alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>







<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                       2,332
<SECURITIES>                                                 8,888
<RECEIVABLES>                                                9,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 2,825
<INVENTORY>                                                    570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            19,748
<PP&E>                                                      14,358
<DEPRECIATION>                                              12,215
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              42,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       14,143
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                       122
<OTHER-SE>                                                  22,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                42,383
<SALES>                                                     56,962
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            56,962
<CGS>                                                       10,210
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               10,210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            50,171
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (2,760)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 3,092
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (5,852)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (5,852)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (0.53)




</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                         MANGOSOFT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                          (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)

                    COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

                   THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND 1999
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                                           ----------------------------
                                                                              2000              1999
                                                                           ---------          ---------
<S>                                                                      <C>               <C>
BASIC NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE:
     Net loss applicable to common shares as reported.................   $ (33,870,230)    $ (2,603,568)
     Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:
          Common Stock................................................      20,130,349          136,949
                                                                         -------------     ------------

          Basic net loss per common share.............................   $       (1.68)    $     (19.01)
                                                                         =============     ============


DILUTED NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE:
     Net loss applicable to common shares as reported.................   $ (33,870,230)    $ (2,603,568)
     Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:
          Common Stock................................................      20,130,349          136,949

          Effect of common stock equivalents..........................             --               --
                                                                         -------------     ------------
                                                                               --
               Total..................................................      20,130,349          136,949
                                                                         -------------     ------------

          Diluted net loss per common share...........................   $       (1.68)    $     (19.01)
                                                                         =============     ============
</TABLE>



                                       20
#### William Drew LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-842.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 15, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


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


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2001
                                                    ------------------------------------------------
                                                       NUMBER           PERCENT        EQUIVALENT
                                                      OF SHARES       OUTSTANDING        SHARES
                                                    --------------   --------------   --------------
<S>                                                      <C>               <C>          <C>
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                                  2,300,000         100.00%         2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                               2,508,997         100.00%         2,508,997
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock            15,310,943         100.00%        15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                          11,242,857         100.00%        11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                           4,323,874         100.00%         4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                            6,000,000         100.00%         6,000,000
   1999 Treasury Stock Transaction                          (6,588)        100.00%            (6,588)
   March 2000 Debt Swap                                  3,789,715         100.00%         3,789,715
   Canadian Transaction                                    714,286         100.00%           714,286
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued              190,651         100.00%           190,651
   Warrants Exercised                                      134,737         100.00%           134,737
                                                    --------------                    --------------
                                                        46,509,472                        46,509,472

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                       46,509,472

NET LOSS                                                                                 (39,322,000)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                     $       (0.85)
                                                                                       =============
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 26, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John F. McGrath, Jr., Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



June 08, 2004

/s/ John F. McGrath, Jr.



John F. McGrath, Jr.

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

#
Order entered September 16, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00525-CV

DONALD DAVIS, Appellant

V.

ATTORNEY GENERAL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-05-01417-T

ORDER

On July 28, 2015, we ordered Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing certain items requested by appellant. We further ordered 

Ms. Pitre to file written verification of any items that could not be located. The supplemental 

clerk’s record has been filed, but it does not include all the items requested or written verification 

that those items could not be located. Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. Pitre to file, no later than 

September 25, 2015, either (1) a supplemental clerk’s record containing the following items or 

(2) written verification these items cannot be located:

•May 23, 2005 “response/answer/request to dismiss;”

•January 22, 2015 “notice of dismissal hearing;” and,
•February 26, 2015, March 18, 2015, and April 7, 2015 “notice of hearing for defendant’s 

second amended request/motion for sanctions/taxation and bill of cost under frivolous 

claim act.”

We DENY appellant’s September 14, 2015 “motion for sanctions against the Dallas 

County District Clerk for Recovery of Cost for Late Appellate Records.” 

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre and all the 

parties.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
262 La. 1067

#### Norman T. ALEXANDER v. Rogers M. PRESTRIDGE, Assistant District Attorney, Bossier Parish, Louisiana, and The 26th Judicial District Court of Bossier Parish, Louisiana.

No. 52779.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 11, 1972.

In re: Norman T. Alexander applying for writ of mandamus.

Writ refused. Trial court reply that trial will be forthcoming immediately makes consideration now untimely on the writ of mandamus. No prejudice to relator to properly and timely raise further legal objections.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000758256
<NAME>                        The Saint James Company
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                1,115
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           999,057
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,116
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (1,116)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
### SERVED: September 18, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC

--- ·----------- 

### IN THE MATTER OF CLASSIC AIR AVIATION, LLC

DOCKET NO. FAJ\-201 5-2438 (Civil Penally Action)

NOTICE OFASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

### On September 5, 2015, Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin transferred to the Food and Drug Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge Goodwin to the undersigned. Any dates set for hearing orprehearing conference are suspended until further notice. All other orders remain in full force and effect absent further order. SO ORDERED.



### Ronnie J\. 

### Y odcr. ChiefAdministrative**L~...-uu** 

### Attachment-Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY 

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY
Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2WI000 1

Kacie M. Bush, Operations Manager Classic AirAviation, LLC, Respondent 4805 E. Falcon Drive Mesa, AZ 85215 TEL: 602-574-5376 ONE COPY

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration NorthwestMountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue Southwest Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-2161 FAX: 425-227-1007 The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, ChiefAdministrative LawJudge U.S. DepartmentofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2142 FAX: 202-366-7536 

### Docke\No.\:i\t\-2()\S-2438 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2WIOOO, Washington. DC 20591; Attention: HearingDocketClerk. AGC-430. 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 26, 2022

No. 04-21-00531-CV

Deann and Richard LUPARDUS,

Appellants

v.

Minesh PATEL,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-CV-02477

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants’ brief originally was due on April 18, 2022. On that date, the clerk of this 

court contacted appellants about their brief, but appellants have not responded. Appellants are 

hereby ORDERED to file, no later than June 6, 2022, their brief and a written response 

reasonably explaining: (1) their failure to timely file a brief, and (2) why appellee is not 

significantly injured by appellants’ failure to timely file a brief. If appellants fail to timely file a 

brief and the written response by June 6, 2022, we will dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary 

dismissal if appellant fails to comply with court order).

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of May, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>      0000757528
<NAME>     First Capital Institutional Real Estate, Ltd - 3

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                     4,749,200
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 45,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           4,894,900
<PP&E>                                    19,698,200
<DEPRECIATION>                             6,574,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            23,896,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        844,300
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                22,964,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              23,896,300
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           3,521,400
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1,637,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             185,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            1,358,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        1,358,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               1,358,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  25.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  25.05


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1109

ARCHIE STURGILL,

Petitioner,

versus

KERMIT COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(99-0676-BLA)

Submitted: June 29, 2001 Decided: July 13, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Archie Sturgill, Petitioner Pro Se. Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON

& KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Patricia May Nece, Edward

Waldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for

Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* We have considered the recent revisions to the regulations

implementing the Black Lung Benefits Act, see Regulations Implementing the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as

amended; 65 Fed. Reg. 79,919 (Dec. 20, 2000), and have determined

the revisions do not affect the outcome of this case.

2

PER CURIAM:

Archie Sturgill seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s

decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial

of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West

1986 & Supp. 2000). Our review of the record discloses that the

Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

Board.* See Sturgill v. Kermit Coal Company, No. 99-0676-BLA

(B.R.B. Dec. 20, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6614

DANIEL TEMPLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DANIEL R. DAY, in his individual capacity and

official capacity,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 00-6615

DANIEL TEMPLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

OCONEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; KENNY

WASHINGTON, Lieutenant with Oconee County

Sheriff’s Department; DEAN HALL, Judge,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-99-3486-4-13BF, CA-00-598-4-13BF, CA-00-599-4-13BF)
2

Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Temple, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Temple appeals the district court’s orders dismissing

without prejudice his two civil rights complaints. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders accepting the

recommendations of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Temple v. Day, No. CA-99-3486-4-13BF (D.S.C. Apr. 6,

2000); Temple v. Oconee County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. CA-00-598-4-

13BF (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2000). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4905

_____________________________

AMANDA RENEE GULLEDGE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

J. Scott Duncan, Judge.

July 10, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Upon review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we find no error with 

Appellant’s judgment or sentence, and affirm. We write only to 

correct a scrivener’s error on Appellant’s written sentence. See 

Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 n. 3 (Fla. 2003) (defining a 

scrivener’s error as a written clerical error that is not “the result 

of a judicial determination or error”); Rivera v. State, 117 So. 3d 

449-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (remanding for correction of the written 

sentences to reflect the oral pronouncement in an Anders appeal). 

In the written sentence, the sentence imposed on count 3 is 

erroneously listed as count 1. On remand, the trial court shall 

correct the error.
2

WETHERELL, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
259 La. 906

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles SCOTT.

No. 51837.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1971.

In re: Charles Scott applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and stay order.

Denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the stay order should be granted.

TATE, J., concurs in dissent of BAR-HAM, J.

DIXON, J.,

is of the opinion that this court should have granted a stay to consider the point of law raised by the application. This extradition hearing occurred this morning; the trial judge granted a stay until 12:00 noon; the application was filed in this court at 11:55 a. m.