alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                        THREE
                                                                                     MONTHS ENDED
                                                        YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,       MARCH 31,
                                                    ------------------------------   ------------
                                                    1994       1995         1996         1997
                                                    ----       ----         ----         ----
<S>                                                 <C>      <C>          <C>          <C>
Income per share calculations:

Income before extraordinary item                    $281     $  1,765     $  2,331     $    201

Extraordinary item                                    --           --           64          229
                                                    ----     --------     --------     --------

Net income                                          $281     $  1,765     $  2,267     $    (28)
                                                    ====     ========     ========     ========

Weighted average number
 of common and common
 equivalent shares are as follows:
   Weighted average common
    shares outstanding                                          3,184       10,273       12,008
   Shares issued from assumed
    exercise of options and
    warrants (1)                                                  211          182          184
                                                    ----     --------     --------     --------
   Weighted average number
    of shares outstanding                            N/A        3,395       10,455       12,192
                                                    ====     ========     ========     ========

Income per common and common equivalent shares:

   Income before extraordinary item                          $   0.52     $   0.23     $   0.02

   Extraordinary item                                              --         0.01         0.02
                                                    ----     --------     --------     --------

   Net income                                        N/A     $   0.52     $   0.22     $  (0.00)
                                                    ====     ========     ========     ========
</TABLE>


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

(1)  Shares issued from assumed exercise of options and warrants include the
     number of incremental shares which would result from applying the "treasury
     stock method" for options and warrants, APB 15, paragraph 38 and Staff
     Accouting Bulletin No. 83.
#### Louis Gartenhaus, Appellant, v Bobover Yeshiva Bnei Zion, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[656 NYS2d 879]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff ap: peals from (1) so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), entered July 11, 1994, as, after a jury trial on the issue of liability, adjudged the defendant Bobover Yeshiva Bnei Zion to be only 35% at fault in the happening of the accident, and (2) an order of the same court, dated August 7, 1995, which denied the plaintiff’s motion, *inter alia,*to set aside the jury’s apportionment of liability.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the jury’s apportionment of liability was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, since the credible evidence adduced at trial indicated that the nonappearing defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, which duty was breached and which was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury *(see, Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129, 133).

Additionally, the provisions of CPLR article 16 applied as a matter of law, since the defendant Bobover Yeshiva Bnei Zion sustained its burden of proving its equitable share of liability under article 16 while the plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proving the applicability of any of the article 16 exemptions *(see,*CPLR 1602, 1603). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
# C_2022359EN.01006901.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/69

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Brand Energy Holdings v EUIPO (RAPIDGUARD)

(Case T-573/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark RAPIDGUARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Right to be heard)

(2022/C 359/84)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Brand Energy Holdings BV (Vlaardingen, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Hönninger and F. Dechent, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 June 2021 (Case R 294/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Brand Energy Holdings BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brand Energy Holdings BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---
# C_2022359EN.01006501.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/65

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Gugler France v EUIPO — Gugler (GUGLER)

(Case T-147/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark GUGLER - Absolute ground for invalidity - No bad faith - Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 359/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gugler France (Les Auxons, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. -C. Simon, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 December 2020 (Case R 893/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gugler France to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gugler France to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 13




               REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To the Board of Directors
CII Financial, Inc.
Pleasanton, California

We have audited the  accompanying  consolidated  balance sheet of CII Financial,
Inc.  and  Subsidiaries  as of December  31,  1994 and the related  consolidated
statement of operations,  shareholders equity, and cash flows for the year ended
December 31, 1994 (which is not presented  separately  herein).  These financial
statements   are  the   responsibility   of  the   Company's   management.   Our
responsibility  is to express an opinion on these financial  statements based on
our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance   about  whether  the  financial   statements  are  free  of  material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amount and disclosures in the financial  statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the  accounting  principles  used and  significant  estimates  made by
management,  as well as  evaluating  the overall  presentation  of the financial
statement.  We  believe  that our  audit  provides  a  reasonable  basis for our
opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated  financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material  respects,  the consolidated  financial  position of CII
Financial,  Inc. and  Subsidiaries  at December 31, 1994,  and the  consolidated
results of their operations and their cash flows for the year ended December 31,
1994 in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.



                                                     BDO SEIDMAN, LLP



Los Angeles, California
February 17,1995
  (except for Note 16 which
  is as of June 13, 1995)
Exhibit 31.1



I, Michel de Rosen, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the registrant, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ViroPharma
Incorporated.



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 consolidated 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 subsidiary, 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 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.



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michel de Rosen                                                      
|Michel de Rosen                                                          
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors



May 4, 2005
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 77642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2010-31110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Priority Setting for the Children's Health Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) Pediatric Quality Measures Program--Notice 
of Correction

    On pages 75469 and 75470, Volume 75, Number 232, Federal Register 
notice publication dated December 3, 2010, under DATES section, the 
correct date is: January 14, 2011. Also, on pages 75470 and 75471, 
under section SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION all Web links that include the 
word: ``ahrg'' should be changed to: ``AHRQ''.

    Dated: December 7, 2010.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director, AHRQ.
[FR Doc. C1-2010-31110 Filed 12-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Phillips, Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 679]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), rendered December 15, 1997, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, burglary in the second degree (two counts), criminal mischief in the fourth degree (three counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (O’Dwyer, J.H.O., at hearing, and Eng, J., on order), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony, his statement to law enforcement authorities, and certain physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence presented by the People at the suppression hearing established that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. A police officer responding to a telephone call received over the 911 emergency number was advised by the superintendent of an apartment building that a burglar just fled the building. The superintendent, who was also an off-duty corrections officer, provided a description of the burglar and, after canvassing the neighborhood for approximately 20 minutes with the police, identified the defendant at a location about two blocks from the crime scene. Under the circumstances, the police officer properly concluded that a crime had been committed and that the defendant was the perpetrator *(see,*CPL 140.10 [1 *]; People v Bigelow,*66 NY2d 417, 423; *People v McRay,*51 NY2d 594, 602; *People v Brown,*256 AD2d 414).

Generally, information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of the commission of a specific crime *496is sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest *(see, People v Douglas,*138 AD2d 731). Although the information provided by the superintendent to the police officer was based in part on hearsay, the People sufficiently established the superintendent’s reliability and the basis for his information *(see, People v Ketcham,*93 NY2d 416; *People v Bigelow, supra).*

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00706

- CR

Leo WELDER

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 7, Travis County, Texas

Trial Court No. C

- 1

- CR

- 10

- 216013

The Honorable Elisabeth A. Earle, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED August 30, 2013.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-64149, 33-61587, 33-61589, 333-48507,  333-147170 and 333-147171 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-18023 on Form S-3 of Habersham Bancorp of our report, dated March 29, 2010,  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Habersham Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2009.





/s/Porter Keadle Moore, LLP





Atlanta, Georgia





March 29, 2010
# C_2022037EN.01002201.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/22

---

Appeal brought on 25 November 2021 by Françoise Grossetête (T-722/19) against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2021 in Joined Cases T-720/19 to T-725/19, Ashworth and Others v Parliament

(Case C-714/21 P)

(2022/C 37/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Françoise Grossetête (represented by: J. M. Martínez Gimeno, abogado, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, abogado, E. Arnaldos Orts, abogado, and F. Doumont, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

| — | rule on the dispute and annul the Parliament’s decision contained in the notice fixing the additional pension rights owed to the appellant in so far as it introduces a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of her pension, payable directly into the additional voluntary pension fund; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule on the dispute and annul the Parliament’s decision contained in the notice fixing the additional pension rights owed to the appellant in so far as it introduces a special levy of 5 % of the nominal amount of her pension, payable directly into the additional voluntary pension fund;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-722/19. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-722/19.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The grounds of appeal allege: (i) the Bureau’s lack of competence to take the decision of the Bureau of 2018, inter alia in so far as it lays down substantive conditions for rights conferring prospective entitlement before the entry into force of the Staff Regulations; (ii) infringement of the first sentence of Article 27(2) of the Staff Regulations by reason of non-observance of rights conferring prospective entitlement prior to the entry into force of the Staff Regulations; (iii) infringement of the principle of equality and non-discrimination and of the principle of proportionality; and (iv) infringement of the principle of legal certainty (lack of transitional measures) and the principle of legitimate expectations.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. William BERSCH.

No. 52797.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 13, 1973.

*274Crawford A. Rose, Jr., Delhi, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Donald K. Carroll, Dist. Atty., Lowen B. Loftin, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, William Bersch, was tried by a jury and found guilty of aggravated rape, La.R.S. 14:42, and sentenced to serve a life imprisonment in the state penitentiary. On this appeal, the defendant reserved one bill of exceptions alleging that because the trial judge declared a recess and left the courtroom during the drawing of tales jurors, the jurors’ names were not, in fact, selected in open court as required by La.C.Cr. P. Art. 784.

La.C.Cr.P. Art. 784 provides:

> “In selecting a panel, names shall be drawn from the petit jury venire indiscriminately and by lot in open court and in a manner to be determined by the court.”

The court minutes disclose that after the trial judge ordered “a jury of twelve drawn to try the case”, four jurors were “duly and legally called and sworn”. Further, the minutes report, “At this point the Court ordered 25 additional names drawn from the General Venire box, whereupon the following names were drawn and duly and legally summoned to appear as part of the Petit Jury Venire.” After the jury was empanelled and sworn in, counsel for the defense offered his objection to the method of drawing the twenty-five additional names. The trial judge denied that a recess had been declared, and ruled that the names of the tales jurors had been drawn regularly and in open court.

There was no timely objection to this alleged irregularity made by defense counsel at the time of the occurrence.

In its pertinent part, La.C.Cr.P. Art. 841, states:

> “ * * * An irregularity or error in the proceedings cannot be availed of after verdict unless it is objected to at the time of its occurrence and a bill of exceptions is reserved to the adverse ruling of the court on such objection. . . ” See State v. Reed, 252 La. 128, 209 So.2d 730 (1968).

In the instant case defense counsel was apparently aware of the alleged irregularity, but, nevertheless, waited until after the voir dire examination and swearing in of the jury before making his objection.

In any event, the minutes in the record do not reflect that any recess was called or that there was any other irregularity in the manner of the selection of the jury panel. This bill is insubstantial.

For these reasons, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.

BARHAM, J., concurs.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Stacey L. Moran, Executive Vice President &
Chief Financial Officer of Suffolk Bancorp (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year
ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 15, 2011                             
|                                                  
|/s/ Stacey L. Moran                               
|Stacey L. Moran                                   
|Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer