |   |                                         |          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| **DILUTED                  EARNINGS:**                        |   |                                         |          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| **Weighted                  average number of common**        |   |                                         |          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| **Shares                  outstanding**                       |   |                                         | **5,525,408** |   |   | 5,529,830 |   |   | 4,721,327 |   |
| **Warrants                  - common stock equivalents**      |   |                                         | **70,000**    |   |   | 70,000 |   |   | 55,430 |   |
|                                                          |   |                                         |          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| **Weighted                  average number of common**        |   |                                         |          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| **Shares                  outstanding - as adjusted**         |   |                                         | **5,595,408** |   |   | 5,599,830 |   |   | 4,776,757 |   |
| **Diluted                  earnings (loss) per common share** |   | **$**                                        | **.17**       |   | $ | .13 |   | $ | .25 |   |

----
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________ No. 1 7

- 2253

____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. ERNEST VALENTINE, a/k/a BOP Earnest Valentine,

Appellant

____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ( D.C. No. 2

- 16

- cr - 00264

- 001 ) District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares

____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

March 23 , 201 8 Before: HARDIMAN, BIBAS , and ROTH, Circuit Judge s .

( Opinion Filed: June 7, 2018 )

____________ OPINION *

____________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge

. Ernest Valentine appeals the District Court’s judgment of sentence , claiming legal error in the calculation of his criminal history. According to Valentine, § 4A1.2 (c)(2 ) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines precluded the District Court from assigning him a criminal history point for his conviction s under a New Jer sey statute forbidding “loitering for the purpose of illegally using, possessing or selling a controlled substance

. ”
N.J. S tat

. A nn . § 2C:33

- 2.1(b)

. As Valentine acknowle dges, we rejected this argument in United States v. Hines , 628 F.3d 101 , 109

– 14 (3d Cir. 2010 ). Because we

— like the District Court

— are bound by Hines unless and until it is overturned by the Supreme Court or by this Court sitting en banc , see 3d Cir. I.O.P. 9.1 , we will affirm.
§ 169.613 Gasoline fuel systems. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) each gasoline fuel system must meet the requirements of § 56.50-70 of this chapter
( b ) Each vessel of 65 feet and under must meet the requirements of §§ 182.15-25, 182.15-30, 182.15-35 and 182.15-40 of this chapter.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 70 (Thursday, April 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 18457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1815]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Oregon Coast Provincial Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Oregon Coast Province Advisory Committee will meet at 
Beazell Center, Kings Valley Highway. The theme of the meeting is 
Introduction/Overview Business Planning. The agenda includes: Daylight 
Decisions, Public involvement for BLM's Western Oregon Planning 
Revision, Forest Service Travel Management Update.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 19, 2007, beginning at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 37309 Kings Valley Highway, 
Philomath, Oregon 97370.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joni Quarnstrom, Public Affairs 
Specialist, Siuslaw National Forest, 541-750-7075, or write to Siuslaw 
National Forest Supervisor, 4077 SW Research Way, Corvallis, OR 97339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Council 
Discussion is limited to Forest Service/BLM staff and Council Members. 
Lunch will be on your own. A public input session will be at 11:30 a.m. 
for fifteen minutes. The meeting is expected to adjourn around 3:30 
p.m.

    Dated: April 6, 2007.
Mary Zuschlag,
Natural Resource Staff.
[FR Doc. 07-1815 Filed 4-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ALAN EDWARD WUNDERLICH, 

 

 Petitioner, 

 Case No. 14-cv-14626 

 HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

v. 

CITY OF FLUSHING, 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________/ 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PROBABLE CAUSE [#6] 

 On December 31, 2014, the Court issued an Opinion and Order summarily denying 

Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254. 

ECF No. 4. The Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the petition because 

Petitioner was not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement as required by 28 U.S.C. 

Section 2254(a). 

In the same Order, the Court also denied Petitioner a certificate of appealability and 

permission to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Petitioner has now filed a one-sentence 

motion, asserting that his claim is entitled to relief. Petitioner, however reiterates the same 

argument presented in his original petition. The Court therefore construes the present motion as 

a motion for reconsideration because the Court has already decided the issue that Petitioner 

raises. 

Local Court Rule 7.1(h)(3) permits a party to file a motion for reconsideration. The Rule 

states that, in a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate a “palpable defect” by 

2:14-cv-14626-GAD-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 06/11/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 48
2 

which the court and the parties have been misled. A “palpable defect” is a defect that is obvious, 

clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F.Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 

1997). In addition, the movant must also show that a different disposition of the case must 

result from a correction thereof. Id. A motion for reconsideration which presents the same 

issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, shall not be 

granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F.Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 

 Petitioner fails to meet this burden under Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). In the present case, the 

arguments raised by Petitioner in his motion were already raised by reasonable implication in 

Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus. See ECF No. 1. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion 

for reconsideration must be denied because the Court has already ruled upon the issues that 

Petitioner now reasserts. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F.Supp. 2d 547, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999). 

 Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Probable Cause [#6] is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

 

 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

 HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Dated: June 11, 2015 

 

 

2:14-cv-14626-GAD-MJH Doc # 8 Filed 06/11/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 49
EXHIBIT 32



ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION



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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Electronic Data Systems Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Michael H. Jordan, as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Robert H. Swan, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.



|                                                                      |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                                      |  | 
|                                                                     
|/S/ MICHAEL H. JORDAN                                                
|                                                                     
|Michael H. Jordan Chairman and Chief Executive Officer March 15, 2004

|                                                                                   |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                                                   |  | 
|                                                                                  
|/S/ ROBERT H. SWAN                                                                
|                                                                                  
|Robert H. Swan Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer March 15, 2004



This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Devina Olsen

Plaintiff,

v.

Asset Acceptance, LLC

Defendant.

Case No. 2:14-cv-14650

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Now comes Plaintiff, through counsel, to notify the Court that the parties 

have reached a settlement. The parties are currently working on facilitating the 

settlement. Plaintiff expects to dismiss this case within sixty days.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

By: s/ David M. Menditto____ 

David M. Menditto

Hyslip & Taylor, LLC, LPA

1100 W. Cermak Rd., Suite B410

Chicago, IL 60608

Phone: 312-380-6110

Email: davidm@fairdebt411.com

Illinois Bar No. 6216541

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Date: April 8, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-14650-AC-EAS ECF No. 11, PageID.34 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 8, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing 

Notice. Service of this filing will be made by the Court’s CM/ECF System upon 

the following:

Theodore W. Seitz

Dykema Gossett, PLLC

201 Townsend Street, Suite 900

Lansing, MI 48933

Counsel for:

Asset Acceptance, LLC

 s/ David M. Menditto

Case 2:14-cv-14650-AC-EAS ECF No. 11, PageID.35 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 2
# C_2012025EN.01003102.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/31

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Codirex Expeditie BV

(Case C-542/11)

(2012/C 25/55)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: Codirex Expeditie BV

Question referred

At what point in time are non-Community goods assignated a customs-approved treatment or use within the meaning of Article 50 (1) of the Community Customs Code where goods with the status of goods ‘in temporary storage’ are declared for placing under the external Community customs transit procedure?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

---