alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED   FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                       SEPTEMBER 30,              SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                 ------------------------    ------------------------
                                                                    1997          1996          1997          1996
                                                                 ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------
<S>                                                              <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>       
Net income (in thousands)                                        $      244    $       74    $      509    $      328
                                                                 ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Weighted average shares outstanding *                             1,393,447     1,429,506     1,405,861     1,448,551
Common stock equivalents due to the dilutive effect of
    stock options under the treasury stock method                    39,823         8,369        35,841         6,284
                                                                 ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------
  Weighted average shares outstanding and
    common stock equivalents                                      1,433,270     1,437,875     1,441,702     1,454,835

Primary earnings per share                                       $     0.17    $     0.05    $     0.35    $     0.23
                                                                 ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Weighted average shares outstanding and
   common stock equivalents (above)                               1,433,270     1,437,875     1,441,702     1,454,835
Additional dilutive common stock equivalents using period end
   market value versus average market value for the period            5,841           136         9,823         2,221
                                                                 ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------

Fully diluted weighted average shares and
  common stock equivalents                                        1,439,111     1,438,011     1,451,525     1,457,056

Fully diluted earnings per share                                 $     0.17    $     0.05    $     0.35    $     0.23
                                                                 ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========
</TABLE>

* Includes only the portion of ESOP shares committed to be released to
participants.
#### Jessie BROWN, Richard Lee Worthon and Ulysses Charles Lemon, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2213.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 8, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40652 Conference Calendar

TODD CARRAWAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus
THE STATE OF TEXAS; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; JAMES A. LYNAUGH; LUPE LAZANO, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-94-CV-43
- - - - - - - - - - October 22, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Todd Carraway, a Texas prisoner (# 668946), appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserts that the district court erred in determining that the defendants had not denied him access to the courts byNo. 96-40652 -2- maintaining an inadequate law library at his place of confinement. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for essentially the same reasons adopted by the district court. See Carraway v. The State of Texas et al. , No. L-94-CV-43 (S.D. Tex. May 14, 1996). AFFIRMED.
# C_2021228EN.01001302.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 29 January 2021 — Prestige and Limousine, S.L. v Área Metropolitana de Barcelona

(Case C-50/21)

(2021/C 228/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Prestige and Limousine, S.L.

Defendant: Área Metropolitana de Barcelona

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 49 and Article 107(1) TFEU preclude national laws — statutory and regulatory provisions — which, without any reasonable justification, limit PHV (1) licences to one for every 30 taxi licences or fewer? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 49 and Article 107(1) TFEU preclude national laws — statutory and regulatory provisions — which, without any reasonable justification, limit PHV (1) licences to one for every 30 taxi licences or fewer?

| 2. | Do Article 49 and Article 107(1) TFEU preclude a rule of national law which, without any reasonable justification, requires a second licence and the fulfilment of additional requirements for PHVs wishing to provide urban services? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Article 49 and Article 107(1) TFEU preclude a rule of national law which, without any reasonable justification, requires a second licence and the fulfilment of additional requirements for PHVs wishing to provide urban services?

---

(1)  Private hire vehicle.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,615,604
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  591,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (41,151)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      21,858,487
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,887,172)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,771,150
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,421,763
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,981,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,771,150
<SALES>                                      4,136,447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,307,736
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,788,553
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               700,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             427,365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (608,182)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (608,182)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (608,182)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Orion HealthCorp, Inc. (the small
business issuer);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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer and have:
    5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
   th
 /s/ Stephen H. MurdockStephen H. Murdock, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1058 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize per diem payments 

under comprehensive service programs for homeless veterans to furnish 

care to dependents of homeless veterans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mr. HELLER (for himself and Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize per 

diem payments under comprehensive service programs 

for homeless veterans to furnish care to dependents of 

homeless veterans, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Creating a Reliable 

5 Environment for Veterans’ Dependents Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1058 IS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF PER DIEM PAYMENTS FOR 

2 FURNISHING CARE TO DEPENDENTS OF CER3 TAIN HOMELESS VETERANS. 

4 Section 2012(a) of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new para6 graph: 

7 ‘‘(4) Services for which a recipient of a grant under 

8 section 2011 of this title (or an entity described in para9 graph (1)) may receive per diem payments under this sub10 section may include furnishing care for a dependent of a 

11 homeless veteran who is under the care of such homeless 

12 veteran while such homeless veteran receives services from 

13 the grant recipient (or entity).’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2022359EN.01006004.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/60

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich — Poland) — Provident Polska S.A. v VF

(Case C-717/21) (1)

(2022/C 359/71)

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.

---
# C_2022294EN.01003002.xml

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Medela v EUIPO (MAXFLOW)

(Case T-744/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark MAXFLOW - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 294/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Medela Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Hartmann and S. Fröhlich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 August 2021 (Case R 876/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Medela Holding AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Medela Holding AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
# C_2022340EN.01004102.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/41

---

Order of the General Court of 14 July 2022 — IN.PRO.DI v EUIPO — Aiello (CAPRI)

(Case T-203/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 340/57)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: IN.PRO.DI — Inghirami produzione distribuzione SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: V. Piccarreta, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Antonino Aiello (Naples, Italy) (represented by: L. Manna, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 February 2021 (Case R 49/2020-1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                      Exhibit 10.21.1






January 20, 1999


Arthur L. Fatum
54 Saint David's Drive
Englefield
Egham, Surrey
TW20 0BA
U.K.

Dear Art:

         I would like to report to you that the Compensation Committee has made
a determination and approved the following actions relative to the severance
provisions contained in your employment letter agreement.

         The Committee approved an amendment to the severance provisions
contained in your employment letter agreement (the "Agreement"). Hereinafter,
your Agreement shall be amended so as to delete the severance provision
contained therein, and it shall be replaced in its entirety with the following:

         "In the event that you are involuntarily terminated for any reason
other than for Cause, you shall receive as severance pay, the sum of (i) your
then current bi-weekly base salary for a period of twelve (12) consecutive
months following the date of such termination ("Severance Period"), and (ii)
fifty (50) percent of the Annual Target Bonus otherwise payable to you for the
year in which the termination occurs, which bonus amount shall be paid in
substantially equal bi-weekly installments over the Severance Period, For the
purpose of this Agreement, Cause shall be defined as and be limited to
conviction of a felony or willful misconduct or gross negligence in the
performance of duties which results in material harm to PictureTel."

         Thank you for hard work and dedication. Your continued efforts will be
a key factor in our future success and I look forward to working with you to
build a great PictureTel.


Sincerely,



-------------------------
Bruce R. Bond
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
#### PALM BEACH COUNTY ZONING COMMISSION et al., Appellants, v. CANTERBURY PROPERTIES, INC., Appellee.

No. 71-497.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 27, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
December 15, 1999

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, D,C.  20549


Re: I-Storm, Inc. (formerly Digital Power Holding Company), a Nevada Corporation
Commission File No. 2-93477-D

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We were previously the independent accountants for the Company and on April 8,
1998 we reported on the financial statements of the Company for the fiscal years
ended March 31, 1998 and 1997. On December 15, 1999, we were formally dismissed
as the independent accountants of I-Storm, Inc. (formerly Digital Power Holding
Company).

We have read the Company's statements included under Item 4 of this current
report on Form 8-K dated July 1, 1998 and have no disagreements with the
disclosure made therein.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Jones, Jensen & Company
Jones, Jensen & Company
#### W. J. LEIMAN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 8244.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 11, 1937.

P. Robert G. Sjostrom, of Miami, Fla., for petitioner.

Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and Herman Oliphant, Gen. Counsel, Department of Treasury, and Chester A. Gwinn, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D, C., for respondent.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the joint stipulation executed September 4, 1936, for the consolidation of this case with the case entitled David Gross, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent (C.C.A.) 88 F.(2d) 567, and the motion filed by petitioner to enter the same judgment in the above-entitled and numbered cause as was entered by this court in the case entitled David Gross, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, on March 2, 1937, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that the judgment of the said United States Board of Tax Appeals in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed with direction to correct the tax assessed in accordance with the opinion of this court rendered on March 2, 1937, in the case of David Gross, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.
#### UNIVERSITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF CORAL GABLES, a savings and loan association chartered under the laws of the United States of America, Appellant, v. Fred O. DICKINSON, Jr., as Comptroller and Commissioner of Banking of the State of Florida, and Franklin Savings and Loan Association, Appellees.

No. 73-564.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 24, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Wendell E. RAY, Appellant, v. Esther B. RAY, Appellee.

No. 70-67.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 10, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
## .- 5%0

OFFICE OF THE A-ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

‘AUSTIN

Honol’eble

@orge R. Sheppard Comptrollerof Publie Aocounts Auuetln,

Texas Dear Sir:

anopinion.

a main trial hearing of defendhe indiotment

Subblvislon 6, of;hrticle 760, Code of Criminal Procedure, 16 the ,statutory provision applicable to this fact situation. It provides:

When defendant cannotpay. - i”henany t&lony oaee is eppeiiled end the defendant isHonorable George H. Sheppard,Page 2

,

not able to pay for a transcript of the testlmony or give security therefor,he nay make affidavit of such fact, ana upon the making of suoh affidavlt, the court shall order the offi01131 oourt reporter to make a narrative statement of facts ana deliver it to suchdefendant. In all oaseswhere the oourt 1s rsqulred to and does appoint an attorney to represent the defendant in a criminal. action, such reporter shall be required to furnish the attorney for.said defondant, if convicted and where an appeal is prosecuted, with a transcript of his notes. For each sald eervlcehe shallbe paid by the State of Texas,,u3on the oertificate of the trial judge, one-half of the rate proylaea by lau In 01~11 caeee.@ It.willbe noted that Eubdlvlalon 6, aupra, doee not,elther expressly or lmplledly, limit the statement of faots to that adduced in the main trlal~to~wlt,upon‘the iesueof guilt.

To read euoh a qualification into the lawwould defeat the purpose of the statute and defeat the intention of the Legislature, for, obvlouely,'lt Is deslgned to proYld8means and grooedure whereby the indigentdefendant may effect his appeal from a oonviotlonof a felony.

Wlth this Inmind, it is our opinion that all atatementsof faat necessary and pertinent to the effective proseoutlon of an appeal shouldbe mpd.e available to the COnV.lCt8d

defendant. Under the first su'bdlvlelon of Sea- .tlon6 Article 760 we believe a defendant 1s .entltled to a &ratlve stat;?ment of facts adduced upon his main trial, on his motion to quash the indictment, on the hearing for ohange of venue, and on his ui3tion for teu trial. #lthout such statements,he might be de?rlved of MS right to pro?srly prseent his exceutlons to th8 acts of the trial court ttiersonto the Colirt of Crininsl &peals. Yowever,we know of no statutory authorityfor an HLrai~~s Curiaemotion for a change oi' vanue." In the absence of I

,onorable George Ii.Sheppard,Page 3

auoh a statute,we do not believe that a.statement of facts insuch a proceeding is required to be furnished the aefen&- sntat the expense of the State. Yours very truly ATTORNEY WiENERAL OF TEXAS 

### By YFvaq

ipm.d. -Fanning Assistant
#### CITY OF ORLANDO, Appellant, v. Ross V. WILLIS, Appellee.

No. 71-748.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 25, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.