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

                    AULT INCORPORATED & SUBSIDIARY
            COMPUTATION OF CONSOLIDATED EARNINGS PER SHARE
           (In Thousands of Dollars, Except Per Share Data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   (Unaudited)
                                                   Years Ended
                                          May 30,              May 31,
                                           1999                 1998
<S>                                     <C>                 <C>
Basic EPS Computation

Net Income Available to Common
   Stockholders                            $1,988              $1,318

Common Shares Outstanding:
 Beginning of Year                      4,161,758           4,075,733
 Common Shares Daily Weighted From:
   Conversion of Note                       9,619                   -
   Exercise of Employee Stock Options      22,182              58,036
   Exercise of Employee Stock
    Purchase Plan                           2,290               2,290

Total Weighted Common Shares            4,195,849           4,136,059

Basic Earnings Per Share                    $0.47               $0.32


Diluted EPS Computation

Net Income Available to Common
 Stockholders                              $1,988              $1,318

Total Weighted Common Shares            4,195,849           4,136,059

Dilutive Potential Common Shares,
 Daily Weighted, from:
       Assumed Conversion of
        Outstanding Dilutive
        Copnvertible Note                   5,647
       Employee Stock Purchase Plan         9,277                   -
       Employee Stock Options *           472,008             254,147
       Employee Stock Purchase Plan         2,490              11,977
                                          489,422             266,124

Less Common Shares Purchasable
 from Proceeds:
       Convertible Note                     5,475                   -
       Employee Stock Purchase Plan         7,234                   -
       Employee Stock Options             255,761             135,568
       Employee Stock Purchase Plan         2,336              12,443
                                          270,806             148,011

Adjusted Weighted Average Shares        4,414,465           4,254,172

   Diluted Earnings Per Share               $0.45               $0.31

<FN>
* In fiscal 1999, options and warrants totaling 227,413 and
112,000 shares, respectively were excluded from the dilutive EPS
calculations because of their higher exercise prices compared to the
average market values. In fiscal 1998, options and warrants totaling
217,435 and 112,000, respectively, were also excluded from the
dilutive EPS calculations for similar reason.

</TABLE>
#### William T. Richardson *versus*Daniel Beede, Jr.

The case of receipts is an exception to the general rule that oral testimony is not admissible to vary or contradict a written instrument.

They may always be explained by oral testimony, although purporting to be in full of all demands.

At the trial of this action, which was brought on an annexed account, the defendant offered a receipt purporting to be in full of all demands, which the plaintiff was allowed by the Chief Justice presiding, being a witness for himself, to explain, by stating the circumstances under which it was *162given. To this the defendant objected upon the ground that it was not competent for the plaintiff to vary or contradict the written receipt, except to show that- it had been obtained by fraud or mistake. The verdict being for the plaintiff, the defendant excepted to the admission of the testimony.

*Becord*and *Walton*for defendant.

*Morrill*and *Fessenden*for plaintiff.

Receipts are not in all cases conclusive. Rollins v. Dyer, 16 M. R., 475.

Rice, J.

Assumpsit on an account annexed to the writ.

During the trial the defendant introduced the following receipt from the plaintiff:

Yarmouth, Nov. 6, 1854.

Received of Daniel Beede, Jr., sixty-five dollars in full of all demands. (Signed,) William T. Richardson.

The plaintiff being a witness for himself upon the stand, was asked by his counsel to state the circumstances under. which the receipt was given.

To this the defendant objected, upon the ground that it was not competent for the plaintiff to vary or contradict the written receipt, except to show that it had been obtained *by*fraud or mistake; but the court overruled the objection and the plaintiff was permitted to testify.

So far as a receipt goes only to acknowledge payment or delivery, it is merely *prima facie*evidence of the fact, and not conclusive; and therefore the fact which it recites may be contradicted by oral testimony. 1 Greenl. Ev., p. 305.

The case of receipts is an exception to the general rule that- oral testimony is not admissible to contradict or vary a written contract. They may always be explained by oral testimony. Brooks v. White and als., 2 Met., 283; Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass., 27; Johnson v. Johnson, 11 Mass., 359; Rollins v. Dyer; 16 Maine R., 475; Wilkinson v. Scott, 17 Mass., 249.

The fact that this receipt purports to be in full of all demands, does not change the rule. The authorities cited by *163the defendant’s counsel are all adverse to his position on this point.

*Exceptions*overruled, *and judgment on the verdict.*
No. 48224.

#### Petition 6267-R of Quon Quon Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed.
No. 99-7847.

#### Talley *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
**Exhibit
      32.2 Section 906 CFO Certification**




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Valley Commerce Bancorp (the
      “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Roy O. Estridge, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:




(1)
      The
      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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





March
                26, 2007/s/
                Roy O. EstridgeRoy
                O. EstridgeExecutive
                Vice President and Chief Financial
                Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 5, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00067

- CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

, Appellant

v.

Teresita CRUZ

, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI05398 Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on April 3, 2019

.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justic e

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of March, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Cler k of Court
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00547

- CR

Joseph Delmarco Carter

v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the 19th District Court of McLennan County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2015

- 1015

- C1

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered t his cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. September 20 , 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                             15,150,595
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   0
<PP&E>                             13,169,118
<DEPRECIATION>                     5,552,827
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     22,770,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              13,924,696
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                         8,845,490
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       22,770,186
<SALES>                            4,272,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   4,485,342
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   3,373,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    0
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                0
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    4,907,439
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       6,019,161
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      45.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                      45.32


</TABLE>
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Direct Response Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rodney Ray, President and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





|(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities     
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                           
|(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
|condition and result of operations of the Company.                                                  





|\s\               Rodney Ray
|----------------------------
|Rodney Ray                  
|President                   



December 22, 2002

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21459]



[[Page 43556]]

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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES


Cooperative Agreement for a Series of Forums on Issues Affecting 
Urban Design and Development

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Arts.

ACTION: Notification of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Arts will request proposals 
leading to the award of a Cooperative Agreement for the continuation of 
the project titled: ``The Urban Forum.'' The Urban Forum is a series of 
symposia and lectures on issues affecting the design and development of 
American cities. Responsibilities under the Cooperative Agreement will 
include the development, coordination, administration, and evaluation 
of the sessions. Available funding for the Cooperative Agreement is 
limited to $50,000, which is expected to support three or four forums. 
Additional private or public funding or in-kind contributions will be 
welcomed. Those interested in receiving the Solicitation should 
reference Program Solicitation PS 97-04 in their written request and 
include two (2) self-addressed labels. Verbal requests for the 
Solicitation will not be honored.

DATES: Program Solicitation PS 97-04 is scheduled for release 
approximately September 2, 1997 with proposals due on October 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Requests for the Solicitation should be addressed to 
National Endowment for the Arts, Grants & Contracts Office, Room 618, 
1100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William I. Hummel, Grants & Contracts Office, National Endowment for 
the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20506 (202/682-
5482).

William I. Hummel,
Coordinator, Cooperative Agreements and Contracts.
[FR Doc. 97-21459 Filed 8-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
Before the First Division,

September 26, 1940

No. 44380.

#### Protests 563321-G, etc., of L. H. Kopperman et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
<PAGE>

           EXHIBIT 23.








                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
 of AMC Entertainment Inc.
Kansas City, Missouri



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-58129, 2-92048, 2-97522, 2-97523, 333-92615
and 333-92617) of AMC Entertainment Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated
May 31, 2000 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form
10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Kansas City, Missouri
June 27, 2000
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 50228 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

ARMANDO SIQUEIROS,

Defendant

- Appellant

_______________________________

Consolidated with 18

- 50244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

CARLOS IVAN ALEMAN

- GALINDO,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:17

- CR

- 910

- 1 USDC No. 2:17

- CR

- 652

- 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
November 21, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-50228 Document: 00514732975 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2018No. 18

- 50228 c/w No. 18

- 50244

2 B efore DAVIS, JONES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Ivan

Aleman

- Galindo, also known as Armando Siqueiros, 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. 2 011).

Aleman

- Galindo h a s 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 s present no 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 S ARE DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-50228 Document: 00514732975 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2018
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 21, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22

- 2076 Lower Tribunal No. 20

- 13023

________________ 

### Strybuc Replacement Hardware, LLC ,

Appellant,

vs. 

### Window Parts Warehouse, Inc. ,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, William Thomas , Judge. The Kobak Law Firm, P.A., and Paul L. Kobak , for appellant. Rosenberg & Cummings, PLLC, and Marc Edward Rosenthal, and Casey Ryan Cummings (Ft. Lauderdale); Cowen Edwards, PLLC, and Paul David Edwards (Ft. Lauderdale) , for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and FERNANDEZ, and LINDSEY , JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Appellant, Strybuc Replacement Hardware, LLC, appeals a Final Judgment in favor of Appellee, Window Parts Warehouse, Inc., and an order denying S trybuc’s Motion for New Trial. Strybuc argues that the trial court’s sua sponte interference with the impeachment of a witness constitutes
reversible error. See Ruchimora v. Grullon , 307 So. 3d 95, 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“We review the denial of a motion for new trial and a trial court ’ s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.”). We disagree. Generally, it is not the role of a trial judge in a civil case to make objections for the opposition; rather, a trial judge should remain a neutral umpire. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Velez , 365 So. 3d 1194, 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“A trial judge crosses the line when he becomes an active participant in the adversarial process

. . . . ” (quoting Great Am. Ins. Co. v. 2000 Island Blvd. Condo. Ass ’ n, Inc. , 15 3 So. 3d 384, 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ) ). Here, however, we do not find reversible error based on the record before us. See E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Farnes , 697 So. 2d 825, 826 (Fla. 1997) ( “[The] ‘ abuse of discretion ’ standard is highly deferential

. . . .” );
In re Doe , 325 So. 3d 99, 100 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (holding that, because “[t]he abuse of discretion standard is highly deferential . . . the order must be affirmed unless ‘no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the

cour t’ ” (quoting Tre loar v. Smith , 791 So. 2d 1195, 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ) )

.3

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4227-4228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2155]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-32, RM-8931]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Calico Rock, AR

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making 
filed on behalf of Sugarloaf Broadcasting requesting the allotment of 
Channel 246A to Calico Rock, Arkansas, an incorporated community, as 
its first local aural transmission service. Coordinates used for 
Channel 246A at Calico Rock are 36-05-01 and 92-09-26.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 17, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before April 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties 
should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Henry E. Crawford, 
Esq., Law Offices of Henry E. Crawford, 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW., 
Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-32, adopted January 
17, 1997, and released January 24, 1997. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, 
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.

[[Page 4228]]

    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-2155 Filed 1-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
NO. 07-09-0137-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

NOVEMBER 9, 2009

______________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF M.G., D.G., S.G., E.G., AND R.M., CHILDREN

_________________________________

FROM THE 72ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2008-542,603; HONORABLE KEVIN C. HART, ASSOCIATE JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

CONCURRING OPINION

I join in the Court’s opinion, and write simply to add that, were we to find that the

merits of this father’s appellate contentions were preserved for our review, I still would

affirm the trial court’s judgment. I cannot agree with appellant’s contention the evidence

that termination of his parental rights is in the best interest of his children is insufficient,

legally or factually. The children ranged in ages from four to thirteen at the time of trial.

Their mother’s parental rights have been terminated. Their father is incarcerated and may

remain so until 2016. He could present no plan for the care of the children until his

release. Those facts, coupled with the evidence of a history of family violence and other

criminal conduct, were sufficient, in my view, to permit the trial court to find termination of
2

the father’s parental rights in the best interest of the children. See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d

256, 266 (Tex. 2004) (legal sufficiency standard). The contrary evidence, showing

appellant desired to maintain a relationship with his children, and had participated in

programs and taken other steps to address his destructive behaviors, is not insignificant.

Considering the entire record, however, the evidence permitted the trial court reasonably

to form a firm belief or conviction termination was in the children’s best interest. See In re

C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex. 2002) (factual sufficiency standard). 

James T. Campbell

 Justice
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 69702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29134]

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE AND TIME: Friday, November 18, 2011; 9:30 a.m. EST.

PLACE: 624 Ninth Street NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425.

Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public.

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Approval of the October 21, 2011 Meeting Minutes
III. Program Planning Update and discussion of projects:
     Update on 2012 Statutory Enforcement Report planning
     Update on Trafficking Briefing planning
     Approval of School Discipline Report--Findings and 
Recommendations
     Review of Concept Papers/Approval
IV. Management and Operations
     Staff Director's report
     Budget/Appropriations update
     Discussion of the use of Commission Letterhead/Approval of 
AI
     Discussion on Implementation of Page Limits for 
Commissioner Statements/Approval
V. State Advisory Committee Issues:
     Re-chartering the Arizona SAC
     Re-chartering the Hawaii SAC
VI. Adjourn

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, 
Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela 
Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at signlanguage@usccr.gov at least seven 
business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Dated: November 7, 2011.
Kimberly A. Tolhurst,
Senior Attorney-Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2011-29134 Filed 11-7-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```