alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11.1



THE PMI GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE



|                                        |  |                                       |          |   |      |   |          |      |  |   |          |  
|--------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------- | -------- | - | ---- | - | -------- | ---- |  | - | -------- | -
|                                        |  | Year ended December 31,               |         
|                                        |  | 2010                                  |          |   | 2009 |   |          | 2008 | 
|                                        |  | (In thousands, except per share data) |         
|Basic loss per share:                   |  |                                       |          |   |      |   |          |      |  |   |          |  
|Net loss                                |  | $                                     | (773,028 | ) |      | $ | (659,326 | )    |  | $ | (928,508 | )
|Weighted-average shares outstanding     |  |                                       | 135,560  |   |      |   | 82,317   |      |  |   | 81,423   |  
|                                        |  |                                       |          |   |      |   |          |      |  |   |          |  
|Basic loss per share                    |  | $                                     | (5.70    | ) |      | $ | (8.01    | )    |  | $ | (11.40   | )
|                                        |  |                                       |          |   |      |   |          |      |  |   |          |  
|Diluted net loss per share:             |  |                                       |          |   |      |   |          |      |  |   |          |  
|Net loss                                |  | $                                     | (773,028 | ) |      | $ | (659,326 | )    |  | $ | (928,508 | )
|Weighted-average shares for diluted EPS |  |                                       | 135,560  |   |      |   | 82,317   |      |  |   | 81,423   |  
|                                        |  |                                       |          |   |      |   |          |      |  |   |          |  
|Diluted net loss per share              |  | $                                     | (5.70    | ) |      | $ | (8.01    | )    |  | $ | (11.40   | )
|                                        |  |                                       |          |   |      |   |          |      |  |   |          |
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 06599**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 

### 06599\06599_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 06599\06599_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 

### 06599\06599_Followup Questions_JN1.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up x 

### 06599\06599_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06599\06599_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06599\06599_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06599\06599_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06599\06599_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 06599\06599_telecon1.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 

### 06599\06599_telecon2.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 

### 06599\06599_telecon3.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 

### 06599\06599_telecon4.pdf Technical Review Correspondence



### 06599\Certification Statement Plant ID 06599.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 06599\Supplemental Documents\06599_A5-2-MC- Map 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 06599\Supplemental Documents\06599_MC water mass balance 10-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
EXHIBIT 23.2

                 Notice Regarding Consent of Arthur Andersen LLP

This Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31, 2002 includes a
report of independent  public  accountants  previously issued by Arthur Andersen
LLP  ("Andersen"),  which has ceased  operations.  The  reprinting of Andersen's
report is not the equivalent of a current  reissuance of that report as would be
required  if  Andersen  was  still  operating.  Because  Andersen  is no  longer
conducting operations,  CareAdvantage,  Inc. could not obtain Andersen's consent
to the  incorporation by reference of its report appearing in this Annual Report
into registration  statements filed by  CareAdvantage,  Inc. with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission  and currently  effective  under the  Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities  Act").  Because Andersen has not consented to
the incorporation by reference of its report,  investors in CareAdvantage,  Inc.
common stock will not be able to recover  against  Andersen  under Section 11 of
the Securities Act for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the
financial  statements  audited by  Andersen  that are  contained  in this Annual
Report or for any  omissions by Andersen to state a material fact required to be
stated herein.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.21


                           HORIZON HEALTH CORPORATION

                           BONUS PLAN -- FISCAL 1998



 Ken  Newman: $23,000 in cash bonus for each $.01 of earnings per share in
              excess of $1.26 that Horizon reports during fiscal 1998. The 
              maximum bonus to be no more than 100% of his average base salary 
              for fiscal 1998.

Jim McAtee:   $12,000 in cash bonus for each $.01 of earnings per share in
              excess of $1.26 that Horizon reports during discal 1998. The 
              maximum bonus to be no more than 60% of his average base salary 
              for fiscal 1998.

Bob Lefton:   $13,000 in cash bonus for each $.01 of earnings per share in 
              excess of $1.26 that Horizon reports during fiscal 1998.  The 
              maximum bonus to be no more than 75% of his average base salary 
              for fiscal 1998.


              All bonuses to be paid on the first regular payroll date following
              the receipt of Horizon audited financials for fiscal 1998.



Gary Kagan:   $10,000 for each new mental health management contract signed 
              during fiscal 1998 in excess of eighteen.  Bonus to be paid upon
              the opening of the contract locations.
#### HAMILTON ELECTRIC, INC. of Florida, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. POLK COUNTY ABSTRACT COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 68-490.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 31, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 25, 1969.

Hugh E. Reams of Kiernan & Reams, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Stephen H. Grimes of Holland & Knight, Bartow, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the record in this case and find that it amply supports the findings of fact meticulously set out by the trial judge; and further find that his conclusions of law are well-reasoned and correct.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

Affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
SERVED FEBRUARY 16, 2011 ii Mg ^ 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MARCUS WILSON 

FAA DOCKET No. CP10EA0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0625 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On July 16, 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed a 

Complaint. On July 8, 2010, Marcus Wilson ("Respondent") filed his Answer. On 

February 15, 2011, Respondent withdrew its request for a hearing, citing settlement. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 
1. Respondent's Withdrawal of its Request for Hearing be and is hereby 

granted; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP10EA0005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000^ 

ONE COPY 

Marcus Wilson, Respondent 

9575 Upland Street 

Spring Valley, CA 91977 

TEL: 619-797-7239 

Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3278 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building (Jround Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL; Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building - Room 

2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### Walton C. TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. RED TOP CAB & BAGGAGE COMPANY, Employers Service Corporation, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 36622.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 8, 1967.

Alfred D. Bieley, Miami, for petitioner.

Gilbert A. Haddad of Preddy, Haddad & Kutner, Miami, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date June 22, 1967.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is therefore denied.

The petition for attorney’s fees filed by Petitioner is also denied.

CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36471-36472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2015-14703]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0426; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-231-AD; 
Amendment 39-18186; AD 2015-12-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

Correction

    In rule document 2015-14703 beginning on page 34827 in the issue of 
Thursday, June 18, 2015 make the following correction:
    1. On page 34827, in the second column, in the SUMMARY section, in

[[Page 36472]]

the third line, ``The Boeing Company Model and 777 airplanes'' should 
read ``The Boeing Company Model 767 and 777 airplanes.''

[FR Doc. C1-2015-14703 Filed 6-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
#### Sheldon Leon COLEMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-160.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 15, 1967.

*6Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Marvin J. Emory, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Barry N. Semet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged with a violation of the Florida Uniform Narcotics Drug Act, § 398.19 Fla.Stat. (1965), F.S.A. on March 16, 1959. Thereafter on March 25, 1959, he was adjudged guilty and sentence was suspended from day to day and term to term. The minutes of the court reflect that thereafter defendant was released in the custody of the probation officer. No further order reflecting the term or conditions of probation was entered.

The record reveals that on November 28, 1966, the appellant appeared before the court and pleaded guilty to a charge of violating his probation by leaving the State without permission. After a hearing, the court entered an order revoking probation and sentenced the appellant to five years in prison. This appeal followed.

The order of March 25, 1959, purporting to suspend sentence from day to day and term to term, was an illegal order. See Bateh v. State, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 869; State v. Bateh, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 7; Drayton v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 250; Hunter v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So.2d 577.

Since the court’s action at the time of the original sentence was illegal, the only question remaining is whether the appellant could have been legally sentenced on November 28, 1966. Section 775-14, Fla. Stat. (1965), F.S.A. limits the time for the correction of an illegal sentence to five years from the date of sentence. This time has now expired.

Although not necessary to a determination of the case, it should be pointed out that if the sentence of March 25, 1959, could be construed as an order placing appellant on probation, then the period for which probation could be ordered had expired by November 28, 1966. The maximum sentence that the appellant could have received at the time of his conviction was five years. Section 948.04, Fla.Stat. (1965), F.S.A. limits the period of probation to maximum sentence, plus two years.

Reversed with directions to discharge the defendant.
# Official Journal C 74A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2014.074.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 74A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5713 March 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2014.074.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 74A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5713 March 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 074A/01 | Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/276/14 — Administrators (AD 5) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2014/C 074A/01

Notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/276/14 — Administrators (AD 5)

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-14-00335-CR, 01-14-00336-CR

Style: Damion Gentry v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: September 25, 2014

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time to File Reporter’s Record

Party filing motion: Court reporter

Document to be filed: Reporter’s Record

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: June 16, 2014

Number of extensions granted: 3 Current Due date: September 16, 2014

Date Requested: October 10, 2014

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Though the court reporter requested an extension until October 10, 2014, to file

the reporter’s records in both cases, she apparently filed both of them on 

September 29, 2014. Accordingly, the motion is dismissed as moot. Because the 

clerk’s record was filed in both cases, the record is complete. Appellant’s brief is 

ordered to be filed within 30 days of the filing of the reporter’s record. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.6(a)(2). The State’s brief, if any, is due within 30 days of the filing of 

appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: September 30, 2014
#### CITY OF MIAMI, Petitioner, v. Nick F. GAGGI, Respondent.

No. 43203.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 28, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 270 So.2d 476.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 29589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13484]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83463]


Draft 2018-2022 Strategic Plan for Securities and Exchange 
Commission

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is providing 
notice that it is seeking comments on its draft 2018-2022 Strategic 
Plan. The draft Strategic Plan includes a draft of the SEC's mission, 
vision, values, strategic goals, and planned initiatives.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before July 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

    Send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dd8db8afbbb2afb0bcb3beb88db1bcb3b3b4b3ba9daeb8bef3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="267643544049544b47484543764a4748484f48416655434508414950">[email protected]</span></a>.

Paper Comments

    Send paper comments to Nicole Puccio, Branch Chief, Securities and 
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2521.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Puccio, Branch Chief, Office of 
Financial Management, at (202) 551-6638, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2521.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft strategic plan is available at the 
Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/files/sec-strategic-plan-2018-2022.pdf or by contacting Nicole Puccio, Branch Chief, Office of 
Financial Management, at (202) 551-6638, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2521.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: June 19, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13484 Filed 6-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1
 G&K SERVICES, INC.
CERTIFICATION OF CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ Richard L. MarcantonioRichard L. Marcantonio, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Jacob Dale JANES, Petitioner, v. William R. HEIDTMAN, as Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-80.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 6, 1973.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### ADVERCOLOR PRESS, INC., a Florida corporation, and William Konchak, Appellants, v. GRAPHIC SALES INNOVATORS, INC., a Florida corporation, and Howard Bankston, Appellees.

No. 73-1232.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 13, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00675- CV

Ro que Te r c e r o- Ar anda , A ppe lla nt

v. Texas Board of

P ardons an d Par oles, Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 261ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. GN502274 , HO NORAB LE LORA J. LIVINGSTO N, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellant Roque Te rce ro-Ara n d a s e e k s to a p p e a l a s ta ted is tric t court’s de termination that it lacked jurisdiction to take a ny action on his request for

finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law afte r his suit ag ainst appellee Texas Boa rd of Pa rd o n s an d P aroles had bee n remove d to and dismiss ed by

the Unit ed S tates Dist rict C ourt for the Western Dis trict of Texas. The f eder al cour

t did not remand Te rce ro-Ar anda’ s suit to t he state district court and nothingrema ined pendingin the state dis tr ic t c ourt

a ft e r Te rc e ro -Ara

nd a ’s su it w a s r e mov e d to fe de ra l c ourt . See E. D. Sys. Corp. v. Southw estern Be ll Tel. Co. , 6 7 4 F. 2 d 4 5 3 , 4 5 7 n . 2 , 4 5 8 (5 thC i r. 1 9 8 2 ) ( ci t i n g Lowe v. Jac obs , 243 F.2d 432, 433 ( 5th Cir. 1957) (state c ourt loses jurisdiction upon a case ’s remova l to feder al cour t and state c ourt’s jurisdiction is not restored unless fe dera l court re mands ca se)) .2 Be cause we lac k jurisdiction to dispose of Ter cer o-Ara nda’s pur ported a ppeal in any manner other than dismissal for w ant of jurisdiction, see Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a) , we dismiss the a pp e a l.

J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Justices B . A. S mith, Patterson and Puryear Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: January

6, 2006
#### Daniel S. BRAUN v. MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF LOUISIANA.

No. 61803.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 31, 1978.

In re: Daniel S. Braun, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 355 So.2d 19.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant the writ.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Gus WILLIAMS.

No. 61657.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 31, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana through the District Attorney, Harry F. Connick, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and stay order. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS, J., would grant.