alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 11.3

                             PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      NUMBER             PERCENT            EQUIVALENT
                                                                    OF SHARES          OUTSTANDING            SHARES
<S>                                                               <C>                  <C>                 <C>
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                                              2,300,000               100.00%           2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                                           1,074,725                99.07%           1,064,695
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock                        15,310,943               100.00%          15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                                      11,242,857               100.00%          11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                                       4,323,874               100.00%           4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                                        6,000,000               100.00%           6,000,000
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued                          127,399                87.12%             110,987
   1997 Warrants Exercised                                              49,450               100.00%              49,450
                                                                  ------------                              ------------
                                                                    40,429,248                                40,402,806

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                                           40,402,806

NET LOSS                                                                                                    $(50,550,825)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                                          $      (1.25)
                                                                                                            ============
</TABLE>
#### Harold E. WILLIS and Walter Taylor, Jr., Appellants, v. James F. NETHERS and Lillian G. Nethers, his wife, Appellees.

No. 72-70.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 6, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6298

DEVIN DENEIL DINKINS, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

LAWRENCE DINKINS; SUMTER COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; 

AGENT CLEMONS, 

 Defendants – Appellees, 

 and 

MAMIE ELLA SANDERS DINKINS, 

 Defendant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (0:08-cv-00859-CMC) 

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: June 1, 2009 

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Devin Deneil Dinkins, Appellant Pro Se. John Derrick Clark, 

Sumter, South Carolina; James M. Davis, Jr., Joel Steve Hughes, 

DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina; Tommy Evans, 

Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
PER CURIAM: 

Devin Deneil Dinkins seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 

complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period 

is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of 

Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. 

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on October 24, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on February 

17, 2009.* Because Dinkins failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. In light of this disposition, we 

grant the Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal and we deny 

Dinkins’ motion to subpoena memorandum and supporting documents 

 *

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988). 

3 
4 

and for extension of time. 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. 

DISMISSED
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

GASTON, HOUTZ, and MYERS

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Matthew D. BRAITHWAITE

Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202100242

Decided: 18 November 2021

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Military Judge: 

Terrance J. Reese

Sentence adjudged 21 May 2021 by a general court-martial convened 

at Camp Fuji, Iwakuni, Japan, consisting of a military judge sitting 

alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confinement for 18 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a badconduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Commander Kyle Calvin Kneese, JAGC, USN

For Appellee:

Brian K. Keller, Esq.
United States v. Braithwaite, NMCCA No. 202100242

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.1

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF DICTAPHONE CORPORATION AT SEPTEMBER 30,
1996, AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,087
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,865
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,508
<INVENTORY>                                     60,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,718
<PP&E>                                          59,982
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,807
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 516,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           86,288
<BONDS>                                        352,583
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           17,540
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            95
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   516,246
<SALES>                                        180,526
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               249,158
<CGS>                                           96,510
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  261,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,369
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (44,143)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,318
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (27,825)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,825)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.12)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1260 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1260

To provide that certain service in the American Field Service ambulance 
  corps shall be considered active duty for the purposes of all laws 
           administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 20 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

  Mr. Graham introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that certain service in the American Field Service ambulance 
  corps shall be considered active duty for the purposes of all laws 
           administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMERICAN FIELD SERVICE.

    Section 401 of the GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977 (38 U.S.C. 106 
note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``subsection (a)'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``subsections (a) and (d)'';
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and 
        inserting ``subsections (a) and (d)''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, service rendered 
before August 15, 1945, by any person who was part of the enlisted 
wartime personnel of the American Field Service ambulance corps and who 
reported for duty overseas during World War II, shall be considered 
active duty for the purposes of all laws administered by the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs.''.

                                 <all>
```
### Page 1 of 3 Disposition Comments

Docket No: 

### FAA-2011-0760 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 

### 2011-NE-10-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### SP3178EN-E

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM



### No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are

required.



### Has the referenced service information been re vised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of

each issue. All comments relating to the same i ssue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following:

If other, explain:

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or ho w is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the fo llowing changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO , we don’t agree because

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following:

If other, explain:

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or ho w is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the fo llowing changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3 If NO , we don’t agree because

For additional issues, double-click here

### Page 3 of 3 S ignature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.:

ASE Printed Name : Date

Branch Manager Date
Exhibit 21.  Subsidiaries of the Registrant

      Interchange Bank (formerly known as Interchange State Bank), and Clover
Leaf Mortgage Company, Inc., both of which are incorporated in New Jersey, are
wholly owned direct subsidiaries of the Registrant.

      Clover Leaf Investment Corporation, Clover Leaf Insurance Agency
Inc.(d/b/a Interchange Insurance Agency) and Interchange Capital Company, L.L.C.
are incorporated in New Jersey and are wholly owned direct subsidiaries of
Interchange Bank. Clover Leaf Management Realty Corporation, which is also
incorporated in New Jersey, is 99% owned by Interchange Bank.
#### Adrienne Wallace et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Respondents, and Jamaica Water Supply Companies, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[655 NYS2d 1021]

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Jamaica Water Supply Companies appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated July 5, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, the complaint and any cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against Jamaica Water Supply Companies, and the action is severed against the remaining defendants.

The plaintiff Adrienne Wallace was allegedly injured when her vehicle struck an object or a pothole in the intersection of *596108th Avenue and 155th Street, Jamaica, New York. The plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover damages from the defendants City of New York, Brooklyn Union Gas, and Jamaica Water Supply Companies on the ground, *inter alia,*of negligent maintenance of the intersection.

The proponent of a summary judgment motion "must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” *(Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324). Once the movant has demonstrated a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562; *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra).*

We have reviewed the record and find that the appellant demonstrated its entitlement to judgment in its favor as a matter of law *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Zuckerman v City of New York, supra).*In response, neither the plaintiffs nor the remaining defendants offered any evidence to show the existence of triable issues of fact as to the liability of the appellant. Under the circumstances, summary judgment must be granted in its favor. Pizzuto, J. P., Altman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 88 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the consideration of any bill or joint resolution that appropriates foreign assistance 

for more than one country. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

Mr. POE of Texas (for himself, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. 

ROHRABACHER, Mr. COFFMAN, Mr. CLAY, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, 

Mr. COHEN, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. HIGGINS, Ms. ROSLEHTINEN, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, and Mr. COTTON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

prohibit the consideration of any bill or joint resolution 

that appropriates foreign assistance for more than one 

country. 

1 Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 

3 following new clause: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 88 IH 

1 ‘‘Limitation on foreign assistance for more than one 

2 country 

3 ‘‘12. It shall not be in order to consider any bill or 

4 joint resolution that appropriates foreign assistance for 

5 more than one country.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### ADMIRAL ORIENTAL LINE v. ATLANTIC GULF & ORIENTAL S. S. CO.

No. 114.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 17, 1937.

See, also, 86 F.(2d) 201.

Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann, of New York City, for appellant.

Hunt, Hill & Betts, of New York City, and the United States Attorney, New York, for. appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After this cause went back to the District Court, a question arose as to in*27terest and costs. The United States contends that it cannot be liable for either because the recovery was under the Tucker Act (24 Stat. 505), which does *not*allow them. It also objects to an attorney’s allowance of $100, which, though proper in admiralty, is not at common law. This motion is to clear up these points. As to the original action of the Admiral Oriental Line against the Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company, there can be no doubt that the judgment should include interest and costs, although, as the Admiral Oriental Line itself agrees, the docket fee must be cut from $100 to $20. The recovery over of any part of this payment by the Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company against the United States must be under the Tucker Act, not in the admiralty, as we have said. We are asked as to that to reconsider our decision, but Minturn v. Maynard, 17 How. 477, 15 L.Ed. 235, still seems to us flat on the point. The report is indeed very short, but it states that the libelant was a general ship’s agent and broker, and we can see no material distinction between such an agent and a managing operator; if the case is to be overruled, only the Supreme Court should do it. The position of the United States is therefore right. The Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company ought to have paid the Admiral Oriental Line’s claim at once; any accrued interest and the costs of the action which it must pay arose from its default. Yet, if it had paid at once, it could have recovered neither interest nor costs against the United States in a suit under the Tucker Act; these would have arisen, it is true, because of the wrongful refusal of the United States to pay a lawful claim, but for reasons good or bad the United States does not choose to make amends for such wrongs. The same is of course á fortiori true of the Atlantic Gulf *&*Oriental Steamship Company’s claim against the United States to recover its direct outlay. Therefore interest and costs will be allowed against the Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company in the action of the Admiral Oriental Line against it — reducing the docket fee, however — but will be denied in favor of the Atlantic Gulf & Oriental Steamship Company against the United States as to both its claims.
#### Everett Vernon BRYANT, Appellant, v. Harold BLOCK, Appellee.

No. 72-672.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 13, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### PUBLIC FINANCE CORP. OF JACKSON NO. 2, Appellant, v. Ward JEFFERSON, Appellee.

No. 46651.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 25, 1972.

Roland C. Lewis, Jackson, for appellant.

Agnew, Agnew & Crawford, Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### In re TRANSITION RULE 12.

No. 42980.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 24, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

In order to effect the provisions of Senate Bill 24 — A, a bill providing for supplementary services of Court Reporters and a supplementary appropriation effective January 1, 1973, it is necessary to promulgate certain temporary rules with respect to crediting hours of service by official Court Reporters and their approved Deputies in criminal proceedings by circuit and county courts. The appended transition rule is hereby adopted effective immediately.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

TRANSITION RULE 12. COMPENSATION OF COURT REPORTERS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BY CIRCUIT AND COUNTY COURTS.

After January 1, 1973, each official court reporter shall on a monthly basis certify to the chief judge of the circuit to which he is appointed, the number of hours service of himself and his approved deputies in criminal proceedings in circuit and county courts; upon approval by the chief judge such certification shall be submitted by the chief judge to the chief justice of the supreme court of Florida not later than the tenth day of the following month.

Section I, of Senate Bill 24 — A, authorizes a per hour rate and/or allowances for reporting services in criminal proceedings in excess of those required by the chief justice of the supreme court of Florida. The schedule for those services is as follows :

1.Each official court reporter shall serve a maximum of sixty hours per month for which compensation by the State of Florida will be paid at an annual rate of $5,400.

2. Minimum credit toward this sixty hours of two and one-half hours each day shall be given for first appearance in any court before the lunch recess and a minimum credit of two and one-half hours shall be given for first appearance after that recess. An hour-for-hour credit will be given for actual time spent in court exceeding five hours per day.

3. Any number of hours accumulated in addition to sixty by the formula set forth above will be compensated at the rate of $10 per hour.

4. Each official court reporter may accumulate credit for the services of any of his officially approved deputies in the same manner as if he had performed these services personally.