alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Common Share

<TABLE>                              
                    CONGOLEUM CORPORATION
          COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
        (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                              
<CAPTION>
                                               Years Ended December 31,
                                           ------------------------------
Primary Earnings Per Common Share:         1996         1995         1994
---------------------------------          ----         ----         ----
<S>                                      <C>          <C>          <C>      
                                                       
Income per common and common                           
  equivalent share                        $ 12,097     $ 9,435      $ 17,495
                                          ========     =======      ========    

Weighted average common shares   
  outstanding                                9,997      10,000        10,000  
                                                                         
Effect of assumed exercise of                                       
  dilutive stock options(1)                      4          --            --
                                          --------     -------      --------  
Weighted average common and                            
  common equivalent shares                  10,001      10,000        10,000
                                                       
Income per common and common                           
  equivalent share                        $   1.21     $  0.94      $   1.75
                                          ========     =======      ========  
                                                       
Fully Diluted Earnings Per Common Share:
----------------------------------------             
Income per common and common                           
  equivalent share                        $ 12,097     $ 9,435      $ 17,495
                                          ========     =======      ========
Weighted average common shares   
  outstanding                                9,997      10,000        10,000 
                                                       
Effect of assumed exercise of                          
  dilutive stock options(1)                     10          --            --
                                          --------     -------       ------- 
Weighted average common and                            
  common equivalent shares                  10,007      10,000        10,000
                                                                        
Income per common and common                                          
  equivalent share                        $   1.21      $ 0.94       $  1.75
                                          ========      ======       =======

</TABLE>
[FN]
(1)  Computed based on the Treasury Stock method.

<PAGE>
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Third Quarter 2002 and 2001




                                     Third      Third     Standard    Standard
Area                                quarter    quarter    error on    error on
                                     2002       2001     2002 rate  difference

United States.....................      68.0       68.1        0.2         0.2

  Inside MAs......................      66.2       66.3        0.2         0.3
   In central cities..............      52.2       52.3        0.3         0.5
   Not in central cities (suburbs)      74.6       74.7        0.2         0.3
  Outside MAs.....................      75.3       75.5        0.3         0.5

 Northeast........................      64.7       64.1        0.4         0.6
 Midwest..........................      73.2       72.9        0.3         0.5
 South............................      69.5       70.1        0.2         0.4
 West.............................      62.8       63.1        0.3         0.5
STRUCTURE ACTIVITY TEAM REPORT

CASE NUMBER: P03-0197

RELATED CASES:

CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSIONS

TYPE OF CONCERN: HEALTH ECOTOX

LEVEL OF CONCERN: 1-2 3

KEYWORDS:

LUNG
IRR-E,L,MM,GI

UNCERT-DEVEL
AQUATOX-A,C

SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT

FATE: Solid S = Disp.(E); VP @ 25C (mm) < 1.0E-6(E); H < 1.00E-8(E) POTW removal (%) = 50-90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo
PBT Potential: P3B1T1 Sorption to soils/sediments = strong *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = slow

HEALTH: Absorption is nil through the skin based on physical/chemical properties. Expect poor absorption through the GI tract and moderate absorption through the lungs based on analogs. Based on the submitted data, the PMN compound is an eye irritant (irritation took 4 to 7 days to clear). It also expected to be irritating to the lungs, GI tract, and mucous membranes. The PMN compound is expected to cause lung effects based on surfactant activity if inhaled. There is uncertain concern for developmental toxicity by analogy to . *CEB HEALTH: Low moderate concern (Inhalation only).

TOXICITY DATA: negative in Salmonella acute oral study in rats - no deaths at 2000 mg/kg, piloerection, hunched posture, soft to liquid feces, ungroomed appearance,
increased salivation eye irritant slight skin irritant

ECOTOX: Predicted (P) and measured (M) toxicity values in mg/L (ppm) FOR INTENDED PRODUCT WITH are:
fish 96-h LC50 = 3.4 P daphnid 48-h LC50 = 640.0 P green algal 96-h EC50 = 170.0 Pfish chronic value = 0.500 P daphnid ChV = 100.0 P algal ChV = 3.7 P Predictions are based on SAR-nearest analog method for in the : , FHM96=3.4, D48=640, GA96=170, GAChV=3.7; SAR chemical class = ; log Kow of hydrophobe = 6.85 which is equivalent to 13 linear carbons with log Kow = 6.73 (EPI); with 54% <1000 and 3% <500; pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L; moderate concern for toxicity;

assessment factor = 10.0 concern concentration = 0.050 mg/L (ppm) for intended product

Predicted (P) and measured (M) toxicity values in mg/L (ppm) FOR

WORST CASE PRODUCT WITH are:
fish 96-h LC50 => 0.300 P daphnid 48-h LC50 = 4.6 P green algal 96-h EC50 = 13.0 P
fish chronic value => 0.050 P daphnid ChV = 0.710 P algal ChV = 3.3 P Predictions are based on SAR-nearest analog method for : , , FHM96=3.4, D48=640, GA96=170, GAChV=3.7; and SARs for ; SAR chemical class = ; log Kow of hydrophobe = 6.85 which is equivalent to 13 linear carbons with log Kow = 6.73 (EPI); intended product with 54% <1000 and 3% <500; pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <180.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L; high concern for toxicity;

assessment factor = 10.0 concern concentration = 0.005 mg/L (ppm) for worst case product *CEB ECOTOX: All releases to water; run two PDMs: CC = 0.050 mg/L (ppm) for intended product and CC = 0.005 mg/L (ppm) for worst case product;

*CEB ECOTOX: All releases to surface waters.

Becky Jones 564-8919
No. 00-1139.

#### Walder *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Table 4.  Estimates of the Total Housing Inventory for the
                United States:  Third Quarter 2006 and 2007

(Estimates are in thousands and may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                    Third     Third        90-Percent
                                   quarter   quarter   Confidence Interval (&plusmn;)a 2007
Type                                 2006      2007    of 2007       of       Percent
                                   estimate  estimate  estimate  difference of total

All housing units.................  126,224   128,189       (X)        (X)       100

  Occupied........................  109,629   110,299       309        278        86
    Owner occupied................   75,646    75,181       629        429        59
    Renter occupied...............   33,984    35,118       542        417        27

  Vacant..........................   16,595    17,890       371        325        14
    Year-round vacant.............   12,606    13,334       361        309        10
      For rent....................    3,808     3,866       174        194         3
      For sale only...............    1,935     2,074       109        135         2
      Rented or sold,
      awaiting occupancy..........    1,159     1,224        76        106         1
      Held off market.............    5,704     6,170       254        217         5
        For occasional use........    1,850     1,967       146        125         2
        Temporarily occupied
        by persons with
        usual residence elsewhere.    1,121     1,086       109         95         1
        For other reasons.........    2,733     3,117       183        154         2

    Seasonal vacant...............    3,989     4,558       245        208         4


    aA 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliability.  The larger 
    the confidence interval is, in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.
    (X)  Not Applicable.  Since the number of housing units is set equal to an independent national 
     measure, there is no sampling error, and hence no confidence interval.
NOTE:  Since first quarter 2003, the Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey (CPS/HVS) estimates 
     have been controlled to independent housing unit counts.  Doing so should make the CPS/HVS estimate of 
     housing units more  comparable to other Census Bureau housing surveys.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 17, 2018

No. 04-17-00652-CV

Ruben RIOS,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017W0521

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

In the underlying cause, Ruben Rios filed a petition for expunction, which sought

expunction of all criminal records and files pertaining to an arrest. On July 21, 2017, the trial 

court signed an order granting Rios relief and ordering the expunction of all criminal records and 

files related to the arrest. On August 18, 2017, the Department of Public Safety filed a motion for 

new trial. On October 3, 2017, the trial court signed an order granting the Department’s motion 

for new trial and setting aside its prior expunction. Rios then filed a notice of appeal stating his 

intent to appeal from the trial court’s October 3, 2017 order.

“An order granting a new trial is an unappealable, interlocutory order.” Fruehauf Corp. v. 

Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993); see also Cummins v. Paisan Constr. Co., 682 S.W.2d 

235, 236 (Tex. 1984). We therefore ORDER appellant to show cause in writing by September 3, 

2018, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 
 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                        CONSENT OF PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
                            INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus of
the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-14531, No. 33-29798, No.
33-31299, No. 33-36673, No. 33-41719, No. 33-48395, No. 33-54483, No. 33-64998,
No. 33-65440, No. 33-66704, No. 33-67276 and No. 33-68336) of Novell, Inc. of
our report dated March 22, 1994 appearing on page 17 of this Form 10-K.
 
                                          /S/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
 
Salt Lake City, Utah
January 23, 1996
 
                                       23
#### Bobby B. JONES v. STATE.

No. 36650.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1413 

To exempt from sequestration certain fees of the Food and Drug 

Administration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2013 

Mr. PRYOR (for himself, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. MORAN, and Mr. 

COATS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To exempt from sequestration certain fees of the Food and 

Drug Administration. 

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 ‘‘FDA User Fee Protec5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTING FROM SEQUESTRATION CERTAIN USER 

7 FEES OF FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. 

8 The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 

9 Act of 1985 is amended— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1413 IS

1 (1) in section 255(g)(1)(A) (2 U.S.C. 

2 905(g)(1)(A))— 

3 (A) by inserting after ‘‘Financial Agent 

4 Services’’ the following new item: 

5 ‘‘Food and Drug Administration, Salaries 

6 and Expenses, but only the portion of appro7 priations under such account corresponding to 

8 fees collected under the Federal Food, Drug, 

9 and Cosmetic Act and section 354(r)(1) of the 

10 Public Health Service Act (75–9911–0–1– 

11 554).’’; and 

12 (B) by inserting after ‘‘Reimbursement to 

13 Federal Reserve Banks’’ the following new 

14 item: 

15 ‘‘Revolving Fund for Certification and 

16 Other Services (75–4309–0–3–554).;’’; and 

17 (2) in section 256(h)(4) (2 U.S.C. 906(h)(4)), 

18 by adding at the end the following new subpara19 graph: 

20 ‘‘(G) The portion of administrative ex21 penses incurred by the Food and Drug Admin22 istration that are funded through fees collected 

23 under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1413 IS

1 Act and section 354(r)(1) of the Public Health 

2 Service Act.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0001069 28-FEB-2014 08:22 AM
EXHIBIT 32.1


                     CERTIFICATION OF MICHAEL H. MCILVAIN,
      PRESIDENT, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned officer of American Resource Technologies, Inc. hereby certifies
that (a) Golden Chief's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (b information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of American Resources.


  Date: June 26, 2008        /s/ MICHAEL H. MCILVAIN
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             President,Principal Executive Officer, Director,
                             and Chief Financial Officer,
                             American Resource Technologies, Inc.

  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to American
  Resource Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by American Resource
  Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
  its staff upon request.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Charles E. Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Proliance
International, Inc.;

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. The registrant'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 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. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 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.

Date: May 15, 2007                      /s/ Charles E. Johnson
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Charles E. Johnson
                                        President and Chief Executive
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1229

MICHAEL FIELD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

GMAC LLC; GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; MOTORS INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00294-JBF-FBS)

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Field, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Joanna Lynch Holmes, WILLIAMS MULLEN, McLean, Virginia, Matthew Stephen Sheldon, Stephen Gerard Test, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Brian Richard Greene, Cullen Dennis Seltzer, SELTZER GREEN, PLC, Richmond, Virginia, Jeffrey Jay Jones, JONES DAY, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michael Field appeals the district court’s orders
granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss
his complaint, and denying his self-styled “Motion to Amend
Judgment Entered by the Court on November 21, 2008.” We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm the district court’s orders. See Field v. GMAC

LLC , No. 2:08-cv-00294-JBF-FBS (E.D. Va. Nov. 21, 2008;
Jan. 30, 2009). 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
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00264-CV

ESTATE OF FELIPE A. RADELAT,

DECEASED

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Probate Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1994-0001187-1-A)

November 7, 2019

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that Appellees Ana Radelat and Andrew Radelat shall pay 

all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
##### 



Exhibit 99.3

PERSONNEL GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. AND AFFILIATES

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 Quarterly Report of Personnel Group of America,
Inc.(the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, James C. Hunt, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, 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; and

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

/s/ James C. Hunt
James C. Hunt
Chief Financial Officer
August 7, 2002

26
#### Moses MACK v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY CO. et al.

No. 61265.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1978.

In re: Moses Mack applying for certiora-ri, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 351 So.2d 1306.

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1083

MIRNA RODRIQUEZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. FANNING, Secretary of the Army,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-01654-TSE-JFA)

Submitted: September 12, 2017 Decided: September 21, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. 

Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Kimere J. Kimball, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mirna Rodriquez appeals the district court’s orders deeming the Appellee’s 

statement of undisputed facts as admitted and denying reconsideration, and granting 

summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on Rodriquez’s claims of discrimination and 

retaliation. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rodriquez v. Fanning, No. 

1:15-cv-01654-TSE-JFA (E.D. Va. Nov. 22 & Dec. 16, 2016). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED