alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11.2

CPI CORP.Computation of Per
Common Share Earnings (Loss)  Basic(Unaudited)

|                                                      | 16 Weeks Ended | 40 Weeks Ended
|----------------------------------------------------- | -------------- | --------------
|
|Basic:                                                |                |               
|Net loss applicable to common shares:                 |                |               
|From continuing operations                            |                |               
|From discontinued operations                          |                |               
|                                                      |                |               
|Net loss                                              |                |               
|                                                      |                |               
|Shares:                                               |                |               
|Weighted average number of common shares              |                |               
|outstanding                                           |                |               
|Less:  Treasury stock - weighted average              |                |               
|                                                      |                |               
|Weighted average number of common and                 |                |               
|common equivalent shares outstanding                  |                |               
|                                                      |                |               
|Net loss per common and common     equivalent shares: |                |               
|From continuing operations                            |                |               
|From discontinued operations                          |                |               
|                                                      |                |               
|Net loss                                              |                |               
|                                                      |                |
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

** **

I,James V. Mahoney, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The DaytonPower and Light Company;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation;

 

c) Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:       | November 5, 2004                       |
|-------------|----------------------------------------|
| Signature:  | /s/ James V. Mahoney                   |   |
| Print Name: | James V. Mahoney                       |
| Title:      | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
No. 00-7561.

#### Wilson *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Robert MITCHUM, Dave Ballue, Clarence Howard Cantey, a business known as The Book Mart, a certain portion of land and building located at 19 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Florida, and all other persons claiming any right, title or interest in the property affected by this action, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-270.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 21, 1970.

*421Paul Shimek, Jr., Pensacola, for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ON MOTION TO REVIEW ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUPERSEDEAS

SPECTOR, Judge.

Appellants seek review and reversal of an order entered by the trial court denying appellants’ . motion for supersedeas pending determination of an interlocutory appeal to review an order entered against them by the trial court by which appellants are enjoined from operating and maintaining a business known as The Book Mart in Panama City, Florida. F.A.R. 5.1, 32 F.S.A. provides that the question of supersedeas pending interlocutory appeal is one within the sound discretion of the trial judge. F.A.R. 5.10 provides that where the lower court refuses to grant a supersedeas or stay, as has occurred in the case at bar, the said refusal may be reviewed and overruled, modified or discharged by the appellate court if the order denying supersedeas is determined to be arbitrary or unreasonable or is for any other reason improper.

ín the lower court’s temporary injunction order, the following recitation appears :

> “On the basis of evidence submitted, this Court concludes preliminarily that the defendants’ objective at 19 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Florida is the selling of obscene, lewd and indecent material for profits (the court notes the apparent exorbitant prices at which these publications are offered for sale), to paying customers who have a perverted, abnormal or morbid sexual curiosity and erotic appetite. That the activities of the defendant at 19 Harrison Avenue, Panama City, Florida are prima facie, injurious and damaging to the morals and manners to the people of the State of Florida and are prima facie subversive to public order and decency and prima facie constitute a public nuisance. Plaintiff has demonstrated prima facie irreparable harm and damage to the morals and welfare and safety of the people of the State of Florida.”

The above paragraph is preceded by findings which describe the nature of the materials submitted to the trial judge as being representative of the books and magazines being sold by appellants.

In view of -the court’s findings of fact and conclusions as above set out, it cannot be said that the lower court acted arbitrarily, unreasonably or capriciously in denying appellants’ motion for supersedeas pending this interlocutory appeal. The trial judge’s denial of supersedeas fell well within the discretionary authority reposed in him by F.A.R. 5.1.

Appellants having failed to demonstrate error in the order being reviewed, the motion for supersedeas is denied.

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63930-63931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31648]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. OR98-2-000]


Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Complainant v. SFPP, L.P., 
Respondent; Notice of Complaint

November 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 21, 1997, pursuant to Rule 206 of the 
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission, 18 CFR 385.206, 
Sections 9, 13, and 15 of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 U.S.C. 
app. Secs. 9, 13, and 15 (1994), and Section 1803 of the Energy Policy 
Act of 1992, Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation (Ultramar Diamond) 
filed a complaint against SFPP, L.P. (SFPP), as part of Ultramar 
Diamond's motion to intervene in Docket No. OR98-1-000.
    Ultramar Diamond asserts that SFPP violated and continues to 
violate Section 1(5), 2, 3(1), 4, 6, and 8 of the ICA by: (a) 
establishing and charging unjust and unreasonable rates for its 
jurisdictional services; (b) charging unduly discriminatory or 
preferential rates and charges for its jurisdictional services; and (c) 
assessing untariffed rates and charges for jurisdictional interstate 
services. 49 U.S.C. app. Secs. 1(5), 2, 3(1), 4, 6, and 8 (1994).
    Ultramar Diamond requests that the Commission (1) examine the rates 
and charges collected by SFPP for its jurisdictional interstate 
service, (2) order refunds to Ultramar Diamond to the extent the 
Commission finds that such rates or charges were unlawful, (3) 
determine just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory rates for SFPP's 
jurisdictional interstate service; and award Ultramar Diamond 
reasonable attorneys' fees in accordance with the ICA, including 
Sections 8, 9, 15, and 16

[[Page 63931]]

of the ICA, and such other relief as may be appropriate in this 
proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said complaint should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 214 and 211 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, 385.211. All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before December 22, 1997. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. Answers to this complaint shall be 
due on or before December 22, 1997.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31648 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Template for final certification 

Template for final certification:

Pursuant to subsection (n) of Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, I hereby 

certify that I am [“the Chief Executive Officer” or “a duly authorized designee, as 

defined at 31 C.F.R. § 802.202(b),”] of [the submitting party], which submitted a Notice 

dated _____, and additional information in connection with such Notice 

("Information"), and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief subject to the penalties 

provided in section 1001 of Title 18, United States Code:

1. The Notice and Information fully comply with the requirements of Section 721 of

the Defense Production Act, 31 C.F.R. Part 802, and any agreement or condition

entered into with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States or any

agency acting on its behalf; and

2. The Notice and Information, as they relate to the transaction, the real estate, [the 

submitting party], and [the submitting party’s] parents, affiliates, and any other 

related entities described in the Notice or Information, are accurate and complete 

in all material respects. [Note: a submitting party that doesn’t have parents,

affiliates, and/or subsidiaries, may omit the inapplicable term(s)]

Signature: __________________________

[include printed name of signer] 

Title: __________________________

Submitter: __________________________ 

[identify the party to the transaction on whose behalf the individual above 

has signed the certification] 

Date: __________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7036 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 486
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7036

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2020

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 
                  2004 to repeal the sunset provision.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Antitrust Criminal Penalty 
Enhancement and Reform Permanent Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) Conspiracies among competitors to fix prices, rig bids, 
        and allocate markets are categorically and irredeemably 
        anticompetitive and contravene the competition policy of the 
        United States.
            (2) Cooperation incentives are important to the efforts of 
        the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to 
        prosecute and deter the offenses described in paragraph (1).
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act, and the amendments made by 
this Act, is to strengthen public and private antitrust enforcement by 
providing incentives for antitrust violators to cooperate fully with 
government prosecutors and private litigants through the repeal of the 
sunset provision of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and 
Reform Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 1 note).

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION.

    (a) In General.--Section 211 of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty 
Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is repealed.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 212 of the 
Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (15 
U.S.C. 1 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (6); and
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (6).

            Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 486

116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 7036

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 
                  2004 to repeal the sunset provision.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 29, 2020

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
#### Doris B. CLAYTON, Appellant, v. John D. CLAYTON, Appellee.

No. 72-899.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 17, 1973.

Royal Flagg Jonas, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Frank T. Imand, Hialeah, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Mufson v. Mufson, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 110.
<PAGE>
                                          EXHIBIT 21: SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<Table>
<Caption>
                        DIRECT SUBSIDIARIES               INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES          STATE/JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
                        -------------------               ---------------------          -----------------------------------
<S>             <C>                                       <C>                            <C>
CIB MARINE BANCSHARES, INC.

                Central Illinois Bank                                                          Illinois Commercial Bank

                Hillside Investors                                                             Illinois Corporation

                                                         CIB Bank                              Illinois Commercial Bank

                                                         CIB Capital Holdings I, LLC           Delaware LLC

                                                         CIB Capital I, LLC                    Delaware LLC

                CIB Bank                                                                       Indiana Commercial Bank

                First Ozaukee Capital Corp.                                                    Wisconsin Corporation

                                                         Marine Bank                           Wisconsin Commercial Bank

                                                         Marine Investment Corporation         Nevada Subsidiary

                Marine Bank                                                                    Federal Savings Bank

                CIB Data Processing Services, Inc.                                             Illinois Corporation

                Mortgage Services, Inc.                                                        Illinois Corporation

                CIB Marine Capital Trust                                                       Delaware Business Trust

                CIB Statutory Trust III                                                        Connecticut Statutory Trust

                CIB Statutory Trust IV                                                         Connecticut Statutory Trust

                Citrus Financial Services, Inc.                                                Florida Corporation

                                                         Citrus Bank, NA                       National Banking Association

                CIB Marine Capital, LLC                                                        Wisconsin Limited Liability Company
</Table>
#### SANTINI BROTHERS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents.

No. 42979.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 7, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1   Certifications   I, Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American General Finance Corporation (the registrant);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.   Date:November 8, 2007/s/Frederick W. GeissingerFrederick W. GeissingerPresident and Chief Executive Officer   44