alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11



Exhibit 11 - Statement Re:  Computation of Earnings per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Year ended January 31


                                                            1997                  1996                  1995
                                                            ------------------------------------------------
                                                            ( In thousands, except per share amounts)
<S>                                                          <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Primary

    Weighted average shares outstanding                        5,906                5,906                5,897

    Net effect of dilutive stock options
    based on the treasury stock
    method using average market price.                            99                   69                   53
                                                             -------              -------              -------

    Total                                                      6,005                5,975                5,950
                                                             =======              =======              =======

    Net Income                                         $       9,326          $     5,209          $     5,001
                                                             =======              =======              =======

    Net Income per Share                               $        1.55          $       .87          $       .84
                                                             =======              =======              =======


Fully Diluted

    Weighted average shares outstanding                        5,906                5,906                5,897

    Net effect of dilutive stock
    options - based on the treasury
    method using year end market
    price if higher than average market price.                   117                   76                   53
                                                             -------              -------              -------


    Total                                                      6,023                5,982                5,950
                                                             =======              =======              =======

    Net Income                                         $       9,326          $     5,209          $     5,001
                                                             =======              =======              =======

    Net Income per share                               $        1.55          $       .87          $       .84
                                                             =======              =======              =======
</TABLE>



Weighted average shares are adjusted retroactively for the effect of 10% stock
dividends.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason Huntley, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 580]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered May 21, 1992, convicting him of murder in. the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain physical evidence.

*534Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the inventory search of his vehicle was improper is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Dickens,*88 NY2d 1031; *People v Williams,*217 AD2d 1007).

The trial court did not err in discharging a sworn juror over the defendant’s objection. The record demonstrates that the court properly engaged in a thorough and searching inquiry of the juror *(see, People v Buford,*69 NY2d 290) and correctly discharged him as being "grossly unqualified” (CPL 270.35 [1]) based upon the juror’s statement that job-related concerns would prevent him from giving his undivided attention to the case and would imperil his ability to decide the matter in a fair and impartial manner *(see, People v Rodriguez,*71 NY2d 214; *People v White,*204 AD2d 750; *People v Bolden,*197 AD2d 528).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          39,593
<SECURITIES>                                    20,463
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,944
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,966)
<INVENTORY>                                     45,584
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               221,733
<PP&E>                                          71,007
<DEPRECIATION>                                (45,776)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 300,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           78,603
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           357
<OTHER-SE>                                     208,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   300,613
<SALES>                                        363,799
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               363,799
<CGS>                                          178,782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  178,782
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,063
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,101
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,242
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,859
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,859
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57


</TABLE>
#### GENERAL MILLS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Petitioner, v. Emmett McGRIFF and Verna Lou McGriff, wife, Individually and as Co-partners doing business as Echo Lake Farm, Respondents.

No. 36583.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 5, 1968.

Rehearing Denied July 22, 1968.

James E. Clayton of Clayton, Arnow, Duncan, Johnston, Clayton & Quincey, Gainesville, for petitioner.

Smith, Elliot, Schwalbe, Spraker & Nichols, Jacksonville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Inasmuch as there is no utterance by the District Court of Appeal which can be considered to conflict with any expression of this Court or any District Court of Appeal on the subject, we now decide that the writ of certiorari was improvidently issued, so it is discharged.

THOMAS, THORNAL, ERVIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

DREW, J., agrees only to discharge of writ.

CALDWELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, J., dissent.

See New York Life Ins. Co. v. Oates,, 141 Fla. 164, 192 So. 637 (1939); Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., 177 So.2d 221 (Fla.1965).
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

July 21, 2017

No. 04

- 16

- 00786

- CV

Anthony MOORE and Joann Moore

, Appellant s

v.

David SUBIA

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016CV04165 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due July 17, 2017. On July 17, 2017, Appellants filed a second motion for extension of time requesting a two

- week extension. We GRANT appellants’ motion for extension of time and ORDER appellants to file their brief on or before August 1, 2017. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 21st day of July, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada Chief Deputy Clerk
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1095 

To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in order to limit 

the penalties to a State that does not meet its maintenance of effort 

level of funding to a one-time penalty. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2013 

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself and Mr. HEINRICH) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

in order to limit the penalties to a State that does 

not meet its maintenance of effort level of funding to 

a one-time penalty. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘IDEA MOE Adjust5 ment Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1095 IS

1 SEC. 2. PENALTY LIMITATION. 

2 Section 612(a)(18) of the Individuals with Disabil3 ities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(18)) is amend4 ed— 

5 (1) in subparagraph (B)— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘The Secretary shall re7 duce the allocation of funds under section 611 

8 for any fiscal year’’ and inserting the following: 

9 ‘‘(i) REDUCTION.—The Secretary 

10 shall reduce the allocation of funds under 

11 section 611 for 1 fiscal year’’; and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(ii) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—In 

14 any case where a State’s allocation under 

15 clause (i) is reduced, the Secretary shall 

16 distribute to all other States (as that term 

17 is defined in section 611(g)(2)) that were 

18 not subject to a reduction in allocation 

19 under such clause, the amount by which 

20 any State’s allocation under section 611(d) 

21 was reduced under such clause, in accord22 ance with subclauses (II) and (III) of sec23 tion 611(d)(3)(A)(i) and without regard to 

24 paragraphs (A)(i)(I) and (B) of section 

25 611(d)(3). 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1095 IS

1 ‘‘(iii) USE OF FUNDS BY STATES.— 

2 Each State that receives additional funds 

3 under clause (ii) shall allocate such funds 

4 to local educational agencies in accordance 

5 with section 611(f). 

6 ‘‘(iv) NO CONSIDERATION FOR FU7 TURE YEARS ALLOCATION.—Notwith8 standing section 611(d), in calculating the 

9 amounts for allocations under such section 

10 for fiscal year 2013 and all subsequent 

11 years, the Secretary, when determining the 

12 amount a State received under such sec13 tion for a preceding fiscal year, shall not 

14 consider— 

15 ‘‘(I) any amount by which a 

16 State’s allocation under such section 

17 for fiscal year 2012 or any subsequent 

18 year is reduced under clause (i); and 

19 ‘‘(II) any amount by which a 

20 State’s allocation increased, pursuant 

21 to clause (ii), as a result of a State’s 

22 reduction in allocation for fiscal year 

23 2012 or any subsequent year.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Wilmer J. HARRIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 41021.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1157 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1157

    To reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, the 
   Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, the Delaware and Lehigh 
 National Heritage Corridor, and the Schuylkill River Valley National 
                             Heritage Area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 13, 2013

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To reauthorize the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area, the 
   Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area, the Delaware and Lehigh 
 National Heritage Corridor, and the Schuylkill River Valley National 
                             Heritage Area.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS AND CORRIDOR.

    (a) Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area.--Section 408 of the 
Steel Industry American Heritage Area Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 
110 Stat. 4256; 127 Stat. 420) is amended by striking ``2013'' and 
inserting ``2023''.
    (b) Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area.--Section 108 of the 
Lackawanna Valley National Heritage Area Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-
278; 114 Stat. 818; 127 Stat. 420) is amended by striking ``2013'' and 
inserting ``2023''.
    (c) Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor.--Section 12 of 
the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal National Heritage Corridor Act 
of 1988 (Public Law 100-692; 102 Stat. 4558; 112 Stat. 3260; 123 Stat. 
1293; 127 Stat. 420) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``2013'' and 
        inserting ``2023''; and
            (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``2013'' and inserting 
        ``2023''.
    (d) Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area.--Section 209 of 
the Schuylkill River Valley National Heritage Area Act (Public Law 106-
278; 114 Stat. 824) is amended by striking ``the date that is 15 years 
after the date of enactment of this title'' and inserting ``September 
30, 2023''.
                                 <all>
```
256 La. 623

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. J. E. SAVANT v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary et al.

No. 50726.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 9, 1970.

In re: J. E. Savant applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari and mandamus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
**ION NETWORKS, INC.**

**2006 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN**

1.

Purposes of the Plan.  The purposes of this Stock Incentive Plan are to attract and retain the best available personnel, to provide additional incentives to Employees, Directors and Consultants and to promote the success of the Company’s business.

2.

Definitions.  As used herein, the following definitions shall apply:

(a)

“Administrator” means the Board or any of the Committees appointed to administer the Plan.

(b)

“Affiliate” and “Associate” shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in Rule 12b-2 promulgated under the Exchange Act.

(c)

“Applicable Laws” means the legal requirements relating to the administration of stock incentive plans, if any, under applicable provisions of federal securities laws, state corporate and securities laws, the Code, the rules of any applicable stock exchange or national market system, and the rules of any foreign jurisdiction applicable to Awards granted to residents therein. 

(d)

“Assumed” means that (i) pursuant to a Corporate Transaction defined in Section 2(q)(i), 2(q)(ii) or 2(q)(iii), the contractual obligations represented by the Award are expressly assumed (and not simply by operation of law) by the successor entity or its Parent in connection with the Corporate Transaction or (ii) pursuant to a Corporate Transaction defined in Section (q)(iv) or 2(q)(v), the Award is expressly affirmed by the Company.  

(e)

“Award” means the grant of an Option, SAR, Dividend Equivalent Right, Restricted Stock, Performance Unit, Performance Share, or other right or benefit under the Plan.

(f)

“Award Agreement” means the written agreement evidencing the grant of an Award executed by the Company and the Grantee, including any amendments thereto.

(g)

“Board” means the Board of Directors of the Company.

(h)

“Cause” means, with respect to the termination by the Company or a Related Entity of the Grantee’s Continuous Service, that such termination is for “Cause” as such term is expressly defined in a then-effective written agreement between the Grantee and the Company or such Related Entity, or in the absence of such then-effective written agreement and definition, is based on, in the determination of the Administrator, the Grantee’s:  (i) performance of any act or failure to perform any act in bad faith and to the detriment of the Company or a Related Entity; (ii) dishonesty, intentional misconduct or material breach of any agreement with the Company or a Related Entity; or (iii) commission of a crime involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or physical or emotional harm to any person.

(i)

“Change in Control”****means a change in ownership or control of the Company effected through either of the following transactions:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2588
JOHN ARTHUR YIAADEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusDUDLEY BURGESS, individually, and as Administrator of the Southern Regional Jail in Beaver, WV; JACK ROOP, Individually and as Director of the Regi onal Jail Authority for West Virginia, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-274) Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.John Arthur Yiaadey, Appellant Pro Se. Chad Marlo Cardinal, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Yiaadey v. Burgess , No. CA-95-274 (S.D.W. Va. July 27, 1995). We dispense withoral 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
<PAGE>

                           GTE Southwest Incorporated


                                                                     EXHIBIT 12

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                                                       Three Months Ended
(Dollars in Millions)                                      March 31, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Income before provision for income taxes                          $  87.9
Interest expense                                                     12.4
Portion of rent expense representing interest                         4.9
Amortization of capitalized interest                                   .1
                                                       ----------------------

Earnings, as adjusted                                             $ 105.3
                                                       ======================

Fixed charges:
Interest expense                                                  $  12.4
Portion of rent expense representing interest                         4.9
Capitalized interest                                                   .1
                                                       ----------------------

Fixed Charges                                                     $  17.4
                                                       ======================

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                   6.05
                                                       ======================
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5	
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATIONAL SYSTEMS INCORPORATED
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                816,516
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                      15,599,795
<ALLOWANCES>                          200,000
<INVENTORY>                         3,504,918
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   20,656,555
<PP&E>                             21,630,325
<DEPRECIATION>                      7,061,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     43,168,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               9,101,504
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                           18,639,006
<OTHER-SE>                         14,734,109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       43,168,709
<SALES>                            17,757,080
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   28,921,588
<CGS>                               4,432,299
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      12,639,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   14,774,186
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       95,056
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     51,822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     1,509,695
<INCOME-TAX>                          513,262
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   996,433
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          996,433
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.19


        

</TABLE>