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


                           MERRIMAC INDUSTRIES, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                       ---------------------------------
                                  (Unaudited)
                                  -----------

                                                         Quarter     Six Months
                                                        -----------------------
                                                           Ended July 3, 1999
                                                        -----------------------


Numerator:
Net income available to common shareholders...........  $  81,919     $ 294,885
                                                        =========     =========

Basic earnings per share
------------------------
Weighted average number of shares outstanding for
basic net income per share
Common stock..........................................  1,739,356     1,753,944
                                                        =========     =========
Net income per common share - basic...................       $.05          $.17
                                                             ====          ====

Diluted earnings per share
--------------------------
Weighted average number of shares outstanding for
diluted net income per share
Common stock .........................................  1,739,356     1,753,944
Effect of dilutive securities - stock options (1) ....     30,033        28,037
                                                        ---------     ---------
Weighted average number of shares outstanding for
diluted net income per share..........................  1,769,389     1,781,981
                                                        =========     =========
Net income per common share - diluted..................      $.05          $.17
                                                             ====          ====


(1) Represents additional shares resulting from assumed conversion of
      stock options less shares purchased with the proceeds therefrom.
§ 604.31 Service. ( a ) *Designation of person to receive service.* The initial document filed by the complainant shall state on the first page of the document for all parties to be served: ( 1 ) The title of the document;
( 2 ) The name, post office address, telephone number; and
( 3 ) The facsimile number, if any, and e-mail address(es), if any. If any of the above items change during the proceeding, the person shall promptly file notice of the change with FTA and the Presiding Official, if appropriate, and shall serve the notice on all other parties to the proceeding.
( b ) *Docket numbers.* Each submission identified as a complaint under this part by the submitting party shall be filed in the Charter Service Complaint docket FTA-2007-0025.
( c ) *Who must be served.* Copies of all documents filed with FTA shall be served by the entity filing them on all parties to the proceeding. A certificate of service shall accompany all documents when they are tendered for filing and shall certify concurrent service on FTA and all parties. Certificates of service shall be in substantially the following form: I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing [name of document] on the following persons at the following addresses and e-mail or facsimile numbers (if also served by e-mail or facsimile) by [specify method of service]: [list persons, addresses, and e-mail or facsimile numbers] Dated this ________ day of ________, 20____. [signature], for [party]
( d ) *Method of service.* Except as otherwise provided in § 604.26, or agreed by the parties and the Presiding Official, as appropriate, the method of service is personal delivery or U.S. mail.
( e ) *Presumption of service.* There shall be a presumption of lawful service: ( 1 ) When acknowledgment of receipt is by a person who customarily or in the ordinary course of business receives mail at the address of the party or of the person designated under this section; or
( 2 ) When a properly addressed envelope, sent to the last known address has been returned as undeliverable, unclaimed, or refused.
Exhibit 31-4



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) OF THE

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I,
Matthew F. Hilzinger, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Exelon Generation Company, LLC; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                              
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: February 18, 2009 |  | /s/    MATTHEW F.
HILZINGER  
|                        |  | (Principal Financial Officer)



62
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 05, 2022. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 05, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0350. EDWARD TYRONE RIDLEY v. CENTURY INSURANCE CO. et al. . Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2210009
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

#### § 40.17 Is an employer responsible for obtaining information from its service agents?

Yes, as an employer, you are responsible for obtaining information required by this part from your service agents. This is true whether or not you choose to use a C/TPA as an intermediary in transmitting information to you. For example, suppose an applicant for a safety-sensitive job takes a pre-employment drug test, but there is a significant delay in your receipt of the test result from an MRO or C/TPA. You must not assume that “no news is good news” and permit the applicant to perform safety-sensitive duties before receiving the result. This is a violation of the Department's regulations.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

DEBORAH A. ZOMERMAAND, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4444 ) CITY OF TAMPA, and STATE STREET ) HOMES III, LLC, ) ) Respondents. ) ) Opinion filed March 28, 2018. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Cheryl Thomas, Judge. Deborah A. Zomermaand, pro se. Kristin M.T. Mora, Assistant City Attorney, and Robin Horton-Silverman, Assistant City Attorney, Tampa, for Appellee City of Tampa. No appearance for Appellee State Street Homes III, LLC.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed.
KELLY, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
§ 655.14 Education and training programs. Each employer shall establish an employee education and training program for all covered employees, including: ( a ) *Education.* The education component shall include display and distribution to every covered employee of: informational material and a community service hot-line telephone number for employee assistance, if available.
( b ) *Training* — ( 1 ) *Covered employees.* Covered employees must receive at least 60 minutes of training on the effects and consequences of prohibited drug use on personal health, safety, and the work environment, and on the signs and symptoms that may indicate prohibited drug use.
( 2 ) *Supervisors.* Supervisors and/or other company officers authorized by the employer to make reasonable suspicion determinations shall receive at least 60 minutes of training on the physical, behavioral, and performance indicators of probable drug use and at least 60 minutes of training on the physical, behavioral, speech, and performance indicators of probable alcohol misuse.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7029

KENNETH WAYNE WOODFIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-824-3) Submitted: September 19, 2002 Decided: September 30, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Wayne Woodfin, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* This case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising jurisdiction upon consent of the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Wayne Woodfin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the magistrate judge that Woodfin has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. * See Woodfin v. Angelone , No. CA-01-824-3 (E.D. Va. June 11, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT
32.2





SECTION
906 – CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER













Certification
of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, of Britton & Koontz
Capital Corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”), I, William M. Salters,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:







(1)
            the
      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    and





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




















Date: 
May 07,
2008                                                              /s/
William M. Salters


_________________________________


William M. Salters


Chief Financial
Officer
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: December 10, 2015 518381

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. JERRY ADAMS, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROBERT CUNNINGHAM, as Superintendent of Woodbourne Correctional Facility, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: October 27, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________ Jerry Adams, Woodbourne, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered November 21, 2013 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, denied petitioner's motion to reargue. In 1988, petitioner was convicted after a jury trial of sodomy in the first degree, robbery in the first and second degrees and criminal possession of stolen property and sentenced, as a second violent felony offender, to a prison term of 25 to 50 years (People v Adams, 178 AD2d 536 [1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 943 [1992]). His subsequent application for a writ of error coram nobis was denied (People v Adams, 223 AD2d 649 [1996]) and, in-2- 518381

1994 and 2012, his motions to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL article 440 were denied. In 2013, petitioner commenced this proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus alleging, among other things, that he had been deprived of various constitutional rights in the criminal action, including the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and challenging the evidence adduced therein. Supreme Court denied petitioner's application and dismissed the petition by judgment entered October 1, 2013. Petitioner thereafter moved to reargue, which the court denied in a judgment entered November 21, 2013. Petitioner now appeals from the judgment denying his motion to reargue. 1 No appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see People ex rel. Timothy I. v Campbell, 95 AD3d 1497 [2012]; Putney v People, 94 AD3d 1193, 1195 [2012], appeal dismissed 19 NY3d 1020 [2012], lv dismissed and denied 21 AD3d 909 [2013]). Further, petitioner's motion was not identified as, and cannot be viewed as, a motion to renew given that he did not allege "new facts" not previously offered "that would change the prior determination" or provide "reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; see Gonzalez v L'Oreal USA, Inc., 92 AD3d 1158, 1160 [2012], lv dismissed 19 NY3d 874 [2012]). Thus, petitioner's appeal from the judgment denying reargument must be dismissed. Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

1 Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal from the judgment entered on October 1, 2013 and, accordingly, it is not before the Court on this appeal.-3- 518381

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States governmentSkip to main content
end of header


Census.gov
                                    >                                
                                Business and Economy    >Retail - Monthly    >Get Forms    >Quarterly E-Commerce Report Forms
 Skip to looking for section Main	About	Information for Respondents	Data	Time Series/Trend Charts	Technical Documentation	Release Schedule	Definitions	FAQs	Contact Us Back to Our Surveys & Programs
 Main	About	Information for Respondents	Data	Time Series/Trend Charts	Technical Documentation	Release Schedule	Definitions	FAQs	Contact Us
                                Back to Our Surveys & Programs
  Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Report - Forms and Letters The data that is used as input for the Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales release is collected as part of the Monthly Retail Trade Survey (MRTS). You can find the survey forms for the Monthly Retail Trade Survey by visiting the MRTS Forms Page.


CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### John Fewster *v.*Richard Goddard.

1. In an action upon a promissory note, alleging that there is a specified'amount due thereon, from the defendant to the plaintiff, an answer hy the defendant, alleging payment of the note in full, is an answer setting, up new matter, and must he taken as true in the absence of any reply thereto.

2. Where an issue is taken on such an answer, the defendant has the right, if there are no other issues in the case, to open and close the evidence- and the arguments. '

Error to the District Court of Hamilton county.

The action below was upon a promissory note made by Eewster to Goddard. In his petition Goddard set forth a copy of the note, and alleged that the whole amount. *277thereof was due to him from Eewster. By his answer Eewster denied that anything was due on the note, and alleged that he had *paid*it in full. No replication was filed to this answer. The case, without further pleading, was tried by a jury, and on the trial the court ruled that the plain tiff had the right to open and close. The plaintiff gave the note in evidence, and rested his case. The defendant then gave evidence tending to prove the payment of the note, and rested. The plaintiff then gave evidence tending to rebut the evidence of payment by proving alleged admissions of the defendant; and the defendant then ■offered testimony to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence of admissions, but the court rejected the testimony so offered, .and the defendant excepted. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered thereon. On petition in error this judgment was affirmed by the District Court, and the present petition in error is filed to reverse the judgment of affirmance.

*Jacob Wolf,*for plaintiff in error:

Sec. 127 of the Code, 55 Ohio L. 92; *Hoadly*v. *Roby,*6 Hammond, 521; *Farrel*v. *Humphrey,*12 Ohio, 112 ; Code, sec. 266, 3d clause, 65 Ohio L. 190 ; 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 51; *Cowley*v. *Price et al.,*15 Ohio St. 1; 2 Ohio, 230; 16 Ohio, 338 ; 1 Greenl., sec. 461.

*Alexander F. Hume*and *H. P>. Peck,*for defendant in error:

1 Chitty on Pl. 478 ; Code, secs. 137, 138.

By the Court.

The rulings and judgment of the Common Pleas were clearly erroneous. The answer sets up new matter in confession and avoidance. In the absence of a reply no issue was made, and defendant was entitled to judgment. The parties seem to have proceeded upon the theory that a reply had been filed. The supposed issue which they tried to the jury, was that of payment or no payment. Upon such an issue the defendant would have *278been entitled to open and close, and the court erred in-holding otherwise, and in rejecting the rebutting evidence-offered by the defendant.

*Judgment reversed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is
     qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000022698
<NAME>                        COMSAT Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         30,795
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  148,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (17,123)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               198,965
<PP&E>                                         2,507,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,298,336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,790,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          140,802
<BONDS>                                        446,832
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       430,537
<OTHER-SE>                                     228,503
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,790,798
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               616,469
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  284,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               272,914
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             39,812
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                32,208
<INCOME-TAX>                                   5,791
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            26,417
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   26,417
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.50
        

</TABLE>
#### §§ 655.63-655.70 [Reserved]
§ 605.19 Approval of school bus operations. ( a ) The Administrator will consider the comments filed by private school bus operators prior to making any findings regarding the applicant's proposed or existing school bus operations.
( b ) After a showing by the applicant that it has complied with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 1602(d) and this subpart, the Administrator may approve its school bus operations.
( c ) If the Administrator finds that the applicant has not complied with the notice requirement of this part or otherwise finds that the applicant's proposed or existing school bus operations are unacceptable, he will so notify the applicant in writing, stating the reasons for his findings.
( d ) Within 20 days after receiving notice of adverse findings from the Administrator, an applicant may file written objections to the Administrator's findings or submit a revised proposal for its school bus operations. If an applicant revises its proposed or existing school bus operations, it shall mail a copy of these revisions along with the findings of the administrator to private school bus operators required to be notified under § 605.16.
( e ) Private school bus operators who receive notice under paragraph (d) of this section may within 20 days after receipt of notice file written comments on the proposed revisions with the Administrator. The Administrator will consider these comments prior to his approval of a proposed revision by the applicant.
( f ) Upon receipt of notice of approval of its school bus operations, the applicant may enter into an agreement with the Administrator under § 605.14.