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

EXHIBIT 11.1
                             QUICKRESPONSE SERVICES, INC.
                          COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                   (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                          1996           1995           1994
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------
<S>                                                    <C>            <C>            <C>
Primary shares:
Average common shares outstanding                      8,345,679      8,228,882      8,034,124
Common share equivalents                                 267,095        270,154        344,764
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------
                                                       8,612,774      8,499,036      8,378,887
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------



Net earnings applicable to common stock                   $6,611         $2,387        $13,965
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------

Earnings per common and common share equivalents,
     primary                                               $0.77          $0.28          $1.67
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------


Fully-diluted shares:
Average common shares outstanding                      8,345,679      8,228,882      8,034,124
Common share equivalents                                 267,254        297,584        344,231
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------
                                                       8,612,933      8,526,465      8,378,355
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------



Net earnings applicable to common stock                   $6,611         $2,387        $13,965
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------

Earnings per common and common equivalent share,
     fully - diluted                                       $0.77          $0.28          $1.67
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------
                                                       ---------      ---------      ---------

</TABLE>







                                       43
#### Clarence COOPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-866.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 21, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; W. Rogers Turner, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
# L_2005247EN.01002801.xml

| 23.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 247/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 247/28

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1549/2005

of 22 September 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005 of 2 September 2005 on a special intervention measure for cereals in Finland and Sweden for the 2005/2006 marketing year (3),

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland and Sweden to all third countries, with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland and Sweden to all third countries, with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005.

| (2) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 16 to 22 September 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1438/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 September 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States

Done at Brussels, 22 September 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 228, 3.9.2005, p. 5.

3

---
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

 Washington, D.C. 20590

September 8, 2011

FHWA:HSSI:NArtimovichr:ms:x61331:8/24/11

File: s://directory folder/HSST/Artimovich/WZ308_Dicke_DSB100W.dotx

cc: HSSI (NArtimovich)

In Reply Refer To:

 HSST/ WZ-308

John M. Pasakarnis

Dicke Safety Products

1201 Warren Avenue

Downers Grove, Illinois 60515

Dear Mr. Pasakarnis:

This is in response to your June1, 2011, correspondence requesting the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) acceptance of your company’s DSB100W Portable Sign Stand as a 

crashworthy traffic control device for use in work zones and elsewhere on the National Highway 

System. Accompanying your letter was the FHWA Office of Safety Design form and drawings 

of the stand. You requested that we find this device acceptable for use on the NHS under the 

provisions of National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350 “Recommended 

Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features.” 

This letter is the acknowledgement of the FHWA’s acceptance of your request and includes the 

original completed form, your June 1 letter explaining your request, and drawings of the relevant 

sign stands.

Sincerely yours,

Michael S. Griffith

Director, Office of Safety Technologies

Office of Safety

Enclosures
No. 00-864.

#### Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, et al. v. *Ameritech*Benefit Plan Committee et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# L_2005014EN.01000901.xml

| 18.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 14/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 14/9

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 69/2005

of 17 January 2005

concerning tenders submitted under tendering procedure for the refund on consignment of husked long grain B rice to the island of Réunion referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2033/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in rice (1), and in particular Article 5(3) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89 of 6 September 1989 laying down detailed rules for exports of rice to Réunion (2), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 2033/2004 (3) opens an invitation to tender for the subsidy on rice exported to Réunion. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2033/2004 (3) opens an invitation to tender for the subsidy on rice exported to Réunion.

| (2) | Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89 allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 2b(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, to make no award. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89 allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 2b(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, to make no award.

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89, a maximum subsidy should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2692/89, a maximum subsidy should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders submitted from 10 to 13 January 2005 in response to the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2033/2004 for the subsidy on exports to Réunion of husked long grain B rice falling within CN code 1006 20 98.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 January 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 January 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 96.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 261, 7.9.1989, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1275/2004 (OJ L 241, 13.7.2004, p. 8).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 353, 27.11.2004, p. 9.

3

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

141234

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141234 COA: 289023 Wayne CC: 08-002347-FC KEITH LENARD MAXEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 6, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### NORTH MIAMI GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., Petitioner, v. Reverend Virgil ROACH, S. J., Respondent.

No. 39231.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1, 1970.

Jackson L. Peters, of Knight, Underwood, Peters, Hoeveler & Pickle, Miami, for petitioner.

John H. Wahl, Jr., of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl, and Calvin F. David, Miami, for respondent.

James E. Tribble, of Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for amicus curiae William Clifford, M. D.

ADKINS, Justice.

Respondent, the Reverend Virgil Roach, sued petitioner, North Miami General Hospital, Inc., and William Clifford, M, D., for alleged negligence arising out of an operation, and subsequently with court permission amended his complaint to add the insurers of defendant Hospital and Dr. Clifford. By petition for writ of common law certiorari, the District Court of Appeal, Third District, was asked to determine whether the trial court erred in permitting joinder of the insurance carrier; the District Court declined to take jurisdiction. *174We assumed jurisdiction by writ of cer-tiorari to examine purported conflicts between the decision of the District Court and prior appellate cases.

After examination of this case, we find no conflict. Shingleton v. Bussey, 223 So.2d 713 (Fla.1969); Beta Eta House Corporation, Inc. v. Gregory, 237 So.2d 163 (Fla.1970). The writ of certiorari heretofore issued is discharged.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW and BOYD, JJ., concur.

THORNAL, J., agrees to discharge of writ.
@ Eastern Federal Lands 21400 Ridgetop Circle

US.Department Highway Division Sterling, VA 20166-6511

of Transportation

Federal Highway
Administration

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC CORRESPONDENCE
MAY - 1 2013 In Reply Refer to: HFPP-15

Mr. Jerry Wray

Director

Ohio Department of Transportation
Mail Stop 1000

1980 West Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43223

Subject: MAP-21 Access Program Programming Decisions Committee Members
Dear Mr. Wray:

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21“ Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141,
includes the establishment of the new Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP). This new
program will be administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Federal
Lands Highway. Ohio is served by the Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD)
office in Sterling, Virginia.

A key requirement for implementing the FLAP is to coordinate the establishment of a three
member Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for programming the FLAP
funds allocated to each state. Each state level PDC consists of a representative from the Federal
Lands Highway Division office, the State Department of Transportation, and an organization or
entity that is suited to represent the local entities responsible for building, operating, or
maintaining transportation facilities that are located on, are adjacent to, or provide access to
Federal lands. Our program managers have coordinated with your department and have
identified the following positions that will fulfill the PDC requirement:

FLAP Program Manager, FHWA, EFLHD
Forest Highway Program Manager, Ohio Department of Transportation
CSTP/LBR Program Manager, County Engineers’ Association of Ohio


Additional information on the implementation of FLAP can be found on the EFLHD MAP-21
website at http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/federal-lands-access.aspx. If you have any
questions, please contact Mr. David Payne at 571-434-1543 or David.Payne@dot.gov, or myself
at 703-404-6276 or Karen.Schmidt@dot.gov.

Sincerely yours,

thse VEL vemudi

Karén A. Schmidt
Director, Office of Program Administration

cc:

Ms. Michele Risko, CSTP/LBR Program Manager, County Engineers’ Association of Ohio,
Columbus, OH

Mr. Jerry Workman, Forest Highway Program Manager, Ohio Department of Transportation,
Columbus, OH

Ms. Laurie Leffler, Division Administrator, FHWA, Ohio Division Office, Columbus, OH
No. 9439.

#### Osborn *v.*City of Columbus.

(Decided November 2, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin County.

*Mr. EE. Safer*and *Mr. Fred C. Rector,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Butler, Marshall & Keating,*city solicitors, for defendant in error. "

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County

Fiscal 

Year*

PA 35 State Route 209 Bridge 

Rehabilitation Bridge Rehabilitation

National Park ServiceDelaware Water Gap 

National Recreation Area

PennDOT Pike 2023

PA 37 September 11th National 

Memorial Trail

Bicycle/Pedestrian 

Facility

National Park ServiceFlight 93 National 

Memorial

Somerset County Somerset 2023

PA 38 Resurfacing Marina & West 

Launch Roads Roadway Resurfacing

US Army Corps of 

Engineers- Foster Joseph 

Sayers Dam

DCNR Centre 2023

PA 39 Twin Lakes Access Roadway Resurfacing US Forest ServiceAllegheny National Forest PennDOT Elk PE 2024/ 

CN 2026

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for the Pennsylvania Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) has selected its multiyear 

Program of Projects. The projects identified for programming for the Pennsylvania FLAP are listed below by application number and include:

Pennsylvania Program of Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2023-2026

* Fiscal Year Programmed/Project Schedule is subject to change

The Pennsylvania PDC does not have a firm date for the next Call for Projects under the Access Program. Please bookmark our webpage to watch 

for future Calls for Projects in your state. https://higways.dot.gov/federal-lands/programs-access/pa

If you have any questions regarding the Call for Projects, please contact Mr. Lewis Grimm, Planning Team Leader, at 703-404-6289 or 

Lewis.Grimm@dot.gov. For questions regarding project agreements and funding, please contact Ms. Jacinda Russell, Access Program Manager, at 

571-434-1543 or Jacinda.Russell@dot.gov.
FHWA-SA-21-046

Road Diets 

(Roadway Reconfiguration)

A Road Diet, or roadway reconfiguration, can improve safety, calm traffic, 

provide better mobility and access for all road users, and enhance overall 

quality of life. A Road Diet typically involves converting an existing four-lane 

undivided roadway to a three-lane roadway consisting of two through lanes 

and a center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL).

Benefits of Road Diet installations 

may include:

• Reduction of rear-end and left-turn

crashes due to the dedicated

left-turn lane.

• Reduced right-angle crashes as

side street motorists cross three

versus four travel lanes.

• Fewer lanes for pedestrians to

cross.

• Opportunity to install pedestrian

refuge islands, bicycle lanes,

on-street parking, or transit stops.

• Traffic calming and more consistent

speeds.

• A more community-focused,

Complete Streets environment that

better accommodates the needs

of all road users.

A Road Diet can be a low-cost 

safety solution when planned in 

conjunction with a simple pavement 

overlay, and the reconfiguration can 

be accomplished at no additional 

cost. Typically, a Road Diet is 

implemented on a roadway with 

a current and future average daily 

traffic of 25,000 or less.

19-47%

reduction in total crashes.1

Road Diet project in Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Source: Leidos

Road Diet Conversions

Safety Benefits:

4-Lane to 3-Lane

BEFORE AFTER

Before and after example of a Road Diet. Source: FHWA

1 (CMF ID: 5554,2841) Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes, 

FHWA-HRT-10-053, (2010).

OFFICE OF SAFETY

Proven Safety 

Countermeasures

For more information on this 

and other FHWA Proven Safety 

Countermeasures, please visit 

https://highways.dot.gov/

safety/proven-safety-counter 

measures and https:// 

highways.dot.gov/safety/ 

other/road-diets.
y 

y 




Red 

Black 

Blue 

Thick wire 

Rnewire 

Roo wire 

Thick wire 

Solder pad 

Blue 

'\\\ Black 

''I Red 

JJ 
(@-

M3x17 3 (nexagan) 

S901 ?001 CCVV! S901?SO?CW 

S9012?01 H 

89010801/ 

S9013001 

S901100i 

S901300?/ 

S904340?/ 

S9020101CCW 

S9017102B/ 

S9013l01f-</ S90138011l 

M3x10 

5901?903/ 59013003/ 

89013103/ 

S90i 3?03 S901 0401 CCW!l/ S901 0501 CCWHI 

S9010601CVVB/ 

CWH 

S901?3C21 

5901740/ 

M3x12 3 

S9010b02/ 

S9Jl0607/ 

S904Q/O? 

S901C403/ 

S9010b03i S9010603/ 

S90!0/03 

59010404/ 

S9010b04/ 

89010604/ 

S901G'704 
S9020301 

M2 5x8 (cheese) 

S9021502 

M3x6 5 

S9021501 

S90209C1 

... 

u 'ij' 

S9021503i 

S9032703 

S9020302 

M3x8 (self-tapping) 

S9021202R 

89013601 S9C20201
Order entered July 24, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01121-CR

No. 05-18-01122-CR

OSCAR PEREACRUZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F18-00276-S & F18-00275-S

ORDER

Before the Court are appellant’s July 22, 2019 third motions for extension of time to file 

appellant’s brief. The motions are DENIED. 

We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has 

not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 
ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

These appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeals shall be reinstated when the findings are received or at such other time as the Court 

deems appropriate.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE