alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
                        QuesTech, Inc. and Subsidiaries


         Exhibit 11 - Statement Re:  Computation of Per-Share Earnings


                                            Year Ended December 31
                                         1995        1994       1993

<S>                                   <C>         <C>         <C>
Net Income                            $ 520,100   $ 317,800   $ <285,600>

Primary Earnings:

  Shares
    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding ....   1,556,508   1,568,000   1,568,000
    Common stock equivalents .......     135,459      50,386         --
    SECT shares, weighted ..........    <207,287>   <221,792>       <608>

    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding
      as adjusted ..................   1,484,680   1,396,594   1,567,392

  Primary earnings per common share:   $    0.35   $    0.23   $   <0.18>


Fully Diluted Earnings:

  Shares
    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding ....   1,556,508   1,568,000   1,568,000
    Common stock equivalents .......     190,987      64,694         --
    SECT shares ....................    <207,287>   <221,792>       <608>

    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding
      as adjusted ..................   1,540,208   1,410,902   1,567,392

  Fully diluted earnings per common
    share:                             $    0.34   $    0.23   $   <0.18>
</TABLE>
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 19 - 00262 - CR BILLY SMART, APPELLA NT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 251 st District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 75,720 - B, Honorable Richard Dambold , Presiding



### August 16 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and P ARKER , JJ. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Billy Smart was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon in a penal institution 1 and sentenced to six years’ confinement . Appellant has filed a notice of appeal, pro se , challenging the conviction. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

1 T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 46.10 (West 2011) .2

The timely filing of a written notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to hearing an appeal. Castillo v. State , 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). In a criminal case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed or within ninety days after sentence is imposed if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial . T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a). We may extend the deadline to file a notice of appeal if, within fifteen days of the deadline, the appellant files a notice of appeal and a motion for an extension of time. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3. I f a notice of appeal is not timely filed, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Castillo , 369 S.W.3d at 198 . Appellant was sentenced on Apri l 25, 2019 . Because no motion for new trial was filed, h is notice of appeal was due within thirty days of sentencing , by May 28, 2019 . T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a) (1) , 4.1(a) . Appellant did not file a notice of appeal until July 19, 2019. By letter dated Jul y 23, 2019, this C ourt notified a ppellant that the notice of appeal appeared to have been filed untimely and directed appellant to show why the Court has jurisdiction by August 6. Appellant has not responded to the Court’s letter to date . Because appellant’s untimely filed notice of appeal prevents this C ourt from acqui ring jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction . 2 Per Curiam Do not publish.

2 Further, the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right of appeal indicates that appellant has waived the right of appeal. We are required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) to dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows th e defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           6
<LEGEND>            The  schedule   contains   summary   financial   information
                    extracted  from  the  financial  statements  and  supporting
                    schedules  as of the end of the most  current  period and is
                    qualified in its  entirety by  reference  to such  financial
                    statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>               0000764901
<NAME>              Connecticut Daily Tax Free Income Fund
<SERIES>
<NUMBER>            2
<NAME>              CLASS B
       
<S>                               <C>    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  JUL-31-1998
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>         175365810
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>        175365810
<RECEIVABLES>                 1001074
<ASSETS-OTHER>                1910061
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                178276945
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>      0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>       0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>     388957
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>           388957
<SENIOR-EQUITY>               0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>      177895886
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>         177914196
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>         167810297
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>     0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>        0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>       (7898)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>      0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>      0
<NET-ASSETS>                  177887988
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>             0
<INTEREST-INCOME>             2901529
<OTHER-INCOME>                0
<EXPENSES-NET>                731979
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>       2169550
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>      0
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>     0
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>         2169550
<EQUALIZATION>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>     2169550
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>      0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>         0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>       170160873
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>   162200345
<SHARES-REINVESTED>           2143371
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>        10103899
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>       0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>     (7898)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>       0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>    0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>         249034
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>               732100
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>          166478526
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>         1.00
<PER-SHARE-NII>               .01
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>       0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>          .01
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>     0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>          0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>           1.00
<EXPENSE-RATIO>               .69
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>        0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>          0
        

</TABLE>
No. 9, Misc.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Louis J. Lefkowitz,*Attorney General of New York, *Paxton Blair,*Solicitor General, and *Joseph J. Rose,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.

#### Sostre *v.*Oswald, Parole Board Chairman, et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 63270.

protests 240782-K and 203480-K (New York).

#### Elvic Import Corp. and S. Hollander & Sons *v.*United States,

*309Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of veils or veilings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Elvic Import Corp.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 13, C.D. 1837), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Watson & Taylor Ltd 2
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          

<CIK>               0000737296
<NAME>              P-B Watson & Taylor Ltd 2
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1996

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1996

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1996

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          1,227,972

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   63,620

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,291,592

<PP&E>                          1,518,521

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,810,113

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           800,791

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      2,009,322

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,810,113

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,209,270<F1>

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,590,151<F1>

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    619,119<F1>

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   11.89<F1>

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

<FN>
<F1>Reflects operations for the nine months ended September 30, 1996
when the liquidation basis of accounting was adopted. See Note B to the
financial statetments for further details.

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-41406,33-49882, 033-62097, 333-90552, 333-109210, 333-131399 and 333-131902 onForm S-8 pertaining to the 1990 Stock Option Plan; Immucor, Inc. 1990Stock Option Plan; 1995 Stock Option Plan; Immucor, Inc. 1998 Stock OptionPlan; Immucor, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan; Immucor, Inc., 2003 Stock OptionPlan; and Immucor Inc., 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan, respectively, ofImmucor, Inc., of our report dated September 13, 2005 with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of Immucor, Inc., included inthe Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended May 31, 2006.

 
|                                 |   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|---------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
| Atlanta, Georgia  July 28, 2006 |   |                      |

 

----
U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 729-GThe Quaternary and Pliocene Yellowstone Plateau Volcanic Field of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana*By* Robert L. Christiansen2001Abstract
Yellowstone National Park, the oldest of the areas set aside as part of the national park system, lies amidst the Rocky Mountains in northwestern Wyoming and adjacent parts of Montana and Idaho. Embracing large, diverse, and complex geologic features, the park is in an area that is critical to the interpretation of many significant regional geologic problems. In order to provide basic data bearing on these problems, the U.S. Geological Survey in 1965 initiated a broad program of comprehensive geologic and geophysical investigations within the park. This program was carried out with the cooperation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which supported the gathering of geologic information needed in testing and in interpreting results from various remote sensing devices. This professional paper chapter is one of a series of technical geologic reports resulting from these investigations

Download the main text (120 pages) of this report as a  PDF file (37.7 MB)

This report also includes three oversize plates depicting the geology of the Yellowstone Plateau area available here as both PDF and PostScript files. The three plates are entitled:

Geologic Map of the Yellowstone Plateau Area | plate 1 PDF (4.9 MB) | Encapsulated PostScript (18.5 MB) |

Geologic Map of the Island Park Area, Yellowstone Region | plate 2 PDF (2.4 MB) | Encapsulated PostScript (3.8 MB) |

Upper Cenozoic Geologic Map, Yellowstone Plateau Volcanic Field | plate 3 PDF (1.5 MB) | Encapsulated PostScript (6.6 MB) |
See also:
Koch, R.D., Ramsey, D.W., and Christiansen, R.L., 2011, Database for the Quaternary and Pliocene Yellowstone Plateau volcanic field of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana:  U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 551 [https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/551/].

Download a free copy of Adobe Reader 

This report is also available in printed form by writing:

USGS Information ServicesBox 25286, Federal CenterDenver, CO 80225Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS; e-mail: infoservices@usgs.gov

| Help | PDF help || Geopubs main page | Professional   Papers on Geopubs || Geologic Division | Volcano Hazards Program || Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey | | Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Accessibility |

The URL of this page is: https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp729gPlease send comments and suggestions, or report problems, to: Michael DigglesCreated: August 22, 2001 (cad)Updated: February 15, 2011 (bwr, mfd)
£1 J AM 2G / ~ Page 1 of 1
BEE RO3T LE SEP 02 20,

‘As of: September 02, 2011

Received: August 21, 2011

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011
Tracking No. 80¢ee7a72

‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

SION
EGAL PROCESSING DIVE
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services

under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0155
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Urlsown I Submitter Information

Address:
Zephyrhills, 33539-1582
Submitter's Representative: NARAL Pro-Choice America

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
copay, CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

T also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements, All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless
of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control
a reality for all women who use it.

Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways.
A woman who can plan when to have a family is able to participate in
society more fully, Allowing women to space their pregnancies
contributes to healthy childbearing. And ultimately, fe fewer unintended
pregnancies can reduce the need for abortion.

Thank you for following science-based recommendations and making
women's health a priority.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/2/2011
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132768 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132768 

 COA: 269750 

Muskegon CC: 00-044735-FC

DERRICKUS GREEN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
From: Patricia Magaldi

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:05:18 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,

Patricia Magaldi
Litchfield, Connecticut
No. 206.

#### Bowater Steamship Co., Ltd., *v.*Patterson et al.

*Lee C. Hinslea*for petitioner.

*Thomas P. McMahon*for respondents.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: mschleter@cinergymetro.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:54:57 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,

Michael Schleter

Seymour, IN 47274
H. Res. 1389 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 31, 2008. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes. All points of 

order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered 

as read. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: holmesfamily2@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:51:13 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,

Linda Holmes

Mokena, IL 60448