alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11


                             THE PIONEER GROUP, INC.

<TABLE>
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                 (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<CAPTION>

COMPUTATION FOR CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME                                            YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
-------------------                                            -----------------------



                                                 1996                1995               1994
                                                 ----                ----               ----
<S>                                          <C>                 <C>                <C>
NET INCOME (1)                               $    18,837         $    22,811        $    33,460
                                             ===========         ===========        ===========



SHARES
  Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding (2)               24,949,000          24,806,000         24,666,000



  Dilutive effect of stock options and
  restricted stock proceeds as common
  stock equivalents computed under the
  treasury stock method using the
  average price during the period (2)            511,000             505,000            688,000
                                             -----------         -----------        -----------



WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES
  outstanding as adjusted (1) (2)             25,460,000          25,311,000         25,354,000
                                             ===========         ===========        ===========




EARNINGS PER SHARE (1) (2)                   $      0.74         $      0.90        $      1.32
                                             ===========         ===========        ===========



<FN>
(1)  These amounts agree with the related amounts in the Consolidated Statement of Income.
(2)  Adjusted for December 1, 1994, 2-for-1 stock split effected in the form of 100%
     stock dividend.


</TABLE>
From: Donald Baker

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:22:31 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Donald Baker
San Antonio, Texas
From: PPM-C

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:53:17 PM

Hello,

I want you to know that I join with the American Association of University

Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of

Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new health care

law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless

women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

W. R. Sweetling
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62078-62079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19397]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-085]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed August 28, 2023 10 a.m. EST Through September 1, 2023 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20230111, Final, DOE, LA, ADOPTION--CP2 LNG and CP Express 
Project, Contact: Brian Lavoie 202-586-2459. The Department of Energy 
(DOE) has adopted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Final EIS 
No. 20230092 filed 07/28/2023 with the Environmental Protection Agency. 
The DOE was a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, 
republication of the document is not necessary under Section 
1506.3(b)(2) of the CEQ regulations.
EIS No. 20230112, Draft Supplement, NRC, FL, Site-Specific 
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 
Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Turkey Point Nuclear 
Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, NUREG-1437, Supplement 5a, Second 
Renewal, Comment Period Ends: 10/23/2023, Contact: Lance J Rakovan 301-
415-2589.
EIS No. 20230113, Draft, USACE, ND, Dakota Access Pipeline Lake Oahe 
Crossing Project, Comment Period Ends: 11/13/2023, Contact: Brent 
Cossette 402-995-2716.
EIS No. 20230114, Revised Draft, GSA, AZ, Expansion and Modernization 
of the Raul Hector Castro Land Port of Entry in Douglas, Arizona, 
Comment Period Ends: 10/23/2023, Contact: Osmahn Kadri 415-522-3617.
EIS No. 20230115, Final Supplement, USFS, ID, Hungry Ridge Restoration 
Project, Review Period Ends: 10/10/2023, Contact: Jennie Fischer 208-
983-4048.
EIS No. 20230116, Draft Supplement, BLM, USFWS, AK, Coastal Plain Oil 
and Gas Leasing Program, Comment Period Ends: 10/23/2023, Contact: 
Serena Sweet 907-271-4543.


[[Page 62079]]


    Dated: September 5, 2023.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2023-19397 Filed 9-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

. SE 04 331A0 42
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>          5

<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>



<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                          2,330,495
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,756,871
<PP&E>                            284,456
<DEPRECIATION>                   (137,696)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,907,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             313,358
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           32,340
<OTHER-SE>                      2,561,503
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,907,201
<SALES>                            61,894
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   61,894
<CGS>                              44,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      44,722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  415,597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  4,366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (929,356)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (929,356)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (929,356)
<EPS-BASIC>                       (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.38)



</TABLE>
From: amoore1846@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:06:06 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Alice Moore

Bakersfield, CA 93312
#### Charles Robinson, Appellant, v. Addison R. Baldwin and others, Respondents, impleaded, etc.

Judgment reversed on a question of fact, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
From: CE User

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Conscience rights

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 3:10:45 PM

Dear HHS, please be aware that there is considerable consternation among my 3

parishes in Northwest Minnesota concerning your new regulations that seem to

identify pregnancy as some "disease" that must be prevented and that contraception

is to be paid for by our tax dollars. 

This is really going off the deep end and many people are quite upset. As the saying

goes: "What were you thinking?"

I ask you to please consider praying on this issue and stop defeating God's plan for

life. 

Thanks for your consideration!

Blessings!

Fr. Bob Stone
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40801

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO ALONSO CARDENAS-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:18-CR-311-1

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Francisco Alonso CardenasGonzalez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cardenas-Gonzalez has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 21, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40801 Document: 00515165635 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2019
No. 18-40801

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-40801 Document: 00515165635 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2019
From: Linda Musil

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:45:31 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of

preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new law

and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access

to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive

services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some

groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so

hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement,

even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger

exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.14 MB)
 
 CENTCOM NAVCENT 5th Fleet CTF 52
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
From: Connie Chrane

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:49:47 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Connie Chrane
Blanket, Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40294

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ANTONIO RIVERA-PORRAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:17-CR-22-1

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Antonio 

Rivera-Porras has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rivera-Porras has filed a response. The 

record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of 

Rivera-Porras’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40294 Document: 00514207963 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
No. 17-40294

2

Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Because that is usually the case, a 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the preferred method for raising claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 503-09 

(2003). We therefore decline to consider Rivera-Porras’s claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel without prejudice to collateral review.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Rivera-Porras’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-40294 Document: 00514207963 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2017