alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Comdisco, Inc. and Subsidiaries                                    Exhibit 11.00

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(in millions except per share data)

Average shares used in computing earnings per common and common equivalent share
were as follows:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                              2000     1999     1998     1997     1996
                                              ----     ----     ----     ----     ----
<S>                                           <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Average shares issued ....................     224      222      221      220      216
Effect of dilutive options ...............      10       10       12       10       10
Treasury stock ...........................     (72)     (70)     (70)     (72)     (66)
                                             -----    -----    -----    -----    -----
  Total ..................................     162      162      163      158      160
                                             =====    =====    =====    =====    =====

Net earnings (loss) to common stockholders   $ (67)   $  48    $ 151    $ 123    $ 106
                                             =====    =====    =====    =====    =====

Net earnings (loss) per common share:
 Earnings per common share-basic:
 Earnings from continuing operations          $1.68    $ .46    $.99     $.83     $ .70
 Loss from discontinued operations            (2.12)    (.14)      -        -         -
                                              -----    -----    ----     ----     -----
                                              $(.44)   $ .32    $.99     $.83     $ .70
                                              =====    =====    ====     ====     =====

 Earnings per common share-diluted:
 Earnings from continuing operations          $.1.58   $ .44    $.93     $.78     $.67
 Loss from discontinued operations             (1.99)   (.14)      -        -        -
                                              ------   -----    ----     ----     ----
                                              $ (.41)   $.30    $.93     $.78     $.67
                                              ======   =====    ====     ====     ====


</TABLE>

On April 22, 1998 the Board of Directors  authorized a two-for-one  split of the
Company's  common stock to be distributed on June 15, 1998, to holders of record
on May 22, 1998.  All data with respect to earnings per common share,  dividends
per common share, and weighted  average number of common shares  outstanding has
been retroactively adjusted to reflect the two-for-one split.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20719]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[WY-921-41-5700; WYW115659]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

July 28, 1997.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188 (d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3 (a) and (b)(1), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas 
lease WYW115659 for lands in Uinta County, Wyoming, was timely filed 
and was accompanied by all the required rentals accruing from the date 
of termination.
The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and 
royalties at rates of $5.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 
16\2/3\ percent, respectively.
    The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $125 
to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register 
notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of 
the lease as set out in Section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands 
Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management 
is proposing to reinstate lease WYW115659 effective April 1, 1997, 
subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the 
increased rental and royalty rates cited above.
Pamela J. Lewis,
Chief, Leasable Minerals Section.
[FR Doc. 97-20719 Filed 8-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
RE: Followup questions from our call
	Norem, Nancy 
	to:
	Joe Kordzi
	10/18/2010 12:06 PM
	Cc:
	"Gannon, Maureen", FischerDM, LucasKJ, mack.mcguffey, ChangYF
	Show Details



History:	This message has been forwarded.



Joe,
 
 I forwarded your email to B&V concerning your question concerning the 
reactor box, breeching, and ductwork.  Diane's response is : "The reactor 
box, breaching, and ductwork costs are all included in item "4.3 Ductwork" 
in Appendix C.  There is not a separate quote just for the reactor box."
 
Nancy
 

From: Kordzi.Joe@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Kordzi.Joe@epamail.epa.gov]
Sent: Fri 10/15/2010 10:01 AM
To: Norem, Nancy
Cc: Gannon, Maureen
Subject: Followup questions from our call

Nancy, 

The OAQPS document, p. 21, Sec 4.3, reports calculations for the "reactor 
box, breeching and ductwork," referring to the quotation in Appendix C.  
We do not see a quotation for the "reactor box, breeching and ductwork" in 
Appendix C.  We had assumed the missing section, Sec. 4.5, in Appendix C 
was the "reactor box, breeching and ductwork."  However, during the call, 
we learned the missing Appendix C section is the catalyst.  Therefore, it 
seems we're still missing the vendor quote for the "reactor box, breeching 
and ductwork."  Would you please provide this?

Regards,

Joe

" ... and miles to go before I sleep."
-- Robert Frost
No. 99-765.

#### CSC Consulting, Inc. *v.*Tingley Systems, Inc.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6479

CLAIR LOVERIDGE, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:03-cr-00063-IMK-1; 1:06-cv-00006-IMK-JSK) 

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 8, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Clair Loveridge, Appellant Pro Se. Betsy C. Jividen, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Clair Loveridge seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Loveridge 

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### Eddie JACKSON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-212.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 31, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 8, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Eddie Jackson, was charged with robbery and at trial requested that the jury be instructed upon the lesser included offenses of grand larceny, petit larceny, aggravated assault and simple assault. The court instructed on robbery, grand larceny and petit larceny and the jury found Jackson ghilty of robbery.

The issue raised on appeal as reversible error is the refusal of the court to give the requested instructions on aggravated and simple assault. We find this point meritorious.

If requested by the defendant instructions must be given on all lesser in-*138eluded offenses which are necessarily included in the offense charged and those which may be included in the offense charged by virtue of their presence in the accusatory pleading and the evidence at trial. *Brown v. State,*206 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1968); *State v. Terry,*336 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1976). The failure to instruct on such offenses constitutes prejudicial error and is reversible per se without regard to the harmless error doctrine. *Lomax*v. *State,*345 So.2d 719 (Fla.1977); *Abreau v. State,*347 So.2d 819 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).

The information against Jackson in the instant case reads in part:

> . . did unlawfully by force, violence, assault or putting in fear, take certain property, to-wit: CASH, good and lawful MONEY of the United States of America, the property of GRACE KENYON as owner or custodian, from the person or custody of GRACE KENYON and in the course of committing said Robbery, (used a deadly weapon) carried a firearm, to-wit: A PISTOL, in violation of 812.13 Florida Statutes, contrary to the . . . ”

This pleading coupled with the evidence introduced at trial unquestionably supported the requested assault instructions. *Cf. Moore v. State,*341 So.2d 814 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). We reverse Jackson’s robbery conviction and sentence and remand the cause to the trial court for a new trial. See *Young v. State,*330 So.2d 532 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).

Reversed and remanded.
#### Clarence J. ALOMBRO, Jr. v. CAMPBELL “66” EXPRESS, INC., et al.

No. 60672.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 14, 1977.

In re: Clarence J. Alombro, Jr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Orleans Parish: 344 So.2d 1066.

Insufficient showing of error or injury to justify this court’s exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. Decision on appeal can allocate ultimate responsibility for court costs. The plaintiff is afforded 20 days from date of this court’s action to pay estimated costs, unless such time is further extended by the trial court.

Writ denied.
#### United States *v.*L. Bamberger & Co.

No. 7914.

Entry No. N-1241.

(Decided November 30, 1950)

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Strauss & Hedges*for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

This appeal for a reappraisement presents the question of the proper dutiable value of certain brassware imported from Great Britain.

*463The respective parties have submitted the appeal for decision upon-a stipulation to the effect that the merchandise and the issue herein-are similar in all material respects to the merchandise and issues ins S. *P. Skinner & Co., Inc., J. E. Bernard*& *Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*24 Cust. Ct. 636, Reap. Dec. 7833, and that the record in that case-may be incorporated herein. The parties have also agreed that on or about the date of exportation of the instant merchandise such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the" principal market of Great Britain in the usual wholesale quantities and' in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption, including the-cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other" costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in-condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States at prices-represented by the entered value of the merchandise herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the foreign value, as that value is-defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402" (c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be* the proper basis for determining the value of said merchandise, and! that such value is represented by the entered values of the merchandise herein.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
MEMORANDUM

TO: DOCKET #: EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0198

FROM: Rebecca von dem Hagen, EPA/Stratospheric Protection Division

RE: SNAP Sector Workshops and Stakeholder Meetings

The following is the list of SNAP sector workshops and stakeholder meetings held by EPA prior to this 

rulemaking. Meeting materials are included in this docket as attachments to this memo.

List of SNAP Stakeholder Workshops and Meetings:

March 19, 2013 Aerosols Sector Stakeholder Workshop

April 26, 2013 Foam Sector Stakeholder Workshop

August 22, 2013 SNAP Stakeholder Meeting

November 15, 2013 Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Stakeholder Workshop: Household 

Appliances 

December 4, 2013 Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Stakeholder Workshop: Stationary Air 

Conditioning 

December 4, 2013 Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Stakeholder Workshop: Motor 

Vehicle Air Conditioning 

December 16, 2013 Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector Stakeholder Workshop: Commercial 

and Industrial Refrigeration

February 4, 2014 SNAP Stakeholder Meeting

March 5, 2014 Fire Protection Sector Stakeholder Workshop
MAGYAR BANCORP
              News


**400
      Somerset St., New Brunswick, NJ 08901**


**732.342.7600**








**MAGYAR
      BANCORP, INC.**


**ANNOUNCES
      STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM**








**NEW
      BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY**– April 27, 2007, Magyar Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ:
      MGYR) announced yesterday, April 26th that its Board of Directors has authorized
      a stock repurchase program pursuant to which the Company intends to repurchase
      up to 5% of its outstanding shares (excluding shares held by Magyar Bancorp,
      MHC, the Company’s mutual holding company), or up to 130,927
      shares.  The timing of the repurchases will depend on certain factors,
      including but not limited to, market conditions and prices, the Company’s
      liquidity requirements and alternative uses of capital. Any repurchased shares
      will be held as treasury stock and will be available for general corporate
      purposes.





Elizabeth
      E. Hance, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, stated “We are
      pleased to announce the repurchase program.  We believe our common
      stock is an attractive value at current trading prices and we believe the
      deployment of some of the Company’s capital into this investment is
      warranted.”





**About
      Magyar Bancorp**


Magyar
      Bancorp (NASDAQ: MGYR) is the parent company of Magyar Bank, a $468 million
      asset community bank headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Magyar Bank
      has
      been serving families and businesses in Central New Jersey since 1922 with
      a
      complete line of financial products and services, and today Magyar operates
      five
      branch locations in Branchburg,  New Brunswick(2), North Brunswick,
      and South Brunswick.  Visit Magyar online at


www.magbank.com.





This
      news
      release contains certain forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks
      and uncertainties. A number of factors could cause actual conditions, events
      or
      results to differ significantly from those described in the forward-looking
      statements, including general economic conditions, changes in interest rates,
      regulatory considerations, and competition. The Company's reports filed from
      time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the
      Company's Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2006, describe some
      of
      these factors. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are
      made and the Company does not undertake to update forward-looking statements
      to
      reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date of the forward-looking
      statements or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.





Contact:
      John Reissner, Vice President, Marketing Director, 732.214.2083
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Section 1350 Certification





In connection with the Quarterly Report of COMSTOCK MINING Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Corrado De Gasperis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:





(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.





Date:  August 12, 2011





/s/ Corrado De GasperisCorrado De GasperisChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)





The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1285 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1285

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in 
       Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROSA PARKS FEDERAL BUILDING.

    The Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, 
Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ``Rosa Parks Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Rosa Parks Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF WILLIAM B. BRYANT ANNEX.

    The annex, located on the 200 block of 3rd Street Northwest in the 
District of Columbia, to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Building and 
United States Courthouse located at Constitution Avenue Northwest in 
the District of Columbia shall be known and designated as the ``William 
B. Bryant Annex''.

SEC. 4. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the annex referred to in section 3 shall 
be deemed to be a reference to the ``William B. Bryant Annex''.

            Passed the Senate October 26, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1285

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in 
       Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.
```
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed, Petition for Writ of Prohibition 

Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed May 25, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-21-00230-CR

NO. 14-21-00231-CR

IN RE MARCUS TYRONE GRANT, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

WRIT OF PROHIBITION

506th Judicial District Court

Waller County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20-12-17503

MEMORANDUM OPINION

May 4, 2021, relator Marcus Tyrone Grant filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus and a petition for writ of prohibition in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code 

Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. 
2

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Gary W. 

Chaney, presiding judge of the 506th Judicial District Court of Waller County, to 

reinstate his bond. Relator is seeking habeas-corpus relief. The courts of appeals

have no original habeas-corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters. In re Ayers, 515 

S.W.3d 356, 356 (Tex. App.―Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (citing 

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(d)). Original jurisdiction to grant an application for 

a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case is vested in the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals, the district courts, the county courts, or a judge in those courts. Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. Ann. art 11.05. Therefore, this court does not have original 

habeas-corpus jurisdiction to grant relator’s requested relief. 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

Relator also filed a petition for writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Chaney 

from committing relator to a mental hospital. A writ of prohibition is “a creature of 

limited purpose” that is appropriate only after an appellate court’s jurisdiction has 

been invoked on independent grounds and then only in aid of that jurisdiction. In re 

Munk, 448 S.W.3d 687, 694 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2014, orig. proceeding). 

Appellate courts do not have general power to issue writs of prohibition. In re Yates, 

193 S.W.3d 151, 152 (Tex. App.―Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding).

Thus, in the absence of actual jurisdiction of a related appeal, an appellate court does 

not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition requiring that a trial court refrain 

from performing a future act. Munk, 448 S.W.3d at 694; Yates, 193 S.W.3d at 152. 

Relator does not have a related appeal pending in this court. Therefore, we do not 

have jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition.
3

CONCLUSION

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of prohibition

are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Hassan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
No. 99-7989.

#### McKenzie *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit
    11. Computation of per share earnings
    Year Ended December 31,2010


2009


2008(000s except share data)Numerator:Net income available to common shareholders for basic and
    diluted earnings per share

$
5,113


$
19,012


$
30,877Denominator:Denominator for basic earnings per common share 
    weighted average shares(1)


17,630,814



13,644,736



13,166,931Effect of diluted securities:Stock options(1)


56,432



271,332



445,674Denominator for diluted earnings per common share 
    diluted weighted average shares(1)


17,687,246



13,916,068



13,612,605Basic earnings per common share(1)

$
0.29


$
1.39


$
2.35Diluted earnings per common share(1)

$
0.29


$
1.37


$
2.27     (1)
    
    Adjusted for the effects of the 10 percent stock dividends
    in 2010 and 2009.