alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                     COMPUTER NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
       Statement Re: Computation of Net loss Per Basic and Diluted shares
                      (in thousands, except per share data)
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Weighted
                                                           Average Shares    Per share
                                          Net Loss          Outstanding        Amount
                                          --------          -----------        ------




<S>                                       <C>                  <C>             <C>
Three Months Ended April 30,
 2003:
  Basic                                   $ (2,082)            26,960          $  (.08)
  Dilutive effect of employee
  awards and options and                      --                 --             --
    convertible notes(1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Diluted                                 $ (2,082)            26,960          $  (.08)
===========================================================================================
Three Months Ended April 30,
 2002:
  Basic                                   $(13,765)            30,441          $  (.45)
  Dilutive effect of employee
  awards and options and                      --                 --             --
    convertible notes(1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Diluted                                 $(13,765)            30,441          $  (.45)
===========================================================================================
</TABLE>





(1)  Potential dilutive securities, consisting of convertible notes, outstanding
     stock options and shares issuable under the employee stock purchase plan,
     are excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share due to
     their anti-dilutive effect.







                                       30
#### The State ex rel. Hillside Dairy Company *v.*Conrad, Administrator, et al.

[Cite as *State ex rel Hillside Dairy Co. v. Conrad*(1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 314.]

(No. 97-1791

Submitted September 15, 1998

Decided January 13, 1999.)

*315*Willacy, LoPresti & Marcovy, Aubrey B. Willacy*and *M. Scott Young,*for relator.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Gerald H. Waterman,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondents Administrator, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, and Industrial Commission.

*Sonkin, Fromson, Kess & Kobema Co., L.P.A.,*and *Jeffrey M. Sonkin,*for respondent McKenney.

*Per Curiam.*

Contrary to relator’s representation, there is “some evidence” that claimant’s temporary total disability from September 12, 1989 through March 8, 1992 was caused by the claim’s allowed conditions alone. Dr. William Kay’s March 24, 1997 report specifically attributed claimant’s temporary total disability solely to claimant’s allowed conditions. Recoupment of this payment is, therefore, a moot question.

No one .contests relator’s right to recover for medical expénses paid for “traumatic iritis left eye” and “strain and/or myofascitis of the lumbar area”— conditions that were ultimately disallowed by the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. At issue is the statute governing relator’s recovery — former R.C. 4123.515 or 4123.511(J). Pursuant to our recent decision in *State ex rel. Roadway Express v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 510, 696 N.E.2d 1064, we find that relator’s recovery rights are controlled by former R.C. 4123.515.

A writ of mandamus directing the commission to vacate its award of TTD compensation is denied. A writ of procedendo directing respondent Bureau of Workers’ Compensation to determine the amount of Surplus Fund reimbursement for medical expenses to which relator is entitled is granted.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
# C_2012138EN.01000201.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 6 February 2012 — BKK Mobil Oil, a body governed by public law v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

(Case C-59/12)

(2012/C 138/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: BKK Mobil Oil, a body governed by public law

Respondent on a point of law: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

Question referred

Is Article 3(1), in conjunction with Article 2(d), of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) on unfair commercial practices to be interpreted as meaning that the action of a statutory sickness fund in making (misleading) statements to its members concerning the disadvantages that those members would suffer were they to move to another statutory sickness fund can also constitute an act by a trader in the form of a business-to-consumer commercial practice?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

---
#### Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Alex Staebler and Ida Staebler.

(Decided June 13, 1919.)

Appeal from Henry Circuit Court.

Railroads — Speed of Trains — Crossings.—The requirement as to the speed of a train at public crossings does not go to the extent of having the train under such control as that persons can get off the track after it comes into view. See companion case of L. *&*N. R. R. Co. v. Scott’s Admr., 184 Ky. 319, where the facts and law involved on this appeal are stated.

W. B. MOODY and BENJAMIN D. WARFIELD for appellant.

J. M. CHILTON and EDWARDS, OGDEN & PEAK for appellees.

*731Opinion of the Court by

Judge Quin

Beversing.

This is a companion case to that of Louisville & Nashville Bailroad Co. v. Oscar Scott’s- Administrator, 181 Ky. 319.

At the time of his death, December 5, 1916, Oscar Scott was riding in an automobile truck owned by the appellees in this case. The truck, while being driven by Chas. Staebler, a son of appellees, was struck by an east bound passenger train of the appellant in the town of Campbellsburg.

Appellees and the administrator of Oscar Scott filed suits against the appellant in the Henry circuit court, and from judgments in favor of both plaintiffs the railroad company appealed.

In the opinion in the Scott case, *supra,*both the law and facts are elaborately treated. During the trials objections were interposed by appellant’s counsel to questions propounded to certain witnesses as to the speed of the train. For example, in the Scott case, the question was asked one of the engineers:

> “Mr. Swift, at what speed would you have to operate your train, this train, at this crossing so as to give persons an opportunity going over the crossing and get off of the crossing or out of the way, before your train struck him?”

Commenting on this line of interrogation, this court said:

> “There can be no doubt but that these questions and answers were highly prejudicial. "We have heretofore in this opinion attempted to define the purpose of the limitations upon the speed of a train at this character of crossing. The requirement as to the speed of a train at such crossings does not go to the extent of having the train under such control ‘as that persons could get out of the truck get off of the track, after it came into view. ’ To-so hold would place an unreasonable restraint upon the speed of trains and would make railroad companies guarantors and insurers of the safety of everybody who used a grade crossing. This would not only exact too stringent regulations of the operation of trains, but it would destroy rapid transit which the necessities of commerce and travel demand of railroad companies.”

Practically the same questions were asked the witnesses in the instant case. The causes of action grew out *732of the same accident; the evidence in this case is substantially that given in the Scott case, the Avitnesses testifying here having testified in that case.

For reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment in this case is reversed, and upon a retrial the loAver court Avill be guided by that opinion.

Whole court sitting.

Judge Sampson dissenting.
# C_2013225EN.01008503.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/85

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-67/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Annulment of the Commission’s decision - Compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal - Damage arising as a result of non-compliance - Conditions - Action manifestly lacking any basis in law)

2013/C 225/197

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cirpressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request relating, first, to compliance on the part of the Commission with paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 June 2010 in Case F-56/09 Marcuccio v Commission, and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any basis in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any basis in law.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings in Case F-67/11 R Marcuccio v Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings in Case F-67/11 R Marcuccio v Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 29.

1

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00165-CR

Phillip G. Scott, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

NO. CR2023-382, THE HONORABLE STEPHANIE BASCON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Phillip G. Scott has been charged by indictment with the offense of 

taking a prohibited substance into a correctional facility. See Tex. Penal Code §38.11(b). 

Appellant seeks to bring an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s incompetency 

Order. See Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 46B.005. Additionally, Appellant has filed a 

“Supplement Appeal,” in which he seeks to also appeal the trial court’s decision to appoint him 

trial counsel in a different criminal case than the one that is the subject of this appeal. The record 

does not include any certification by the trial court that appellant has a right to appeal either the 

incompetency order or the determination to appoint counsel in the separate criminal case. See

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) (requiring trial court to enter certification of defendant’s right of 

appeal each time it enters judgment of guilt or other appealable order); id. R. 25.2(d) (requiring 

dismissal of criminal appeal in absence of certification).
2

Further, neither challenged action by the trial court is a “judgment or other 

appealable order.” Id. R. 25.2(a)(2) (authorizing appeals in criminal cases only when trial court 

enters judgment or other appealable order). Article 46B.005 incompetency Orders are 

specifically not subject to interlocutory appeal pursuant to statute. See Tex. Code of Crim. Proc.

art. 46B.011. No statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal of a defendant’s request for 

self-representation. See Bayless v. State, 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)

(explaining that “a defendant’s right of appeal is a statutorily created right”); cf. Blankenship 

v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578, 583–84 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (addressing denial of right to 

self-representation in appeal from final judgment). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 7, 2024

Do Not Publish
#### § 97.33-1 When required.

On all vessels navigating in other than protected waters, where the distance between deckhouses is more than 46 meters (150 feet) a fixed means facilitating communication between both ends of the vessel, such as a raised fore and aft bridge or side tunnels, must be provided. Previously approved arrangements may be retained so long as they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.

[CGD 95-027, 61 FR 26007, May 23, 1996]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, March 8, 1995 (40), Para 40.25 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 956]
[Page 352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.40.25  providing for the consideration of h.r. 956

  Mr. LINDER, by direction of the Committee on Rules, called up the 
following resolution (H. Res. 108):

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal standards and 
     procedures for produce liability litigation, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed two hours equally divided among and controlled by 
     the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary and the Committee on Commerce. After general 
     debate the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. 
     No further consideration of the bill shall be in order except 
     pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

  When said resolution was considered.
  After debate,
  By unanimous consent, the previous question was ordered on the 
resolution to its adoption or rejection and under the operation thereof, 
the resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said resolution was agreed to 
was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
```
§ 95.16-30 Enclosure openings. ( a ) If mechanical ventilation is provided for in a protected space, the ventilation system must automatically shut down prior to discharge of the system to that space.
( b ) If natural ventilation is provided for in a space protected by a clean agent extinguishing system, the ventilation must be capable of being easily and effectively closed off.
( c ) All other openings to a protected space must be capable of being closed. Doors, shutters, or dampers must be installed for openings in the lower portion of the space. Openings in the upper portion of the space must be capable of being closed off either by permanently installed means or by the use of canvas or other material normally carried on the vessel.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, March 28, 1995 (51), Para 51.13 Targhee National Forest Land Exchange]
[Page 507]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.51.13  targhee national forest land exchange

  Mr. HANSEN moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 529) to 
authorize the exchange of National Forest System lands in the Targhee 
National Forest in Idaho for non-Federal lands within the forest in 
Wyoming; as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. McINNIS, recognized Mr. HANSEN and Mr. 
RICHARDSON, each for 20 minutes.
  After debate,
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House suspend the rules and pass said bill, as amended?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. McINNIS, announced that two-thirds of the 
Members present had voted in the affirmative.
  So, two-thirds of the Members present having voted in favor thereof, 
the rules were suspended and said bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the rules were suspended and 
said bill, as amended, was passed was, by unanimous consent, laid on the 
table.
  Ordered, That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate in said 
bill.
```
§ 67.119 Hailing port designation. ( a ) Upon application for any Certificate of Documentation in accordance with subpart K of this part, the owner of a vessel must designate a hailing port to be marked upon the vessel.
( b ) The hailing port must be a place in the United States included in the U.S. Department of Commerce's Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 55DC.
( c ) The hailing port must include the State, territory, or possession in which it is located.
( d ) The Director, National Vessel Documentation Center has final authority to settle disputes as to the propriety of the hailing port designated.
( e ) Until such time as the vessel owner elects to designate a new hailing port, the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section do not apply to vessels which were issued a Certificate of Documentation before July 1, 1982.
[CGD 89-007, CGD 89-007a, 58 FR 60266, Nov. 15, 1993, as amended by CGD 95-014, 60 FR 31604, June 15, 1995; USCG-1998-4442, 63 FR 52191, Sept. 30, 1998]
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 18, 2009

|Filer                          | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                             
|------------------------------ | ------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|MIDCAP FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC | 4c8* 3A1      | MidCap Financial Holdings, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, and MidCap Bank Holdings, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland, to become bank holding companies through the acqusition of 100% of the voting securities of ISN Bank, Cherry Hill, New Jersey. | Newspaper:05/08/2009Federal Register:05/08/2009   
|Newspaper:                     | 05/08/2009   
|Federal Register:              | 05/08/2009   
|Randolph Bancshares, Inc.      | * 3A1         | Randolph Bancshares, Inc., Asheboro, North Carolina, to become a bank holding company  through the acquisition of 100% of the voting securities of Randolph Bank & Trust Company, Asheboro, North Carolina.                            | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:04/17/2009
|Newspaper:                     | Not available
|Federal Register:              | 04/17/2009   

## 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COMPUTER NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION AS
OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000701319
<NAME> COMPUTER NETWORK
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                          67,318
<SECURITIES>                                    78,533
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,776
<INVENTORY>                                     18,524
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               213,101
<PP&E>                                          59,025
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,729
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 244,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,430
<BONDS>                                          2,028
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           290
<OTHER-SE>                                     196,056
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   244,804
<SALES>                                         92,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,146
<CGS>                                           38,597
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,517
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,742<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,352
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 246
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,056
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,299
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,757
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (3,169)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,588
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNT REPRESENTS ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSE.
</FN>


</TABLE>