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

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED           SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                     SEPTEMBER 30, 1996           SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
                                                                     ------------------           ------------------
<S>                                                                  <C>                          <C>

Net income (in thousands)                                                $       74                   $      328
                                                                         ==========                   ==========
Weighted average shares outstanding(1)                                    1,429,506                    1,448,551
Common stock equivalents due to the dilutive effect of
stock options under the treasury stock method                                 8,369                        6,284
                                                                         ----------                   ----------
  Weighted average shares outstanding and
    common stock equivalents                                              1,437,875                    1,454,835

Primary earnings per share                                               $     0.05                   $     0.23
                                                                         ==========                   ==========
Weighted average shares outstanding
   and common stock equivalents (above)                                   1,437,875                    1,454,835
Additional dilutive common stock equivalents using ending period
   market value versus average market value for the period                      136                        2,221
                                                                         ----------                   ----------
Fully diluted weighted average shares and
  common stock equivalents                                                1,438,011                    1,457,056

Fully diluted earnings per share                                         $     0.05                   $     0.23
                                                                         ==========                   ==========
</TABLE>


(1)  Includes only the portion of ESOP shares committed to be released to
     participants.
Exhibit 4.3

           Number                                                 Shares
            1328                                                  ***0***

SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS                      -----------------------
          COMMON STOCK                                   CUSIP NO. 868823 10 5
                                                         -----------------------

                                                                SYMBOL SRG

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                SurgiCare, Inc.
              INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50,000,000 Authorized Common Shares     $.005 Par Value       Non Assessible

THIS CERTIFIES THAT

                          VOID

IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF ***NO SHARES***

Shares of                      SURGICARE, INC.                    Common Stock
transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized
attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.  This Certificate
is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the
Registrar.
    WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures
of its duly authorized officers.

Dated:   April 8, 2003                          COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED
                                                   FIRST NATIONAL TRUST

                                                By        Authorized Signature


                                    SurgiCare Inc.
                                      Corporate
                                        SEAL
                                      Delaware

/s/ Keith G. LeBlanc                                       /s/ Phillip C. Scott
----------------------                                     ---------------------
PRESIDENT                                                  SECRETARY
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

In re : EXTREME TECHNOLOG IES, LLC,

Petitioner

______________________

2020

- 106

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in

No. 4:19

- cv

- 01977, Judge Lynn N. Hughes.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before N EWMAN

, L OURIE

, and C HEN

, Circuit Judges.

L OURIE

, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

Extreme Technologies, LLC petitions for a writ of

mandamus that would direct intra

- district transfer from Judge Lynn N. Hughes to Judge Alfred H. Bennett, both

of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Stabil Drill Specialties, L.L.C. opposes the petition

. Extreme replies.

Extreme sued Stabil Drill for patent infringement in

the Southern District of Texas. Shortly after the case was assigned to Jud ge Hughes , Extreme filed a notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Case: 20-106 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 11/21/2019IN RE : EXTREME TECHNOLOGI ES

, LLC 2

41(a)(1)(A)(i) and immediately filed the same complaint at
the United States District Court for the Western District

of Louisiana. Several hours after the notice of dismissal

was filed , Judge Hughes entered an order dismissing th e case without prejudice but stat ed that if the case is “refiled or removed to the Southern District of Texas, the case will be assigned to Jud g e Hughes.”

Several months later, the Louisiana court transferred

its case to the Southern District of Texas, noting the belief

that Extreme was judge shopping when it voluntarily

dismissed the case in Texas

. Upon transfer, the case was initially assigned to Judge Alfred H. Bennett , but he

tr ansferred the case to Judge Hughes. Ext reme then

moved to transfer back to Judge Bennett, which Judge Hughes denie d . Extreme then filed this petition

. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisp utable right to relief; (2) there are no adequate alternative legal channels through which he may obtain that relief; and (3)the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of

Columbia , 542 U.S. 367, 380

– 81 (2004). We cannot say that Extreme has met those requirements.

Judge Bennett did not violate any clear and indisputable authority in transferring this case to Judge Hughes.To the extent that Extreme believed Judge Hughes exceeded his auth ority in issuing his initial order, it could have timely appealed from that decision but elected not todo so. Under the circumstances, granting this extraordinary relief would not be appropriate.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Case: 20-106 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 11/21/2019IN RE : EXTREME TECHNOLOGI ES

, LLC 3

F OR THE C OURT

Nov ember 21 , 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court

s25 Case: 20-106 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 11/21/2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                          10,590
<SECURITIES>                                    14,638
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,464
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (271)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,514
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,659
<PP&E>                                           9,157
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,565
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,740
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,062
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,471
<SALES>                                         37,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,341
<CGS>                                            8,422
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,852
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    559
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,892)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,451
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,451
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 4.9**

----

**PERSONAL**

Lou Hughes86 Indian Hill RoadWinnetkaIllinois60093USA

10 January 2006

Dear Lou,

I confirm that the Board has agreed to extend your    appointment as a non-executive director of BT Group plc to and including    31 March 2006. Your appointment will continue in all other respects on the    terms set out in your letter of appointment dated 16 December 2003. 

Please confirm your acceptance of this extension on these terms by signing and returning to Larry Stone the attached copy of this letter.

Yours ever,

/s/ ChristopherBland

 Sir Christopher Bland

----

|            |              |
|-----------------|-------------------|
| To:   | Larry Stone       |
|            | Company Secretary |

I accept this extension of myappointment on the above terms.

| /s/ Lou Hughes |  | 1/10/06 |   |
|---------------------|--|---------|--------|
|                     |  |         |   |
| Lou Hughes          |  | Date    |   |

 

| **Sir Christopher Bland**      Chairman      BT Group      BT Centre      81 Newgate Street      London EC1A 7AJ    United Kingdom | **tel** (020) 7356 4324**int** +44 20 7356 4324**fax** (020) 7600 8197**int** +44 20 7600 8197 |   | **BT Group plc**        Registered Office:        81 Newgate Street, London EC1A 7AJ        Registered in England and Wales no. 4190816**www.bt.com** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Exhibit 31

                                CERTIFICATION


      I, Patrick A. Custer, certify that:

      1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of VPGI Corp.;

      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 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.  I am 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 subsidiaries, 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal
      quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,
      or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting; and

      5.  I have disclosed, based on my 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.

 October 14, 2003

                               /s/  PATRICK A. CUSTER
                                    -----------------
                                    Patrick A. Custer
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    and Principal Financial Officer
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00164-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 396th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1529557D

Before Bassel, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Womack, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

OQUAVIEN WAGONER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In accordance with a plea bargain between the State and Appellant Oquavien 

Wagoner, Wagoner pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery with a deadly 

weapon, and the State agreed to dismiss another aggravated-robbery charge in return 

for Wagoner’s guilty plea. Wagoner filed a notice of appeal. The trial court initially 

signed an inaccurate certification that did not indicate that Wagoner had entered into 

a plea bargain but eventually signed an amended certification stating that Wagoner 

had entered into a plea bargain and had “NO right of appeal.”

We notified Wagoner’s court-appointed attorney of the trial court’s amended 

certification and informed him that unless he filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal, we would dismiss it. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. We 

received no response.

The record reflects that Wagoner specifically waived any pretrial motions and 

all rights of appeal as part of his plea agreement. Therefore, in accordance with the 

trial court’s amended certification, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a), 

(d), 43.2(f); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Miller v. State,

No. 02-18-00467-CR, 2019 WL 1179421, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 14, 

2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also Kennedy v. State, 297 

S.W.3d 338, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (explaining charge-bargain agreement);

Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (same).

Per Curiam
3

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: August 8, 2019
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1092 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1092

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require an Inspector General 
investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in 
 response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2013

Ms. Klobuchar (for herself, Mrs. McCaskill, and Mr. Schatz) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                           on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to require an Inspector General 
investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in 
 response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault.

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

SECTION 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF 
              RETALIATORY PERSONNEL ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO MAKING 
              PROTECTED COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING SEXUAL ASSAULT.

    Section 1034(c)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``sexual harassment or'' and inserting ``rape, sexual 
assault, or other sexual misconduct under sections 920 through 920c of 
this title (articles 120 through 120c of the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice), sexual harassment, or''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification**

 

I, William P. Lyons, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of AXS-One Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:   May 14, 2004 | /s/ William P. Lyons    |   |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                      | William P. Lyons        |
|                      | Chief Executive Officer |
|                      | President and Director  |

 

1

----
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1195 

To repeal the renewable fuel standard. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2013 

Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. 

CRUZ, Mr. ENZI, Mr. BOOZMAN, and Mr. SCOTT) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To repeal the renewable fuel standard. 

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 ‘‘Renewable Fuel Stand5 ard Repeal Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD. 

7 Section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545) 

8 is amended by striking subsection (o). 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1195 IS

1 SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL REPEAL. 

2 Section 204 of the Energy Independence and Security 

3 Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 7545 note; Public Law 110–140) 

4 is repealed. 

5 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

6 Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the 

7 regulations under subparts K and M of part 80 of title 

8 40, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on that date 

9 of enactment), shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd. Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended October 31, 2008, each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2.         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd. and will be retained by Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd. and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

 

| /s/ Dr. Lionel L. Reilly | December 12, 2008                                                                                                                                                                              |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dr. Lionel L. Reilly     |  
Chief Executive Officer

 
 

/s/ Neal B. Soderquist

December 12, 2008

Neal B. Soderquist

 
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President

 
 

 

  |