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

THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER UNIT
(in thousands, except per unit)

|                                      |                                                                                                    | Years Ended December 31
|------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------
|
|Partnership Units                     |                                                                                                    |                        
|                                      | Average number of units outstanding during the period                                              |                        
|                                      | Net units issuable in connection with dilutive options based upon use of the treasury stock method |                        
|                                      |                                                                                                    |                        
|                                      | Average number of primary units                                                                    |                        
|                                      |                                                                                                    |                        
|Net income                            |                                                                                                    | $                      
|                                      |                                                                                                    |                        
|Net income per unit                   |                                                                                                    | $                      
|                                      |                                                                                                    |                        
|Net income per unitassuming dilution |                                                                                                    | $                      
|                                      |                                                                                                    |                        

---
# C_2021252EN.01000703.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil 7 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2021 — AD and Others v PACCAR Inc, DAF TRUCKS NV, DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-163/21)

(2021/C 252/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Mercantil 7 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: AD and Others

Defendants: PACCAR Inc, DAF TRUCKS NV, DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH

Question referred

Must Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (1) be interpreted as meaning that the disclosure of relevant evidence refers exclusively to existing documents in the control of the defendant or a third party or, in contrast, can Article 5(1) also include the disclosure of documents that must be created ex novo by the party to whom the request for information is made by compiling or classifying information, knowledge or data held by it?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 349, p. 1.

---
# C_2022359EN.01006802.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/68

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Purasac v EUIPO — Prollenium Medical Technologies (Rejeunesse)

(Case T-543/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Rejeunesse - Earlier EU word mark REVANESSE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 359/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Purasac Co. Ltd (Anyang-si, South Korea) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Sliwinska and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Prollenium Medical Technologies, Inc. (Aurora, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: R. Lyxell, lawyer)

Re:

By its action brought under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 July 2021 (Case R 146/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Purasac Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Purasac Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---
OFFICER EMPLOYMENT CONTINUATION AGREEMENT

Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. ("the Company") and the undersigned
("Officer"), in partial consideration for their continuing officer and
employment relationship and to encourage continued employment in the event of a
potential Change of Control, agree as follows:

1. In the event of Termination of Employment of Officer resulting from a
Corporate Transaction, Change of Control or Hostile Take-Over (as those terms
are defined in the 1993 Stock Option Plan, collectively referred to in this
Agreement as "Change of Control") or from involuntary termination for reasons
other than cause, the Company will provide severance benefits as follows:

     a.   one year of Officer's base salary ("salary continuance"),
     b.   one year of Officer's variable compensation (computed using the
          mid-point of the applicable range and the company "meets plan"),
     c.   Officer level medical, dental, life and disability insurance during
          the period of salary continuance, and
     d.   vesting of outstanding stock options and restricted stock awards
          during the period of salary continuance.

2. "Termination of Employment" of Officer occurs when one of the following
occurs: he or she is terminated without cause, job location is changed more than
50 miles, his or her compensation is materially reduced or responsibilities are
substantially altered or reduced (without express consent of the employee) by
the Company, or by any successor to the Company in conjunction with or within
one year after the close of a Change of Control.

3. In the event of a Termination Of Employment in conjunction with a Change of
Control, then vesting of outstanding stock options and restricted stock held by
Officer shall accelerate at the time of such Termination. All vested options
shall be exercisable for the duration of the life of the option.

4. In order to receive the foregoing, Officer agrees to execute the Company's
release and non-competition agreement at the time of any such Termination of
Employment.

Agreed this 3rd day of June, 1996.

NETWORK EQUIPMENT                           Samuel Ezekiel     
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                      -------------------------
                                        (Print Name of Officer)

By: /s/ Joseph J. Francesconi           /s/ Samuel Ezekiel
    -------------------------           ------------------
                                        (Signature)
Title: President & CEO
       ----------------------

October 26, 1995                                             N.E.T. Confidential
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1429

In Re: KUNTA KENTA REDD, 

Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(7:08-cr-00043-D-1)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016 

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kunta Kenta Redd, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Kunta Kenta Redd petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging 

that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 

motion for reduction of sentence. He seeks an order from this 

court directing the district court to act. We conclude that the 

present record does not reveal undue delay in the district 

court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

and deny the mandamus petition. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7255

TAYBRONNE A. WHITE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN KISER , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. James P. Jones , Senior District Judge. ( 7:20

- cv - 00199

- JPJ

- PMS )

Submitted : April 18, 2022 Decided: May 13, 2022

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Taybronne A. White, Appellant Pro Se. Leann a Catherine Minix, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinion s are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Taybronne A. White seeks to appeal the district court’s final order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifica te of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a pri soner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slac k v. McDaniel , 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument b ecause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
No. 10630.

#### Divine et al. *v.*Hiss et al.

Decided January 12, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Messrs. Ray & Cor dill,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. M. D. Merrick; Mr. J. C. Jones; Mr. Thomas N. Bierly*and *Mr. J. P. Crawford,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
# C_2022482EN.01001801.xml

| 19.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 482/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — Greenwich Polo Club v EUIPO — Lifestyle Equities (GREENWICH POLO CLUB)

(Case T-437/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark GREENWICH POLO CLUB - Earlier EU word mark BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Article 71 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 27(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625)

(2022/C 482/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Greenwich Polo Club, Inc. (Greenwich, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: R. Zammitt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Terpstra, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 May 2021 (Case R 300/2020-1), relating to opposition proceedings between the intervener, Lifestyle Equities CV, and itself.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Greenwich Polo Club, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Greenwich Polo Club, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 401, 4.10.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2   NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Annual Report of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John F. McGrath, Jr., Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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. May 25, 2007  /s/ JOHN F. MCGRATH, JR.John F. McGrath, Jr. 
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Ethel W. GRANT and Lucian H. Grant, her husband, Appellants, v. RED LOBSTER INNS OF AMERICA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-408.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 5, 1974.

Rehearing Denied April 26, 1974.

Jack B. Nichols, Skolfield, Nichols & Tatich, Orlando, for appellants.

John W. Bussey, III, Sands, Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by appellants-plaintiffs, Ethel W. Grant and Lucian H. Grant her husband, of a final judgment entered in favor of appellee-defendant, Red Lobster Inns of America, Inc., in an action for damages for injuries sustained as a result of a slip and fall by Ethel W. Grant while in appellee-defendant’s restaurant.

At trial plaintiff submitted and requested a jury instruction on comparative negligence, relying on Jones v. Hoffman, 272 So.2d 529 (Fla.App.1973.) This instruction was denied by the trial court. In Jones v. Hoffman, supra, we directly determined it was error for the trial court to decline to give a jury instruction on comparative negligence.

On certiorari to Florida Supreme Court the doctrine of comparative negligence established by Jones v. Hoffman, supra, was adopted.1

Accordingly, final judgment entered in favor of the appellee and against the appellants is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.

DOWNEY, J., dissents, with opinion.

1

. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (Fla.1973).

DOWNEY, Judge

(dissenting).

There is no doubt that appellants’ requested instruction on comparative negligence should have been given in this case. Hoffman v. Jones, Fla.1973, 280 So.2d 431. However, it seems to me this is a classic case for application of the harmless error statute, 59.041, F.S.1971. Said section enjoins the reversal of a judgment or granting of a new trial on the ground of misdirection of the jury unless in the opinion of the court after an examination of the entire case it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. This record demonstrates clearly there was no miscarriage of justice because the jury found no negligence on *373the part of the appellee-defendant. We know that because post trial appellant-plaintiff moved the court for leave to interview the jury, which motion was treated as a “Notice to Interview”, pursuant to Canon 7, FC 7-29, Code of Professional Responsibility, 32 F.S.A. (Pocket part) p. 164. Counsel for each party interrogated each of the jurors and a transcript of said interview is a part of the record. The jurors were unanimous in stating they found appellee-defendant not guilty of any negligence. If there was no negligence there was nothing to compare, and the failure to instruct on comparative negligence could not have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Murden v. Miami Poultry & Egg Co., 113 Fla. 870, 152 So. 714 (1934). Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment for the appellee-defendant.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                  SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
               HARBINGER CORPORATION EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

         THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED HARBINGER CORPORATION
EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN (the "Amendment") is made effective as of the 24th
day of April, 1998 (the "Effective Date"), by HARBINGER CORPORATION, a
corporation organized and doing business under the laws of the State of Georgia
(the "Company"). All capitalized terms in this Amendment have the meaning
ascribed to such term as in the Harbinger Corporation 1996 Stock Option Plan
(the "Plan"), unless otherwise stated herein.

                                  WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, First Amendment to the Plan was approved by the Board of
Directors as of January 1, 1997; and

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company desires to amend the
Plan to increase the number of shares that may be granted under the Plan;

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual promises
contained herein, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         SECTION 1. Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the
first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan in its entirety and substituting in
lieu thereof the following:

                  "(a) The maximum number of shares which may be granted and
         purchased under the Plan may not exceed 325,000 shares of Common Stock
         (subject to adjustment as provided in Section 15), which may be
         authorized but unissued shares, re-acquired shares or shares bought on
         the open market."

                  SECTION 2. Except as specifically amended by this Second
Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this
Second Amendment.


<PAGE>   2



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED HARBINGER CORPORATION EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN to be
executed on the Effective Date.

                                           HARBINGER CORPORATION


                                           By: /s/ David T. Leach
                                               -------------------------------
                                               David T. Leach, CEO
ATTEST:


By: /s/ Joel G. Katz
    -------------------------------------
    Joel G. Katz, Secretary
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MICHAEL A. MARKS, P.A. d/b/a

SOMERSET CHIROPRACTIC CENTER a/a/o PETER DEFILIPPO,

Appellant,

v.

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-469

[January 12, 2022]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Marni A. Bryson, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 502020CC5014 

and 502020AP83.

Douglas H. Stein of Douglas H. Stein, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellant.

Michael A. Rosenberg and Adrianna de la Cruz-Muñoz of Cole, Scott & 

Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for appellee.

GERBER, J.

The provider appeals from the county court’s final order granting the 

insurer’s motion to dismiss the provider’s declaratory judgment action. 

The county court concluded dismissal was proper primarily because the 

provider could have filed a breach of contract action instead of a 

declaratory judgment action. The provider argues this conclusion was in 

error, because section 86.111, Florida Statutes (2020), expressly provides: 

“The existence of another adequate remedy does not preclude a judgment 

for declaratory relief.”

We agree with the provider that the county court’s conclusion was in 

error. However, we agree with the insurer that the provider did not raise 

this argument to the county court. The provider claims it raised this 

argument at the hearing on the insurer’s motion to dismiss, but our review 

of the transcript indicates otherwise. Because the argument now raised 

on appeal was not raised below, we must affirm. See Sunset Harbour 

Condo. Ass’n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla. 2005) (“As a general 

rule, it is not appropriate for a party to raise an issue for the first time on 
2

appeal. ... [T]o be preserved for further review by a higher court, an issue 

must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or 

ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation 

if it is to be considered preserved.”) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted).

On all other arguments which the provider has raised on appeal, we 

affirm without further discussion.

Affirmed.

MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Supreme Court Conference Agenda

Tuesday, January 5, 2021 

CASES FOR CLASSIFICATION 

No. Name 

DA 20-0257 Phipps v. Old Republic

DA 19-0555 State v. C. Kirkland

DA 20-0238 ALPS Property v. Keller

DA 19-0606 Matter of Z.L., Youth

DA 19-0364 State v. J. Marsh

DA 19-0583 Beavers v. State

DA 20-0288 B. Smith v. K. Green

DA 20-0145 Public Land & Water v. Robbins

DA 20-0217 Matter of T.N.B., A.M.B., and S.M.B., 

YINC

MISCELLANEOUS CASES 

No. Name Notes 

PR 20-0005 Rule V Admission by Practicing Attorney (Blair)

DA 20-0348 Matter of T.G., S.G., & G.B., YINC (Anders 

Matter)

DA 20-0345 Matter of LJ.P. & R.P., YINC (Anders 

Matter)

01/07/2021

Case Number: PR 21-0004