alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENTS RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS





                           COMMUNITY BANCSHARES, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE


The following tabulation presents the calculation of primary and fully diluted
earnings per common share for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         2001             2000            1999
                                                                     -------------   -------------   --------------

<S>                                                                  <C>             <C>             <C>
Reported net income (loss).......................................    $  (1,100,499)  $  (2,214,931)  $    1,658,110
                                                                     =============   =============   ==============

Earnings (loss) on common shares.................................    $  (1,100,499)  $  (2,214,931)  $    1,658,110
                                                                     =============   =============   ==============

Weighted average common shares outstanding - basic...............        4,572,301       4,460,295        4,429,303
                                                                     =============   =============   ==============

Earnings (loss) per common share- basic
   Income from continuing operations.............................    $        (.24)  $       (0.50)  $          .37
                                                                     =============   =============   ==============

   Net income (loss).............................................    $        (.24)  $       (0.50)  $          .37
                                                                     =============   =============   ==============

Weighted average common shares outstanding - diluted.............        4,572,301       4,671,430        4,595,072
                                                                     =============   =============   ==============

Earnings (loss) per common share- diluted
   Income from continuing operations.............................    $        (.24)  $       (0.47)  $          .36
                                                                     =============   =============   ==============

   Net income (loss).............................................    $        (.24)  $       (0.47)  $          .36
                                                                     =============   =============   ==============
</TABLE>


              [The remainder of this page intentionally left blank]
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31976-31977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14726]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLWY920000. L51040000.FI0000. 18XL5017AR]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
WYW180628, Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As provided for under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 
amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for 
reinstatement of competitive oil and gas lease WYW180628 from Kirkwood 
Oil & Gas LLC for land in Converse County, Wyoming. The lessee filed 
the petition on time, along with all rentals due since the lease 
terminated under the law. No leases affecting this land were issued 
before the petition was filed. The BLM proposes to reinstate the lease.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik Norelius, Acting Branch Chief for 
Fluid Minerals Adjudication, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State 
Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82003; 
phone 307-775-6176; email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93f6fdfce1f6fffae6d3f1fffebdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84e1eaebf6e1e8edf1c4e6e8e9aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call 
the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact Mr. 
Norelius during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a 
day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above 
individual. A reply will be sent during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee agreed to the amended lease terms 
for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre, or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16

[[Page 31977]]

\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee also agreed to the amended 
stipulations as required by the Casper Approved Resource Management 
Plan. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and the 
$159 cost of publishing this notice. The lessee met the requirements 
for reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral 
Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). The BLM proposes to reinstate the 
lease effective April 1, 2016, under the revised terms and conditions 
of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

    Authority:  30 U.S.C. 188 (e)(4) and 43 CFR 3108.2-3 (b)(2)(v).

Erik Norelius,
Acting Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 2018-14726 Filed 7-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### U-Eat-More Donut Corp., Respondent, v Tedel Estates, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Marshel Management Corp., Appellant.

[656 NYS2d 728]

Motion by the respondent on appeals from a decision of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 4, 1995, and two orders of the same court, dated April 12, 1995, and September 12, 1995, respectively, *inter alia,*to dismiss the appeal from the order dated September 12, 1995, on the ground that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated August 26, 1996, the branch of the respondent’s motion which was to dismiss the appeal was held in abeyance and referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is denied.

. The trial court addressed the respondent’s motion on the merits, and therefore, in effect, granted the motion to reargue and adhered to the original determination granting summary judgment to the plaintiff. Such an order is appealable to this Court *{see,*CPLR 5517 [a] [1]). Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.
#### COLONIAL LEASING, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. Paul GILBERT and Anne B. Gilbert, his wife, Respondents.

No. 69-781.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 4, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
263 La. 103

#### Aubrey HARRIS, Sr. v. HUVAL BAKING COMPANY, INC., et al., Gulf Coast Lines Employees’ Hospital Association.

No. 52869.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 19, 1972.

In re: Aubrey Harris, Sr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 265 So.2d 783.

Application denied. The judgment is correct.

SUMMERS, BARHAM and DIXON, JJ., are of the opinion the result is correct.
04/20/2011 14:59 FAX 2024835142 

0d/20/2011 ll;i)0 12024577799 

FAA * DMS 

WICKS-FAX 

0002/003 

PAGE 02/03 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In the Matter of: 

Federal Express Corporation 

:ARTMENT OF 

••:3P0RTATI0N 

i i OPERATIONS 

-^1: 5 

FAA DOCKET CP10NM0008 

FAA Case No, 2008NM70020S 

DMS Ho. FAA-2010-0792 

Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin; 

NOTICE OF APPKARANC E 

Please enter die appearance of Glenn P. Wicks and Roncevert D- Almond as attorneys of 

record for Federal Express Corporation, Respondent in ttic above-referenced action. Service of 

all papers by U.S. Mail, expedited courier service, and perftnnsil dftlivftTy shrmld be addressed as 

follows: 

Glenn P. Wicks 

Roncevert D. Almond 

The Wicks Group, PLLC 

1215 17'*'Street, NW 

Sumner Annex, Fouith Floor 

Washington, DC 20036 

Tel: (202) 457-7790 

Fax:(202)457-7799 

Dated this 20*^ day uf April, 2011. 

jSlerb P. Wicl 

Roncevert D. Almond 

Ihe Wicks Group, PLLC 

1215 17* Street, NW 

Sunmer Annex, Fourth Floor 

Washington, DC 20036 

Tel: (707.) 4^7-7790 

Fax:(202)457-7799 

Counsel for Respondent 
04/20/2011 14:59 FAX 2024335142 

04/20/2011 11:40 12024577799 

FAA - DMS 

WICKS-FA>^ 

@|003/003 

PAGE 03/03 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

T hereby certify Ihal llic fyrcgoing document has been scnl, via facsimile and expedited 

courier service to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue. SW 

Wilbur Wright Building—^uite 2W1000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Fax:(202)493-5142 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

OfHcc of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

F.a!?t HuUdme Gn^unid Floor, Rm E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Tel: (202) 366-2139 

Fax:(202)366-7536 

Mr. Scott Morris, Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Rcgioiiflt Counsel (ANM-7) 

1601 Lind Ave., S.W. 

Renton, WA9R057 

Tel; (425)227-1417 

Fax: (425) 227-1107 

One (I) copy and original 

One (1) copy 

One (1) copy 

Dated this 20"^ day of April 2011. 

^he Wiofc Group, PLLC 

1215 17*Strei=t,NW 

Sumner Annex, Fourth Floor 

Washington, DC 20036 

Tel: (202) 457-7790 

Fax: (202) 457-7799 

Counsel for Reepondem
# C_2021252EN.01000603.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/6

---

Appeal brought on 1 February 2021 by Embutidos Monells, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 2 December 2020 in Case T-639/19, Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo v EUIPO — Embutidos Monells (5MS MMMMM)

(Case C-59/21 P)

(2021/C 252/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Embutidos Monells, SA (represented by: L. Broschat García and L. Polo Flores, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo, S. A. U., European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 18 May 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered Embutidos Monells, SA to bear its own costs.

---
----

----

|   |                                  |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | /s/  PETER M. MCCORMICK          |   |
|   | Peter M. McCormick                    |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |

|   |                                       |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/  MARTY J. SCHWENNER               |   |
|   | Marty J. Schwenner                         |
|   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                       |
|   |                                       |

----

----
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have

no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the

basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that
Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-10549 Summary Calendar

WAYNE MORRIS REEVES, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

STATE OF TEXAS, PARDON AND PAROLE DIVISION;

JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JOHN DOE, Commissioner of TDCJ-Board of Pardons

and Paroles Division,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(2:93-CV-255)
(September 27, 1995)

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Appellant, a Te xas Department of Criminal Justice inmate,

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought suit under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the suit under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d) as frivolous. We affirm, and specifically warn2

Appellant that the filing of any further frivolous suits will

result in sanctions.

Appellant claims that the Texas practice of requiring inmates

to work violates the Thirteenth Amendment; that since he cannot be

forced to work, he cannot be disciplined for refusing to work; and

that inmates should be compensated for their work and given more

“work time credit”. This Court has long ago decided all these

issues adverse to Appellant’s position. W endt v. Lynaugh

, 841 F.2d

619, 620-21 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Murray v. Mississippi Dep’t

of Corre ctions , 911 F.2d 1167, 1167-68 (5th Cir. 1990), c ert.

denied

, 498 U.S. 1050 (1991). These same authorities dispose of

his claim regarding revocation of prisoners “work time credits”.

We do not consider Reeves claims that relinquishment of work

time credit as a condition of parole is unconstitutional because he

did not allege that he either has been, or will b e, eligible for

parole so he has not presented a case or controversy for decision.

Cross v. Lucius

, 713 F.2d 153, 158 (5th Cir. 1983). This Court is

without jurisdiction to consider the issue.

Appellant raises for the first time on appeal the contentions

that his medical records have been altered and that attendance at

the Windham School deprives inmates of true educ ational

opportunity. We do not consider issues not raised in the district

court. V arnado v. Lynaugh

, 920 F.2d 320, 322 (5th Cir. 1991). His

assertion in the district court that other prisoners’ medical

records were altered does not state a claim that Appellant is

competent to litigate.3

Numerous orders of the district court are complained of on

appeal but no understandable argument is advanced in Appellant’s

papers in relation to them so we are unable to review them.

AFFIRMED.
#### Edenfield *vs.*Canady.

1. When one represents that he owes to the debtor of another a debt of equal amount, substitutes himself in place of the debtor by parol agreement with the creditor, fixes a time for payment, and thus induces the creditor to discharge the debtor and trust exclusively to him, his undertaking to pay is not collateral, but original, and performance may be enforced whether he ever in fact owed anything to the debtor in whose stead he agreed to be bound, or not.

3. That, on the part of the two debtors, the motive to the substitution was a gaming contract between themselves, which contract was illegal and void, will not hinder the substitution from being effective byway of estoppel, if the creditor discharged his original debtor, and accepted the substitute without any notice that the transaction involved the execution or settlement of a gaming contract.

3. The only disputed question at the trial being as to notice, and the evidence on that being conflicting, the judgment of the magistrate in favor of the -creditor, on the facts set forth in the return to the *certiorari,*should not be disturbed.

Statute of frauds. Contracts. New trial. Before Judge Johnson. Emanuel Superior Court. October Adjourned Term, 1877.

Edenfield sold goods fo Daniels to the amount of $50.00, and charged them to Tiim on his books. Canady was indebted to Daniels in a like amount. Upon Canady’s request, Edenfield gave Daniels credit for $50.00, and charged the same to Canady. This was with the consent of Daniels. The indebtedness of Canady to Daniels was based on a gaming consideration. Whether this fact was known to Eden-field at the time of the change in the debtors, the evidence *457was conflicting. Canady having failed to pay, Edenfield brought suit in a justice court. The magistrate entered judgment for the plaintiff. On *certiorari*thereto this judgment was reversed, and plaintiff excepted.

Charles JB. Kelly, by L. J. Olenn & Son, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant,

Bleckley, Judge.

1. The substitution of debtor for debtor is not infrequent, and there is a place for it in the law. The undertaking in such case is not collateral, but original, and performance may be enforced as between the new parties, no matter what equities between the primary contractors may have existed. See 20 Ga., 403 ; 40 *Ib.,*65 ; 55 *Ib.,*277.

2. The motive to the substitution is immaterial. That one set of parties had between them a gaming contract, which was illegal and void, will not hinder the substitution from being effective by way of estoppel, if the legal creditor discharged his own legal debtor, and accepted the substitute without any notice that the transaction involved the execution or settlement of a gaming contract. See 1 Barnwell *&*Adolph., 142.

3. There was no disputed question at the trial in the justice court, except as to notice, and on that the evidence was conflicting. The magistrate found in favor of the creditor. On the facts set forth in the return to the *cerUora/ri,*the finding should not have been disturbed.

Cited in the argument: 40 *Ga.,*65; Code, §1951.

Judgement reversed.
#### Gloria Yolanda Olga Cancio PENA Y ORTIZ, Appellant, v. Alfred Guillermo ANTONETTI Y MUNIZ, Appellee.

No. 67-23.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 3, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2022424EN.01001201.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Federal Republic of Germany represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat v MA (C-245/21), PB (C-245/21), LE (C-248/21)

(Joined Cases C-245/21 and C-248/21) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Articles 27 and 29 - Transfer of the person concerned to the Member State responsible for the examination of his or her request - Suspension of the transfer due to the COVID-19 pandemic - Impossibility of carrying out the transfer - Judicial protection - Consequences for the time limit for transfer)

(2022/C 424/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat (Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community)

Defendants: MA (C-245/21), PB (C-245/21), LE (C-248/21)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(4) and Article 29(1) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person

must be interpreted as meaning that:

the time limit for transfer provided for in the latter provision is not interrupted where the competent authorities of a Member State adopt, on the basis of Article 27(4) of that regulation, a revocable decision to suspend the implementation of a transfer decision on the grounds that such implementation is materially impossible due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                       9
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         130,467
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               581,002
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,108,715
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,853,846
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,850,722
<LOANS>                                     30,278,267
<ALLOWANCE>                                    178,354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,011,423
<DEPOSITS>                                  21,584,365
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,664,269
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            756,846
<LONG-TERM>                                  8,735,799
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,738
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,264,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              37,011,423
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,637,733
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               96,723
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               181,416
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,915,872
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             787,727
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,294,763
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          621,109
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   59,256
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                372,542
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                245,337
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     245,337
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (205,242)
<NET-INCOME>                                    88,721
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.52
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.32
<LOANS-NON>                                    362,817
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                60,732
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               141,988
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   23,398
<RECOVERIES>                                       508
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              178,354
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           178,354
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>