alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11

                    INDEPENDENCE HOLDING COMPANY
                  Computation of Per Share Earnings
              (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)

                             THREE MONTHS ENDED    NINE MONTHS ENDED
                               SEPTEMBER 30,          SEPTEMBER 30,
                                2000      1999       2000      1999

INCOME:
  Net income................$  3,315  $  2,520   $  9,130  $  7,675

SHARES:
  Weighted average common
   shares outstanding.......   7,898     7,918      7,898     8,018

BASIC INCOME PER SHARE:
 Net income per share.......$    .42  $    .32   $   1.16  $    .96

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE (A)
 USE OF PROCEEDS:
  Assumed exercise of
   options..................$  3,812  $  2,427   $  3,793  $  3,341
  Tax benefit from assumed
   exercise of options......     682       614        507       697
  Repurchase of treasury
   stock at the average
   market price per share of
   $12.26, $10.47, $11.17
   and $11.04, respectively.  (4,494)   (3,041)    (4,300)   (4,038)
  Assumed balance to be
   reinvested...............$      -  $      -   $      -  $      -

SHARES:
 Weighted average shares
  outstanding...............   7,898     7,918      7,898     8,018
 Shares assumed issued
  for options...............     475       404        473       488
 Treasury stock assumed
  purchased.................    (367)     (290)      (385)     (366)

 Adjusted average shares
 outstanding................   8,006     8,032      7,986     8,140

DILUTED INCOME PER SHARE:
 Net income per share.......$    .41 $     .31   $   1.14  $    .94

(A)  Warrants were not assumed to be exercised as the effect would
     have been anti-dilutive.
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1600

For the relief of Robert and Dorothy Shickle.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 9, 1995

Mr. WISE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Robert and Dorothy Shickle.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RELIEF FROM LIABILITY FOR ACCRUED INTER4 EST.

5 Robert and Dorothy Shickle of Martinsburg, West

6 Virginia, are relieved of liability to the United States for

7 interest accrued on unpaid Federal income taxes for the

8 taxable years ending December 31, 1989 and December

9 31, 1990.

Æ
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 6
Federal Reserve Bank of: Atlanta

## Filings received during the week ending March 28, 2009

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Motion Granted and Order filed January 29 , 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 01023

- CV

____________ DONALD VAUGHN AND DK V ENTERPRISES, INC. , Appellant s
V.

DAVID A. BJORKLUND , Appellee

On Appeal from the 133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 22185



### ORDER
On January 23, 2015, appellants notified this court that the parties had reached an agreement to settle the issues on appeal and request an extension of appellate deadlines for thirty days to file the docketing statement, pay for the record, and pay the appellate filing fee. The motion is granted and we issue the following order. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s
active docket for thirty days from the date of this order. The appeal will bereinstated on this court’s active docket at that time, or when the parties file a

motion to dismiss the appeal or other dispositive motion. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Busby and Brown.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-34945) and in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-19769,  333-19885,  333-19953 and 333-24315) of The JPM Company of
our report  dated  November 8, 1999  relating to the  financial  statements  and
financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Philadelphia, PA
December 27, 1999
# C_2012058EN.01001101.xml

| 25.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/11

---

Action brought on 19 December 2011 — Asos v OHIM — Maier (ASOS)

(Case T-647/11)

2012/C 58/20

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Asos plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Kavanagh, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Roger Maier (San Pietro di Stabio, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2011 in case R 2215/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2011 in case R 2215/2010-4;

| — | Authorise registration of the application mark in respect of all of the goods and services covered by the specification of the application mark; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Authorise registration of the application mark in respect of all of the goods and services covered by the specification of the application mark; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the action. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ASOS’, for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 4524997

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4580767 of the word mark ‘ASSOS’, for goods in classes 3, 12 and 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the opposition division

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal failed to properly consider co-existence and its effect on the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, and erred in dismissing the relevance of the evidence of co-existence. Further, the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the conceptual meaning of the application mark and failed to take into account the correct conceptual meaning of the application mark in assessing likelihood of confusion based on a global assessment.

Pleas in law:

---
#### The State ex rel. Musolff, Appellant, *v.*Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel Musolff v. Cleveland Elec. Ilium. Co.*(1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 362.]

(No. 97-2636

Submitted November 10, 1998

Decided January 20, 1999.)

*Shapiro, Kendis & Associates Co., L.P.A.,*and *Rachel B. Jaffy,*for appellant.

*Roetzel & Andress, Robert E. Blackham*and *Doug 'S. Musick,*for appellee Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Michael A. Vanderhorst,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

Cook, J., not participating.
#### John Kelly, *Appellant, v.*Utica, Ithaca and Elmira Railroad Company, Respondent.

Motion for new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, March 10, 1995 (42), Para 42.22 Deletions of Sponsors from Public Bills and Resolutions]
[Page 374]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.42.22  deletions of sponsors from public bills and resolutions 

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsors were deleted from public bills 
and resolutions as follows:

       H. Con. Res. 5: Mr. Fox.
       H.R. 24: Mr. Fox.
```
The information contained i n this file set includes emails and att a ch ments from PNM to EPA .

File List: PNM email 10 - 13 - 10.txt PNMemail 10 - 13 - 10 AI E - 21 101012c.pdf PNMemail 10 - 13 - 10 Attachment 1 Ceram Quote.pdf PNMemail 10 - 13 - 10 Attachment 2 Harding Street Fuel Data.pdf PNM email 10 - 18 - 10.txt PNM email 10 - 18 - 10a.txt PNM email 10 - 19 - 10.doc PNM email 10 - 19 - 10.txt PNM email 10 - 21 - 10.txt PNMemail 10 - 21 - 10 AI E - 22 101021. pdf PNM email 10 - 22 - 10.txt PNMemail 10 - 22 - 10 AI E - 2 E - 4 R3.pdf PNM email 10 - 8 - 10.txt PNM email 10 - 8 - 10a.txt PNMemail 10 - 8 - 10 COMPLETE 100930 EPA Questions on OAQPS.pdf PNMemail 10 - 8 - 10 Resp EPA Q 9 - 29 Diff Orig Est.pdf PNMemail 10 - 8 - 10 Resp SO3 Q from EPA of 100929.pdf PNM email 11 - 4 - 10.txt PNM email 11 - 4 - 10a.txt PMNemail 11 - 4 - 10 TechDocs_621215.pdf PMNemail 11 - 4 - 10 AI E - 23 101104.pdf PMNemail 11 - 4 - 10 AI E - 23 101104b.pdf PMNemail 11 - 4 - 10 PO_62.1215.pdf PNM email 11 - 5 - 10.txt PNMemail 11 - 5 - 10 AI E - 24 101104.pdfPNM email 9 - 27 - 10.txt

P NMemail 9 - 27 - 10 PNM Response EPA Q 092710.DOC Norem email on WRAP emission limits.txt
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending April 12, 2008

|Filer                          | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                                
|------------------------------ | ------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|HAMPTON ROADS BANKSHARES, INC. | * 3A5         | Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc., Norfolk, Virginia, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of Shore Financial Corporation, Onley, Virginia, and thereby indirectly acquire Shore Bank, Onley, Virginia. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                     | Not available
|Federal Register:              | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending January 31, 2009

|Filer                                           | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | End of Comment Period                          
|----------------------------------------------- | ----------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|CABOOL STATE BANK EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN | * 3A3       | Cabool State Bank Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Cabool, Missouri, to increase its ownership from 30.99 percent up to 32.02 percent of the outstanding voting shares of Cabool Bancshares, Inc., Cabool, Missouri, and thereby increase its indirect control of Cabool State Bank, Cabool, Missouri. | Newspaper:02/15/2009Federal Register:02/27/2009
|Newspaper:                                      | 02/15/2009 
|Federal Register:                               | 02/27/2009 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                    | RSSDID  | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|----------------------------------------- | ------- | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|FAYETTE COUNTY BK, SAINT ELMO, ILLINOIS   | 486248  | 10/20/2008 | 01/16/2009     | S         | Small Bank 
|FIRST ST BK OF DONGOLA, DONGOLA, ILLINOIS | 630041  | 09/08/2008 | 12/25/2008     | S         | Small Bank 
|TWIN CITY BK, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS | 2907484 | 09/22/2008 | 12/26/2008     | S         | Int Sm Bank

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Bridgette Murphy 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

Asset Acceptance, LLC 

 Defendant. 

Case: 2:14-cv-13074-AJT-MKM 

 

Judge: Arthur J. Tarnow 

Magistrate Judge: Mona K. Majzoub 

 

ORDER 

 This matter having come before the Court on the Stipulation of Dismissal 

with Prejudice submitted by the parties; 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned case is hereby 

dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and fees. 

DATE: April 30, 2015 s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

 ARTHUR J. TARNOW 

 SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 

Case 2:14-cv-13074-AJT-MKM ECF No. 14, PageID.35 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 1
§ 67.263 Requirement for removal of encumbrances by court order, affidavit, or Declaration of Forfeiture. The encumbrances described in subparts Q and R of this part are removed from the record upon filing of: ( a ) A copy of the order from a court of competent jurisdiction certified by an official of the court declaring title to the vessel to be free and clear, or declaring the encumbrance to be of no effect, or ordering the removal of the encumbrance from the record;
( b ) A copy of the order from a Federal District Court in an *in rem* action certified by an official of the court requiring the free and clear sale of the vessel at a Marshal's sale and, where issued under local judicial procedures, a copy of the order confirming such sale certified by an official of the court;
( c ) A copy of an order from a Federal District Court certified by an official of the court declaring the vessel itself or the proceeds of its sale to be forfeited to the Federal Government of the United States for a breach of its laws; or
( d ) Where the vessel was forfeited under an administrative forfeiture action to the Federal Government of the United States, either an affidavit from an officer of the agency which performed the forfeiture, who has personal knowledge of the particulars of the vessel's forfeiture, or a Declaration of Forfeiture issued by the agency which performed the forfeiture.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   EXHIBIT 11


                 NANOPIERCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE


                                                               Years ended June 30,
                                                               --------------------
                                                                2002           2001
                                                            -------------  ------------
<S>                                                         <C>            <C>
Net loss                                                    $( 4,729,072)  ( 3,598,543)
                                                            =============  ============

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding          56,194,682    51,147,026

Common equivalent shares representing shares issuable upon
  exercise of outstanding options and warrants                         -             -
                                                            -------------  ------------
                                                              56,194,682    51,147,026
                                                            =============  ============

Basic and diluted loss per share:
    Loss from continuing operations                         $(      0.08)  (      0.06)
    Extraordinary loss                                                 -   (      0.01)
                                                            -------------  ------------
                                                            $(      0.08)  (      0.07)
                                                            =============  ============
</TABLE>

Stock options and warrants are not considered in the calculations as the impact
of the potential common shares (10,822,661 shares at June 30, 2002 and 9,022,661
shares at June 30, 2001) would be to decrease loss per share.


<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of US Airways Group,
Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), W. Douglas Parker, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Derek J.
Kerr, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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/ W. Douglas
Parker

Name:  W. Douglas Parker 
Title:  Chief Executive Officer

Date:  April 22, 2009 /s/ Derek J.
Kerr

Name:  Derek J. Kerr 
Title:  Chief Financial Officer 
Date:  April 22,
2009 This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 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.
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








Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Atrion Corporation (the
“Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.








Dated:
      August 8, 2008
            /s/
      JefferyStricklandJeffery
      StricklandChief
      Financial Officer








The
foregoing certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and not
for any other purpose.
§ 39.1013 U.S.-flagged tank vessel certification procedures for vapor control system designs—TB/ALL. ( a ) For an existing Coast Guard-approved vapor control system (VCS) that has been operating before July 23, 1990, the tank vessel owner or operator must submit detailed engineering drawings, calculations, and specifications to the Marine Safety Center (MSC) for review and approval before modifying the system or transferring vapor to a facility that was not approved by the Coast Guard for that kind of vapor transfer.
( b ) For a Coast Guard-approved vessel VCS that began operating on or after July 23, 1990, the tank vessel owner or operator must submit plans, calculations, and specifications to the MSC for review and approval before modifying the system.
( c ) A tank vessel owner or operator must submit plans, calculations, and specifications for a new tank vessel VCS to the MSC for review and approval before installing the system. A permanent or portable vapor processing unit onboard a tank vessel will be reviewed, together with the tank vessel, as a complete and integrated system.
( d ) Once the plan review and inspection of the tank vessel VCS satisfy the requirements of this part, the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) will endorse the Certificate of Inspection for the U.S.-flagged tank vessel.