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

<TABLE>
CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE - BASIC
(in thousands of dollars except share and per share amounts)
Twelve Weeks Ended May 2, 1998 and April 26, 1997
<CAPTION>
                                          Twelve Weeks Ended 
                                         ----------------------
                                           May 2,     April 26,
                                            1998        1997   
                                         ---------    ---------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>
Basic:

  Net loss applicable to common shares   $   (506)    $ (2,411)
                                         =========    =========

Shares:

  Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding              17,536       17,283 

  Less:  Treasury stock - weighted
    average                                (7,622)      (5,557)
                                         ---------    ---------
  Weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares
    outstanding                             9,914       11,726 
                                         =========    =========
Net loss per common and common
    equivalent shares                    $  (0.05)    $  (0.21)
                                         =========    =========

</TABLE>










                              24
## NO. 12

- 15

- 00054

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SABRE ENERGY CORPORA TION, SONCO HOLDINGS, LLC, VAN W.

MOUNTS AND EDWIN WES LEY SANO,

APPELLANT

V.

WELL

- PRO SERVICE, L.P.,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 2

GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

The parties have filed a joint motion to remand in which they state that they have settled

all claims in issue in this appeal. Consequently, they request that the trial co urt’s judgment be

reversed and that the cause be remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the

agreement of the parties.

This court is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. Accordingly, we grant the

joint motion to remand, reverse t he trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits, and

remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the parties’

agreement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B), 43.2(d). Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, costs

are taxed against the party incurring them.

Opinion delivered July 22, 2015.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 2 2 , 2015

NO. 12

- 15

- 0005 4

- CV

SABRE ENERGY CORPORA TION, SONCO HOLDINGS , LLC, VAN W. MOUNTS

AND EDWIN WESLEY SAN O,

Appellant s V.

WELL

- PRO SERVICE, L.P.,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2

of Gregg County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2012

- 1207

- CCL2)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed

herein and the joint motion to remand for purposes of settlement , the Court having heard and

fully consider said motion is of the opinion the same should be granted

.

I t is therefore ORDERED , ADJUDGED an d DECREED by this C ourt that

the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits be reversed and the cause remanded to

the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement, and that all

costs of this appeal are hereby adjud ged against the party incurring same ; and that this decision

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
#### T. L. PERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-930.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# United States Navy

**– Marine Corps**  **Court of Criminal Appeals**

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Rocky RODRIGUEZ Sergeant (E

- 5 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 201 800265

Decided: 8 February 2019 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary. Military Judge : Lieutenant Colonel Eugene H. Robinson, Jr

. , USMC Senten ce adjudged 11 May 2018 by a g eneral court

- martial convened at Camp Foster , Okinawa, Japan , consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Sentence approved by convening authority : a reprimand , r eduction to E

- 1 , confine ment for 5 years , 1 and a dishonorabl e discharge

. For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Lee C. Kindlon, USMCR

. For Appellee: Brian Keller, Esq

.

________ _________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________ Before WOODARD , TANG , and LAWRENCE , Appellate Military Judges.

1 The Convening Authority suspended confinement in excess of 30 months pursuant to a pretrial agreement.United States v. Rodriguez , No. 201 8 00 2 6 5

2 PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). T he findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
Exhibit 21**SUBSIDIARIES OF CIB MARINE**         **STATE/JURISDICTION OF****DIRECT SUBSIDIARIES** **INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES** **INCORPORATION**     CIB MARINE BANCSHARES, INC.   Wisconsin Central Illinois Bank   Illinois Commercial Bank CIB Construction, LLC (2)   Illinois LLC   Canron Corporation (1)(2) Michigan Company MICR, Inc. d/b/a Maverick International (2)   Illinois Corporation CIB Bank (3)   Indiana Commercial Bank First Ozaukee Capital Corp.   Wisconsin Corporation   Marine Bank Wisconsin Commercial Bank   Marine Investment Corporation Nevada Subsidiary Marine Bank (4)   Federal Savings Bank CIB Marine Information Services, Inc.   Illinois Corporation Mortgage Services, Inc.    *Also doing business under the name*   Illinois Corporation*of “Comcor Mortgage Corporation”*         CIB Marine Capital Trust I   Delaware Business Trust     CIB Statutory Trust III   Connecticut Statutory Trust     CIB Statutory Trust IV   Connecticut Statutory Trust     CIB Statutory Trust V   Delaware Business Trust     Citrus Financial Services, Inc.   Florida Corporation       Citrus Bank, NA National Banking Association     CIB Marine Capital, LLC (2)   Wisconsin Limited Liability Company (1) CIB Construction owns 84% of the outstanding stock of Canron. (2) See Note 24 – Subsequent Events regarding the sale, dissolution or wind down of thesesubsidiaries subsequent to December 31, 2004. (3) Merged into Marine Bank, Wisconsin on August 1, 2006.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
May 23, 2019

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker

U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

I am writing to notify you, as required under 5 U.S.C. § 8348(1)(2), of my determination that, by
reason of the statutory debt limit, I will continue to be unable to fully invest the portion of the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) not immediately required to pay beneficiaries,
and that a “debt issuance suspension period,” previously determined to end on June 5, 2019, will
continue through July 25, 2019. Asa result, the Treasury Department will continue to suspend
additional investments of amounts credited to, and will redeem an additional portion of the
investments held by, the CSRDF, as authorized by law.

In addition, because the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 provides that
investments in the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (PSRHBF) shall be made in the
same manner as investments for the CSRDF, the Treasury Department will also continue to suspend
additional investments of amounts credited to, and will redeem an additional portion of the
investments held by, the PSRHBF. By law, the CSRDF and PSRHBF will be made whole once the
debt limit is increased or suspended. Federal retirees and employees will be unaffected by these
actions.

The effective duration of the extraordinary measures is subject to considerable uncertainty due to a
variety of factors, including the unpredictability of tax receipts and the normal challenges of
forecasting the payments and receipts of the U.S. government months into the future. Given this
unavoidable uncertainty, Treasury is not able to provide a specific estimate of how long the
extraordinary measures will last. However, we believe there is a risk that the extraordinary
measures could be exhausted by late summer.

I respectfully urge Congress to protect the full faith and credit of the United States by acting to
increase or suspend the statutory debt limit as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Steven T. Mnuchin


Identical letter sent to:

ce:

The Honorable Kevin McCarthy, House Republican Leader
The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer, Senate Democratic Leader

The Honorable Richard E. Neal, Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means
The Honorable Kevin Brady, Ranking Member, House Committee on Ways and Means
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance

The Honorable Ron Wyden, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Finance
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2473 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 275 Penn Avenue in Salem, Ohio, as the 

‘‘Howard Arthur Tibbs Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2473 EH

1 SECTION 1. HOWARD ARTHUR TIBBS POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 275 Penn Avenue in Salem, 

4 Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Howard Ar5 thur Tibbs Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Howard Arthur Tibbs 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 14, 

2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2473 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postfice’’. Ohio, as the ‘‘Howard Arthur Tibbs Post Of- al Service located at 275 Penn Avenue in Salem,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             679
<SECURITIES>                                       843
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,204
<INVENTORY>                                         38
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,951
<DEPRECIATION>                                     484
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                         3,900
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,462
<SALES>                                            447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   859
<CGS>                                              428
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   113
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  86
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (720)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (53)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                773
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       855
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,854,240
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,103,619
<ALLOWANCES>                                    39,790
<INVENTORY>                                  1,117,208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,192,512
<PP&E>                                         611,742
<DEPRECIATION>                                 162,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,402,773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,391,740
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    46,024,811
<OTHER-SE>                                (39,747,110)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,402,773
<SALES>                                      7,559,011
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,559,011
<CGS>                                        3,282,177
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,282,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,069,686
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                48,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,397
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,193,787
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,193,787
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,193,787
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
Republic of Kenya - Proposed IFC Investment in Thika Power Limited (Thika Power)

December 15, 2011

United States Position

The United States supports the proposed IFC "A" loan of up to $39.3 million in Thika Power. 

The United States recognizes the need to develop power infrastructure in Kenya in light of its

acute power shortages. The United States understands that this 87 MW Heavy Fuel Oil Power 

Project is one in a series of new Independent Power Producer (IPP) projects being facilitated 

by the Government of Kenya under a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The United States

encourages the IFC's collaboration with the Government of Kenya on future IPPs and 

anticipates that some of these future projects will include renewables. Nevertheless, the United 

States wishes to be recorded as abstaining on grounds that the project's Environmental Impact 

Assessment was not made public at least 120 days prior to Board consideration. Although the 

project's Environmental Impact Assessment appears to be adequate and complies with IFC's 

Performance Standards, the United States must abstain due to legislative mandates. 

The World Bank Group's Kenya Country Partnership Strategy for 2010-2013 has as its 

principal objectives: improving core infrastructure, especially in roads, electricity and water 

supply. The United States notes the fact that the Project also contributes to Kenya’s strategic 

priorities to improve necessary infrastructure as part of Kenya's Vision 2030 for economic and 

social development. The Thika Power project, if successful, will help to support Kenya’s desire 

to achieve a more stable energy supply and decrease Kenya's utilization of expensive and 

inefficient emergency diesel-fired plants, which are currently used to meet the country's energy 

shortfalls. 

The United States appreciates the project's incorporation of financial instruments and 

collaboration efforts from multiple World Bank Group institutions. Coordination on IPPs 

remains critical for successful long-term infrastructure development in Africa, particularly as 

private finance remains limited. In particular, the United States notes the positive impact that 

IFC's involvement in this project has provided and believe that the facilitation of long-term 

financing in an environment where such financing is limited is critical. The United States

expects that future IPPs will employ similarly innovative and comprehensive financing 

instruments in order to ensure bankability and adequate private sector interest.
#### Reuben Lee TOBLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-383.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 29, 1973.

Reuben Lee Tobler, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

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

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof, and the reply briefs, and upon full examination of the proceed*179ings, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Board of Directors
Aeroflex Holding Corp. and Subsidiaries:



We consent to the incorporation by reference
in the registration statement (No. 333-178022) on Form S-8 of Aeroflex Holding Corp. and subsidiaries of our report dated August
29, 2012, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Aeroflex Holding Corp. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2012 and 2011,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2012, and the financial statement schedule listed in the index to
Item 15, and the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting as of June 2012, which report appears in the June
30, 2012 annual report on Form 10-K of Aeroflex Holding Corp. and subsidiaries.



/s/ KPMG LLP



Melville, New York
August 29, 2012
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. CARLOS ANTWAN WALKER, a/k/a Twan,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (6:06-cr-00007-nkm)

Submitted: August 6, 2009 Decided: August 17, 2009

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darren S. Haley, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Reed, Third-Year Practice Law Student, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Carlos Antwan Walker appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Walker , No. 6:06-cr-00007-nkm (W.D. Va. Aug. 28, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Abraham MIDGAHL, Petitioner, v. Captain DeBOIS, Director of Corrections and Rehabilitations Department, and the Honorable Stuart Lamotte, Respondents.

No. 71-707.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 25, 1971.

Melvyn Kessler, Miami, for petitioner.

Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondents.

Ordered that petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed August 13, 1971, is hereby denied. See Mitchell v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 155 So.2d 868.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### Michael GRADY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Nos. 02-1040, 02-1625.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted July 24, 2002.

Filed Aug. 28, 2002.

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

*67PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, federal prisoner Michael Grady appeals from final orders entered in the District Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri denying a motion for grand jury records and a subsequent motion for the district court to recognize its jurisdiction to review his constitutional claims. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm. Even assuming Grady had a legal basis for filing these motions (he already has had a direct criminal appeal and has brought a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion), he failed to set forth a particularized need for disclosure of grand jury materials, *see United States v. Broyles,*37 F.3d 1314, 1318 (8th Cir.1994), *cert, denied,*514 U.S. 1056, 115 S.Ct. 1441, 131 L.Ed.2d 320 (1995), *and*all of Grady’s arguments in the proceedings underlying these appeals raise issues that were or should have been raised on direct appeal, *cf. Thompson v. United States,*7 F.3d 1377, 1379 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), *cert, denied,*511 U.S. 1010,114 S.Ct. 1383,128 L.Ed.2d 58 (1994) and 511 U.S. 1038, 114 S.Ct. 1556, 128 L.Ed.2d 204 (1994); *Dall v. United States,*957 F.2d 571, 572 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Grady’s motions for grand jury records and for the district court to recognize its jurisdiction to review his constitutional claims.

Accordingly we affirm, *see*8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Grady’s motion to supplement the record on appeal with grand jury records.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.