alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11


                               DBA SYSTEMS, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                   (in thousands, except per share information) 
                                  (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
	                                        Three Months Ended  		 Six Months Ended
	                                            December 31	          December 31
<S>                                         <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>	
                                           1997      1996      	1997     	1996

Net income	(A)                         	$  386  	 $  372 	     $ 920  	 $  695	

Weighted average shares outstanding	(B) 	4,427    	4,474      	4,425    	4,479	
Incremental shares - stock options	 	       39	       47	         15	       34	
Total	(C)	                               4,466    	4,521	      4,440   	 4,513	


Basic Earnings per Share	(A/B)          	$ .09    	$ .08       $	.21    	$ .16 	



Diluted Earnings per Share	(A/C)        	$ .09    	$ .08	      $ .21    	$ .15 	
</TABLE>
<PAGE>12
Exhibit 10.9  ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS, INC.
NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTOR DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
COMPLIANCE AMENDMENT
(2007 Transitional Payment Election)  Whereas,Isle of Capri
Casinos, Inc., (the Company) maintains the Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc.
Nonemployee Director Deferred Compensation Plan, which plan is intended to be a
nonqualified deferred compensation plan, first effective as of January11,2005 (the Plan);  Whereas,Article 9
of the Plan permits amendment by the Board of Directors of the Company or the
Compensation Committee thereof, and such committee has authorized the amendment
of the Plan to permit certain transitional elections contemplated under Section 409A
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the guidance promulgated
thereunder;  Now, Therefore,effective as of
October 15, 2007, the following Paragraph 7.9 shall be added to the Plan
to read in its entirety as follows:  7.9Transitional
Elections.Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the
contrary, a Participant herein as of October 30, 2007, who has not yet
received his or her benefits hereunder (or the distribution of such benefits
has not yet commenced) (a Continuing Participant) shall be entitled to:  a.Designate a
time of payment with respect to his or her interest in the Plan, which shall
not be earlier than the date on which he or she is deemed to separate from
service as a member of the Board of Directors of the Company within the meaning
of Code Section 409A or January 1, 2008, if later.  b.Elect either (i) to
receive his or her benefits in the form of a single-sum payment or not more
than ten annual installments, or (ii) to increase or decrease the number
of installment payments previously in effect.  Any
such designation shall be made on forms provided by the Committee or its
designee and shall be given effect provided it is received and accepted by the
Committee or its designee not later than December 31, 2007, or such
earlier date as may be deemed necessary or appropriate. Unless a Continuing
Participant otherwise provides, any such election shall apply to such
Participants entire Plan interest.  If a Continuing Participant fails to timely submit
an election hereunder, he or she shall be deemed to have elected the
distribution of his or her interest in the Plan in accordance with the
provisions of Paragraph 7.1 thereof. Any designation or deemed designation
hereunder shall be subject to modification as provided in Paragraph 7.4
hereof.  This 2007 Transitional Payment
Electionwas approved by the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors of the Company on October 15, 2007.  ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS, INC.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33468]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 942]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, JVC America, Inc. 
(Videotape Products), Tuscaloosa County, AL

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;
    Whereas, an application from the City of Birmingham, Alabama, 
grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 98, for authority to establish special-
purpose subzone status at the videotape and videocassette manufacturing 
plant of JVC America, Inc., in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, was filed by 
the Board on March 25, 1997, and notice inviting public comment was 
given in the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 23-97, 62 FR 17146, 4-9-97); 
and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the 
application is in the public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status at the videotape and videocassette manufacturing plant of JVC 
America, Inc., located in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama (Subzone 98C), at 
the location described in the application, and subject to the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of December 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33468 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### BELAIRE ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant, v. PARK PHARMACY, INC., Appellee.

No. 72-729.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 7, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Martin County; C. Pfeiffer Trowbridge, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00035

- CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding T rial Court No. 18

- 9283

- 267

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel , JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### L ONE 

### T REE 

### R ESOURCES 

### & C ONSULTING 

### , I NC


### . AND 

### F ARZIN 

### A FSHAR 

### , Relator s2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relators Lone Tree Resources & Consulting, Inc. and Farzin Afshar filed a
mandamus petition contending that the trial

- court judge had abus ed her discretion by

r efusing to rule on four motions w ithin a reasonable time and asked us to compel her
to rule

. T he trial

- court judge ha s now signed orders ruling on those motions. Because
relators have obtained all of the relief that they sought in the ir mandamus petition, we dismiss the ir petition as moot. See In re Cooper , No. 02

- 16

- 00430

- CV,
2016 WL 7339118, at *1 (T ex. App

. — Fort Worth Dec. 19, 2016, orig. proceeding) (per c uriam ) (mem. op.).

Per Curiam
Delivered : March 6, 2020
#### In the Matter of David Burr, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[735 NYS2d 823]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court *612(LaBuda, J.), entered May 2, 2001 in Sullivan County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Petitioner initiated this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination of respondent which found him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner attempted to commence the proceeding by means of an order to show cause; however, he failed to serve respondent with all of the appropriate documents in accordance with the time limitations set forth in the order to show cause. Supreme Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding based upon petitioner’s failure to obtain personal jurisdiction and this appeal ensued.

The Attorney General has advised this Court by letter that respondent seeks to withdraw any defense relating to personal jurisdiction and petitioner’s lack of compliance with the order to show cause (see, *Matter of Butler v Goord,*262 AD2d 694, 695). Instead, the Attorney General asks this Court to vacate the judgment and remit the matter to Supreme Court, thereby giving respondent the opportunity to submit an answer.

Although petitioner did not serve respondent with the order to show cause and supporting papers until six days after the service date set forth in the order, the Attorney General does not refute his assertion that he was unable to do so as he did not receive the signed order from Supreme Court until one day before the service date. Upon our review of the record and the Attorney General’s request to withdraw its jurisdictional objection, we deem it appropriate to remit this matter to Supreme Court for a determination on the merits *(see, Matter of Ali v Goord,*267 AD2d 520).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, motion denied and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6100
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTONIO WILSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-92-35-H, CA-95-790-5-H) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are without merit. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). There is no basisfor Appellant's contention that the district court amended the indictment through its jury instructions. Further, there is no support for the claim that this application of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994) was unconstitutional. See United States v. Atkinson, 513 F.2d 38 (4th Cir. 1975). Consequently, counsel cannot have been ineffective for his failure to pursue these claims. See Fitzgerald v. Thompson , 943 F.2d 463 (4th Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 1112 (1992). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7047

MALCOLM BEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ISAAC K. FEKETE, d/b/a South Carolina Highway Patrol,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:23-cv-04782-HMH-JDA)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malcolm Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7047 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Malcolm Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order rejecting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation to dismiss Bey’s initial complaint and remanding to the 

magistrate judge to consider Bey’s amended complaints, filed after the magistrate judge 

issued the report and recommendation. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). 

The order Bey seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7047 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Terry Leroy GORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-289.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 9, 1970.

Raymond L. Williams, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of a robbery which occurred outside a beer joint in Bay County, Florida. The robbery victim was somewhat inebriated at the time and had been sent home by the barmaid. Appellant also had been inside the tavern and left at about the same time as the victim. The evidence of guilt is clear, including eyewitness testimony that appellant was observed going through the victim’s pockets as the latter lay on the ground. The principal question raised on appeal relates to the admissibility in evidence of the victim’s cigarette lighter which had been found in a car belonging to appellant’s friend and in which car appellant was riding as a passenger as he left the scene. The admissibility of the lighter is challenged as being the fruit of an unlawful search and seizure. However, we find that claim to be wholly without merit inasmuch as the owner and person in custody of the car at all material times gave his written consent to the search. In those circumstances, it is clear that the fruits of the search are admissible in evidence. Cameron v. State, 112 So.2d 864 (Fla.App.1959); and Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 89 S.Ct. 142022 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969).

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J. and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 10.30

           Amendment to K-Swiss Inc. 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan

November 29, 1999


Michael Bauer
Client Services Account Manager
Fidelity Institutional Retirement Services Co.
200 Magellan Way
Covington, KY 41015

Subject:   K-Swiss 401k and Profit Sharing Plan Amendment


Dear Michael,

As of January 1, 2000 please amend Section 1.02(b) of the Adoption Agreement so
The term "Employer" includes the following Related Employer (as defined in
Section 2.01(a)(26)): K-Swiss Sales Corp. K-Swiss Retail Services Inc. is
merging into K-Swiss Sales Corp.  As of January 1, 2000, please replace K-Swiss
Retail Services Inc. with K-Swiss Sales Corp.  Attached is page 3 of the
adoption agreement with these changes signed by me.

Please let me know if you need any further information.  In addition, we will
need to receive new Summary Plan Descriptions for our participants in January.



Sincerely,
/s/ Cheryl Kuchinka

Cheryl Kuchinka
Domestic Controller
K-Swiss Inc.
<PAGE>

Section 1.02 (b) is amended to read as follows:

1.02  EMPLOYER
      --------


     (b)  The term "Employer" includes the following Related Employer(s)
          (as defined in Section 2.01(a)(26)):


          K-Swiss Sales Corp. (as of 1/1/2000)
          -------------------------------------------------------------------
#### W. F. LASATER and Dimple Pauline Lasater, Petitioners, v. Herman E. LASATER and Horace C. Lasater, Jr., as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Horace C. Lasater, Sr., Respondents.

No. 43083.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 20, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 279 So.2d 350.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
Abatement Order filed April 16, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00107-CR

NO. 14-20-00108-CR

____________

ANTOINE KIRKWOOD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 403rd District Court

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. D-1-DC-18-301185 and D-1-DC-18-900211

ABATEMENT ORDER

The trial court denied appellant’s motion to suppress but did not submit 

findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement. 

Article 38.22, section 6 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial 

court to make written fact findings and conclusions of law as to whether a challenged 

statement was made voluntarily, even if appellant did not request them or object to 

their absence. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 § 6; Urias v. State, 155 S.W.3d 141, 
2

142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to 

correct the error is to abate the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required 

findings and conclusions. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Wicker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 

779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). 

Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of fact 

and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement and have a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the clerk of this 

Court on or before May 15, 2020.

The appeals are abated, treated as closed cases, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeals will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeals filed by either party. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Zimmerer.
NY2 - 330726.01

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Commissioners:

Timothy J. Muris, Chairman 

Sheila F. Anthony 

Mozelle W. Thompson 

Orson Swindle 

Thomas B. Leary 

In the Matter of

LIBBEY INC., a corporation,

and

NEWELL RUBBERMAID, INC., a corporation.

Docket No. 9301

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, C. Wendy Phinny, hereby certify that on May 29, 2002, copies of Answer and Defenses of Respondent 

Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. and Notices of Appearance were served via hand delivery on the following:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell

Administrative Law Judge

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Room 104

Washington, DC 20580

Richard Liebeskind, Assistant Director

Mergers II Division, Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

601 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Suite 3102

Washington, DC 20580

(202) 326-2441

and by facsimile and first-class mail to:

Steven H. Schulman

Counsel for Respondent Libbey Inc.

Latham & Watkins 

555 11th St., NW

Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20004

/s/ C. Wendy Phinny

___________________________

C. Wendy Phinny

Dated: May 29, 2002
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Roslyn DAVIS.

No. 60838.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 1977.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Parish of Orleans.

Granted. The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Jerome M. Winsberg, Judge of the Criminal District, Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 16th day of December, 1977, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this Court why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
#### Craig LAWN, a minor by his father and next friend, Roy Lawn, and Roy Lawn, Individually, Appellants, v. Irving WASSERMAN and Sheldon Wasserman, Appellees.

No. 70-844.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 25, 1971.

Walton & Garrick, Miami, for appellants.

Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellants, the Lawns, appeal from a jury verdict entered in a trial as to damages only, based upon the opening of a default judgment ordered by this court in Lawn v. Wasserman, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 261.

During a reported conference as to proposed jury instructions, the trial judge stated: “The objections are noted. The court will instruct on any loss of ability to earn money in the future.” The requested Florida Standard Jury Instruction § 6.2 was not actually given.

Our sister appellate courts have passed upon the failure of a trial judge to give a requested charge as to loss of ability to earn money in the future, where the judge had earlier ruled that he would give such an instruction. Capone v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 175, 177-178 and Powell v. Hegney, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 599. They have held that this is reversible error. We agree, and reverse and remand for a new trial as to damages only. Therefore, we express no view as to the other points raised.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial as to damages only.
#### ROCKET INDUSTRIES, INC., etc., et al., Appellants, v. Thomas C. BENNETT, Jr., et al., Appellees.

No. 71-322.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 1, 1971.

Alfred Gustinger, Jr., and Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, Miami, for appellants.

Frank, Strelkow & Marx, Miami Beach, Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl, Miami, for appellees.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Karnegis v. Lazzo, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 642; General Dynamics Corporation v. Hewitt, Fla.App.1969, 225 So.2d 561.
255 La. 149

#### John MATTHEWS v. MILWHITE MUD SALES COMPANY et al.

No. 50222.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: John Matthews applying for cer-tiorari, or. writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Iberia. 225 So.2d 391.

Writ refused. There is no error of law in the judgment.
#### John David SWEATT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-365.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 6, 1973.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, G. A. Pierce, Jr., Ronald B. Cosgrove, and James O. Brecher, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. *189State v. Ashby (Fla.1971), 245 So.2d 225; United States v. Doyle (5th Cir. 1972), 456 F.2d 1246.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.