alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                                EXHIBIT 11

COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE                                                           MIRAGE RESORTS, INCORPORATED
OF COMMON STOCK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Three Months                    Nine Months
                                                              ----------------------------    ----------------------------
For the periods ended September 30                                 1996            1995            1996            1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                            <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Weighted-average shares outstanding                            182,787,603     182,457,082     183,669,140     182,301,718
Common stock equivalents                                        12,229,002      10,552,452      12,378,975       9,652,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-average shares outstanding and common stock
  equivalents used in the computation of primary earnings
  per share                                                    195,016,605     193,009,534     196,048,115     191,954,218
Additional common stock equivalents for fully diluted
  calculation                                                    2,199,432         142,832       2,049,459       1,042,784
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total shares outstanding assuming full dilution                197,216,037     193,152,366     198,097,574     192,997,002
==========================================================================================================================
Net income                                                     $48,736,000     $45,195,000    $153,922,000    $118,689,000

Primary earnings per share                                           $0.25           $0.23           $0.79           $0.62

Fully diluted earnings per share                                     $0.25           $0.23           $0.78           $0.61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above share and common stock equivalent data has been adjusted retroactively to give effect to a two-for-one  split of
the Registrant's common stock effective June 17, 1996.
</TABLE>
#### THOGUS PRODUCTS COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. SUPERHEATER SALES CO., Inc., et al., Appellees.

No. 71-288.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 5, 1971.

William McGowan, Jr., of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert Orseck, of Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, P. A., Miami, Bill Wagner of Wagner, Cunningham & Vaughan, P. A., Tampa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal contesting the trial court’s decision allowing service of process on appellant-defendant, Thogus Products Company, Inc., pursuant to Section 48.181, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., commonly known as “Florida’s long arm statute.”

Upon consideration of the facts, the briefs, and the record filed in this cause, the order appealed from is affirmed on the basis of State ex rel. Guardian Credit Indem. Corp. v. Harrison, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 371, and International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 1945, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95, and other numerous Florida cases.

Affirmed.

LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON and MANN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31(a)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (15 U.S.C. § 7241)

I, Pierre-Olivier Beckers, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Delhaize America, Inc.;

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 14, 2006



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ Pierre-Olivier Beckers
|Pierre-Olivier Beckers    
|Chief Executive Officer   



29
#### TITUSVILLE ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Florida Wonderland, Appellant, v. Jack H. NEWKIRK, Appellee.

No. 920.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Dec. 18, 1967.

Monroe E. McDonald, of Sanders, Mc-Ewan Schwarz & Mims, Orlando, for appellant.

Alan R. Schwartz, of Horton & Schwartz, Miami, and Nance & Ferrell, Eau Gallie, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant-appellant appeals from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff-appellee for personal injuries sustained while the plaintiff was a paying customer at the defendant’s amusement facilities.

The appellant’s principal contention is that the trial court should have directed a verdict in its favor as the evidence was insufficient upon which a jury could find the defendant guilty of negligence and that the plaintiff was, as a matter of law, con-tributorily negligent and had assumed the risk.

The record convinces us that there was sufficient evidence and proper inferences to withstand the thrust of a motion for a directed verdict. We have previously set forth the rules governing directed verdicts in Macrellis v. George, Fla.App. 1967, 202 So.2d 107; Ramsey v. Ivey, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 499.

Regarding the issue of the defendant’s negligence, we believe that a jury *17question was created by the evidence on the issue of the sufficiency of the defendant’s warning. While failure to warn was not specifically charged in plaintiff’s complaint as an act of negligence on defendant’s part, the issue was tried by the implied if not express consent of the parties and, therefore, presented a basis for liability, F.R.C.P. 1.190(b) (formerly Rule 1.15(b)), 30 F.S.A.

The remaining points raised on appeal have been considered and determined to be without merit.

Affirmed.

CROSS and REED, JJ., and HEWITT, ROBERT S., Associate Judge, concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6153

GARY SLEZAK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, in his official and individual capacities,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenwood. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-99-1798-22RB)

Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Slezak, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD,

PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court states in its November 2000

order that Slezak retained the right to pursue claims other than

his First Amendment claim, its September 2000 order states that

summary judgment was entered against Slezak with prejudice as to

all other claims. Therefore, the statement in the court’s November

2000 order is erroneous.

2

PER CURIAM:

Gary R. Slezak appeals from the denial of relief on his 42

U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court.* Slezak v. Catoe, No. CA-99-1798-22RB (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 2000;

filed Nov. 14, 2000, entered Nov. 17, 2000; Dec. 19, 2000). 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
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated February 18, 2002,
included in the company's previously filed Registration Statement File No. 333-92981 on Form S-4, and the Company's previously filed Registration Statement File Nos. 333-60768,
333-05493, 333-26785, 333-69811, 333-69813, 333-87279, and 333-35534 on Form S-8. It should be noted that we have not audited any financial statements of the company subsequent to
December 31, 2001 or performed any procedures subsequent to the date of our report.

/s/ARTHUR
ANDERSEN LLP

Dallas,
Texas
March 25, 2002

---

QuickLinks
Government National Mortgage Association

15 Year Multiple Issuer Pool Numbers

NOTE:

CUSIP MIP # POOL 

TYPE

SECURITY 

INTEREST 

RATE

TERM 

YEARS

INITIAL PAY 

DATE

TOTAL AMOUNT TOTAL # OF 

LOAN 

PACKAGES

TOTAL # OF 

MORTGAGES 

(Loans)

MA9455 2 36179YQG2 36179YQE7 MA9453 SF 3.000 15 03/20/2024 $242,083.00 2 Created February 23, 2024

 This is the Finalized list of the 15 Year Multiple Issuer Pool Numbers for Issue Month of February 2024. 36179YQQ0 MA9463 SF 8.000 15 03/20/2024 $122,139.00 2 5 FEBRUARY 2024 - FINALIZED MA9462 SF 7.500 15 03/20/2024 $181,555.00 3 6 7 36179YQP2 MA9460 SF 6.500 15 03/20/2024 $516,104.00 5 98 36179YQM9 MA9458 SF 5.500 15 03/20/2024 $16,665,531.00 25 34 36179YQK3 MA9456 SF 4.500 15 03/20/2024 $8,291,748.00 16 1 36179YQH0 36179YQF4 MA9454 SF 3.500 15 03/20/2024 $46,165.00 1 1

SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT JANET KERR AT 1-800-234-4662, OPTION #3 OR 212-815-3221. MA9461 SF 7.000 15 03/20/2024 $177,364.00 4 6 89 36179YQN7 MA9459 SF 6.000 15 03/20/2024 $14,095,696.00 29 98 36179YQL1 MA9457 SF 5.000 15 03/20/2024 $17,014,453.00 26 6 36179YQJ6 SF 4.000 15 03/20/2024 $1,284,811.00 5
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40829 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JUAN ALVARADO

- ARANDA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12

- CR

- 1878

- 1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Alvarado

- Aranda (Alvarado) appeals the 51

- month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after deportation. He contends that the district court erroneously applied a 1 2

- level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based on his 1995 Illinois conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to deliver . Relying mainly on the Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder , 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013),

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 17, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40829 Document: 00513119737 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2015No. 13

- 40829

2 Alvarado argues that the Illinois statutory provisions under which he was convicte d are broader than the definition of “drug trafficking offense” set forth in the commentary to § 2L1.2 because they criminalize the distribution of illegal drugs without remuneration. As Alvarado concedes, this court’s review is for plain error because he did not object to the enhancement in the district cour t

. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) . To demonstrate plain error, Alvarado must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See id. If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id

. We recently rejected the argument that a conviction for giving or off ering to give away a controlled substance for no remuneration does not constitute a felony drug trafficking offense for purposes of the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement. United States v. Martinez

- Lugo , 782 F.3d 198, 201, 205 (5th Cir. 2015). In view of Ma rtinez

- Lugo , Alvarado fails to show that the district court committed a clear or obvious err or by enhancing his offense level. The judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 13-40829 Document: 00513119737 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2015
Exhibit 99.1

Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of SOURCECORP, Incorporated, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: March 31, 2003 | /s/ED H. BOWMAN, JR.Ed H. Bowman, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)Pursuant to section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Alliance One International, Inc., a Virginia corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Alliance One International, Inc. and will be retained by Alliance One International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.Dated:  June 10, 2011/s/ Mark W. Kehaya__________________________________________Mark W. KehayaChairman and Interim Chief Executive Officer/s/ Robert A. Sheets__________________________________________Robert A. SheetsExecutive Vice President - Chief Financial Officerand Chief Administrative Officer
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 30928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14127]



[[Page 30928]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-181-000]


Notice of Filing: American Municipal Power, Inc.

    Take notice that on June 22, 2018, American Municipal Power, Inc. 
submitted a filing of proposed revenue requirement for reactive supply 
and voltage control from generation or other sources service under 
Schedule 2 of the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Tariff (Belleville 
Hydroelectric Facility).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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 notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public 
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the 
website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a 
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any 
FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#074142554448696b6e696254727777687573476162756429606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ffb9baadbcb0919396919aac8a8f8f908d8bbf999a8d9cd1989089">[email protected]</span></a>, or call 
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 13, 2018.

    Dated: June 25, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14127 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### CAMPBELL-DICKEY ADVERTISING, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. GOLF AND RACQUET CLUB OF PALM BEACH, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-372.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 26, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Stewart La Motte, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



          <ARTICLE> UT
          <CIK> 0000065350
          <NAME> METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
          <MULTIPLIER> 1,000
          <CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
                 
          <S>                              <C>        
          <PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
          <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1996
          <PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1996
          <PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1996
          <EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
          <BOOK-VALUE>                        PER-BOOK
          <TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          1,582,147
          <OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          124,231
          <TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>               194,160
          <TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>             539,522
          <OTHER-ASSETS>                             0
          <TOTAL-ASSETS>                     2,440,060
          <COMMON>                              66,273
          <CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            370,200
          <RETAINED-EARNINGS>                  252,952
          <TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>       689,425
          <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                100,000  <F1>
          <PREFERRED>                           23,598
          <LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                 563,251
          <SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                    29,885
          <LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                  0
          <COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>        22,192
          <LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>         40,020
          <PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                  0
          <CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>              510
          <LEASES-CURRENT>                      33,060
          <OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>       938,119
          <TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      2,440,060
          <GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>            687,823
          <INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                  39,865
          <OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>           554,862
          <TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>           594,727
          <OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>               93,096
          <OTHER-INCOME-NET>                       593
          <INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>        93,689
          <TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>              44,464  <F2>
          <NET-INCOME>                          49,225
          <PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              708
          <EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>         48,517
          <COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              45,000  <F3>
          <TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>             45,588
          <CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>               111,050
          <EPS-PRIMARY>                              0
          <EPS-DILUTED>                              0
          <FN>
          <F1> REPRESENTS COMPANY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE PREFERRED
          <F1> SECURITIES.
          <F2> INCLUDES DIVIDENDS ON COMPANY-OBLIGATED MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE
          <F2> PREFERRED SECURITIES OF $6,750.
          <F3> REPRESENTS COMMON STOCK DIVIDENDS PAID TO PARENT CORPORATION.
          </FN>
                  <PAGE>

</TABLE>
#### CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.

No. 38773.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 222 So.2d 58.