alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | 1. | the      Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Exchange Act; and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | the      information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      YPF Sociedad Anónima. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ Sebastián Eskenazi |                               |
|--------|-----------------------------|------------------------------------|
|   | Name:                       |  Sebastián      Eskenazi |   |
|   | Title:                      |  Chief      Executive Officer |   |
|   |                        |                               |   |
|   |                        |                               |   |
|   |                        |                               |   |
| By:    | /s/ Ignacio      Moran |                               |
|   | Name:                       |  Ignacio      Moran           |   |
|   | Title:                      |  Chief      Financial Officer |   |

----
#### James JOHNSON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50553.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 22, 1978.

Brewer, Deaton & Evans, Billy B. Bowman, Greenwood, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Marvin L. White, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Leflore County; B. B. Wilkes, Judge.

Before SMITH, P. J., and WALKER and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### WADLEY et al. v. GAUNCE et al.

No. 8266.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 13, 1937.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1937.

*380W. H. Sanford, of Dallas, Tex., and Conan Cantwell, of Jefferson, Tex., E. M. Bramlette and Carl W. Wade, both of Longview, Tex., and J. A. R. Moseley, Jr., of Texarkana, Tex., for appellants.

John Davis and Harry Preston Lawther, both of Dallas, Tex., and Clyde O. Eastus, of Fort Worth, Tex., for appellees.

Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is taken from an interlocutory order appointing a receiver for a mineral lease of land on which appellants are operating oil wells. The order has been suspended pending our decision. Appellee Bailey Gaunce prior to April 30, 1935, owned the lease and sold fractional interests or “units” to about 1,412 persons, making to each a conveyance but reserving a power to sell the lease in his discretion and binding himself to remit to each his pro rata share of the proceeds. Gaunce was convicted of using the mails to defraud, and while awaiting removal to serve his sentence sold the lease for himself and as attorney in fact under the power for 32 of the unit holders whose conveyances were of record. He did not remit any of the proceeds. The appellants claim to have known nothing of any other unit holders, and since the conveyances of the latter were not recorded, contend that good title as against them was conveyed by Gaunce. The judge found, however, that the circumstances were such as to charge the purchasers with notice both of the unrecorded titles and of a fraudulent purpose of Gaunce, and that all the unit holders, some of whom are here suing in behalf of the whole- class, will probably recover, and are entitled to a receivership pending the suit, although no waste or mismanagement of the property was shown, and the appellants are amply solvent and offer to give bond in any amount required to account for the oil taken.

We express no opinion on the merits of the case. Supposing that the unit holders prevail, they would not have the wnole title, but Gaunce’s part of it would still remain in appellants who are in possession. To turn them out in advance of a trial of the title and impose on the business the expense of a receivership we do not think is warranted by the circumstances. The wells are being operated in an orderly, efficient way; only a limited and known amount can be taken from them under the supervision of the Texas Railroad Commission. Not only are the appellants amply able to respond if they lose, but they offer to give bond. The bond ought to be accepted in lieu of the receivership. Folk v. United States (C.C.A.) 233 F. 177; 53 C.J., Receivers, §§ 11, 30. The order appealed from is reversed, with direction to fix a fair bond with good security to protect the interests of petitioners pending the litigation, and on the bond being duly filed to deny a receiver.

Judgment reversed.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.0
 
                             BERG ELECTRONICS CORP.
 
                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                      -----------------------------------------
                                                        1994(1)        1995(1)       1996(1)
                                                      ------------   -----------   ------------
<S>                                                   <C>            <C>           <C>
Primary Loss per Share:
  Net loss applicable to common shares..............  $(10,265,000)  $(5,412,000)  $(17,054,000)
                                                      ============   ===========   ============
  Average number of common shares outstanding.......    12,997,626    12,989,324     19,245,738
  Assumed exercise of options (treasury stock
     method)(2).....................................            --            --             --
                                                      ------------   -----------   ------------
  Shares for primary computation....................    12,997,636    12,989,324     19,245,738
                                                      ============   ===========   ============
  Net loss per share................................  $      (0.79)  $     (0.42)  $      (0.89)
                                                      ============   ===========   ============
Fully Diluted Loss per Share:
  Net loss applicable to common shares..............  $(10,265,000)  $(5,412,000)  $(17,054,000)
                                                      ============   ===========   ============
  Average number of common shares outstanding.......    12,997,626    12,989,324     19,245,738
  Assumed exercise of options (treasury stock
     method)(2).....................................            --            --             --
                                                      ------------   -----------   ------------
  Shares for primary computation....................    12,997,626    12,989,324     19,245,738
                                                      ============   ===========   ============
  Net loss per share................................  $      (0.79)  $     (0.42)  $      (0.89)
                                                      ============   ===========   ============
</TABLE>
 
---------------
 
(1) Per share data reflects adjustments related to the 1-for-4.11 reverse stock
    split in February 1996.
 
(2) As there is a net loss for each of the years ended December 31, 1994, 1995
    and 1996, options are anti-dilutive and, thus, excluded from the above
    calculations.
#### The BLACK AND DECKER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, Petitioner, v. Ignacio HERRERO, Administrator of the Estate of Carlos P. Herrero, Deceased, Respondent.

No. 43676.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 25, 1973.

James E. Tribble and Jonathan P. Lynn, of Blackwell, Walker, Gray & Powers, Miami, for petitioner.

Alvin N. Weinstein, of Weinstein & Bavly, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 275 So.2d 54, a decision certified by the District Court as passing on a question of great public interest, recited by that Court to be,

> “Pursuant to the rule making powers given the Supreme Court under the Florida Constitution (F.S.A.Const. Art. V, § 2), is it a matter of judicial jurisdiction and therefore a question of judicial interpretation for the court to compute the time where a statute provides for a limitation period but is silent as to the method of computation if the last day of the time period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday?”

We have jurisdiction of the cause under the authority of Section 3(b)(3), Article V, Constitution of Florida (1973), F.S.A., and F.A.R. 4.6, 32 F.S.A.

After argument and upon consideration of the record and briefs, we hold that the District Court of Appeal has correctly decided the cause and its decision is adopted as the ruling of this Court.

Accordingly, certiorari is discharged.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON,' C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

29–011 2013

113th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 113–58 

AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR MONTHLY BASIC PAY 

INCREASES 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR MONTHLY BASIC PAY INCREASES 

FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES, PURSUANT TO 

37 U.S.C. 1009(e) 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2013.—Referred to the Committee on Armed Services and 

ordered to be printed 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HDOCE:\Seals\Congress.#13

PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HDOC
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, August 30, 2013. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I am transmitting an alternative plan for 

monthly basic pay increases for members of the uniformed services 

for 2014. 

I am strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service 

members, who have made such great contributions to our Nation 

over the past decade of war. As our country continues to recover 

from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, 

however, we must maintain efforts to keep our Nation on a sustainable fiscal course. This effort requires tough choices, especially 

in light of budget constraints faced by Federal agencies. 

Accordingly, I have determined it is appropriate to exercise my 

authority under section 1009(e) of title 37, United States Code, to 

set the 2014 monthly basic pay increase at 1.0 percent. This decision is consistent with my fiscal year 2014 Budget and will not materially affect the Federal Government’s ability to attract and retain well-qualified members for the uniformed services. 

The adjustments described above shall take effect on the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2014. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HDOC
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RAUL ROMO JR., 

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00274-CR

Appeal from the

384th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20160D01613)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s sixth motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until April 7, 2017. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Louis Elias Lopez, Jr., Appellant’s attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before April 7, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4

th day of April, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
EXHIBIT 15(a).1: CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8(Registration No. 33-80802), pertaining to the Taro Vit Industries Limited 1984 Stock Option Planand Taro Vit Industries Limited 1991 Stock Incentive Plan, in the Registration Statement on Form S-8(Registration No. 333-13840), pertaining to the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, and in the RegistrationStatement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-12388), pertaining to the Taro PharmaceuticalIndustries Ltd. 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated February 23, 2005, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and financialstatement schedule of Taro Pharmaceutical IndustriesLtd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004.      */s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer*  Tel Aviv, Israel Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer  June 29, 2005 A Member of Ernst & Young Global
### NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# Wniteh**~tate~** 

# ([ourtof**~peal~** 

# for !bejf 

# eheral ([ircuit

KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND 

### KING PHARMACEUTICALS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., Plaintiffs/ Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees, 

### and JONES PHARMA 

### INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,


### v. EON LABS, INC., Defendant/ Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant,


### v. ELAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee.



### 2011-1070
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in case no. 04-CV-5540, SeniorJudge David G. Trager.

ON MOTIONKING PHARMA v. EON LABS 2 

### ORDER Eon Labs, Inc. moves for a 14-day extension of time, until April 7, 2011, to respond to Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Motion for Fees and Costs and for a 14-day extension oftime, untilApril 8, 2011, to file its reply brief. Upon considerationthereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motions for extensions oftime are granted. (2) The motion for fees and costs is deferred for consideration by the merits panel. Copies of this order, the motion, and any response or reply shall be transmitted to the merits panel.



## MAR 25 2011 Date

cc: F. Dominic Cerrito, Esq.

s21 James B. Monroe, Esq. Martin 

### B. Pavane, Esq. FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk



### FILED U.COURTOFAPPEALS FOft THE**FEDE~l** CIRCUIT 

## MAR 252011
109 STAT. 984 PUBLIC LAW 104–97—JAN. 11, 1996

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2203 (S. 1309):

SENATE REPORTS: No. 104–154 accompanying S. 1309 (Comm. on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):

Oct. 19, S. 1309 considered and passed Senate.

Dec. 19, H.R. 2203 considered and passed House.

Dec. 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 104–97

104th Congress

An Act

To reauthorize the tied aid credit program of the Export-Import Bank of the United

States, and to allow the Export-Import Bank to conduct a demonstration project.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIED AID CREDIT PROGRAM.

(a) Section 10(c)(2) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945

(12 U.S.C. 635i–3(c)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘1995’’ and inserting

‘‘1997’’.

(b) Section 10(e) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12

U.S.C. 635i–3(e)) is amended by striking the first sentence and

inserting the following: ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated

to the Fund such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal

years 1996 and 1997.’’.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

Notwithstanding section 4701(a)(1)(A) of title 5, United States

Code, the Export-Import Bank of the United States may conduct

a demonstration project in accordance with section 4703 of such

title.

Approved January 11, 1996.

5 USC 4703 note.

Jan. 11, 1996

[H.R. 2203]
# Attachment IV

MOVES2010 b Output Files
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

TORREN GRACE, * 

 * No. 14-540V

 Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran 

 * 

v. * Filed: June 26, 2015

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which respondent 

 * does not object.

 Respondent. * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for 

Petitioner; 

Jennifer L. Reynaud, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

Respondent. 

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

On June 9, 2015, respondent filed a stipulation of fact concerning final 

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above-captioned matter. Previously, petitioner 

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent 

for review. Upon review of petitioner’s application, respondent raised objections 

to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended her 

application to request $15,000.00, an amount to which respondent does not object. 

The Court awards this amount.

1

 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this ruling on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the 

parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website. 

 
On June 24, 2014, Torren Grace filed a petition for compensation alleging 

that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine, which he received on October 17, 2012, caused 

him to sustain a vaccine-related injury diagnosed as Guillain-Barré Syndrome 

(“GBS”). Petitioner received compensation based upon the parties’ 

stipulation. Decision, filed May 15, 2015. Because petitioner received 

compensation, he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-15(e). 

Petitioner seeks a total of $15,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. In 

compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner has incurred no out-of-pocket 

litigation expenses while pursuing this claim. Respondent has no objection to the 

amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $15,000.00 in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, 

Esq., of the law firm Maglio, Christopher, & Toale, PA, 1605 

Main Street, Suite 710, Sarasota, Florida 34236, for attorney’s 

fees and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this 

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Christina Gervasi, at (202) 

357-6360. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/Christian J. Moran

 Christian J. Moran

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CRAIG A. CARSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 06-75 Erie

v. )

)

COMMONWEALTH OF )

PENNSYLVANIA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This motion to proceed in forma pauperis was received by the Clerk of Court on

March 23, 2006, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise

Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 2], filed on

March 24, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s motion be dismissed without prejudice. 

Petitioner was allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service

was made on Petitioner by certified mail. No objections were filed. After de novo

review of the motion and documents in the case, together with the Report and

Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 13th day of April, 2006;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 2] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on March 24, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00075-SJM-SPB Document 3 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Richard DREGER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-378.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 18, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 1969.

Frank L. Butts, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of his conviction, after a non-jury trial, of a lewd and lascivious or indecent assault without intending to commit rape upon a female minor under the age of fourteen years, in violation of § 800.4, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The only point preserved for review on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment of conviction. We affirm.

Conflicting evidence was presented to the trier of fact; it was within his province to resolve the conflicts. Eizenman v. State, Fla.App.1961, 132 So.2d 763; Hoover v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 95. At this stage of the proceeding, all conflicts and reasonable inferences therefrom are resolved in support of the judgment of conviction. Walden v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 68; Shuler v. State, Fla. App.1968, 213 So.2d 312. And, finding substantial competent evidence to support *432the trial judge’s finding of guilt, we are required to affirm. Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 913; Tafero v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So.2d 564.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,327
<SECURITIES>                                    25,880
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,632
<ALLOWANCES>                                       220
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,641
<PP&E>                                          13,845
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,697
<BONDS>                                            340
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,982
<OTHER-SE>                                    (42,841)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,513
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,505
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,527
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   205
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,639)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,364)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,364)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,364)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.04)


</TABLE>