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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                              WORLD AIRWAYS, INC.
               CALCULATIONS OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                     FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
                       (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT SHARE DATA)
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        1977            1996
                                                    ------------     ------------
<S>                                                 <C>              <C>

Earnings (loss) from continuing operations
     applicable to common stock                     $     5,020      $     (3,687) 

Discontinued operations                                      --            (4,187)
                                                    -----------       -----------

Net earnings (loss) applicable to common stock      $     5,020       $    (7,874)
                                                    ===========       ===========


Weighted average common shares outstanding           11,232,653        12,000,064

Weighted average options and warrants
     treated as common stock equivalents                  5,490                --
                                                    -----------       -----------
Primary and fully diluted number of shares           11,283,143        12,000,064
                                                    ===========       ===========

EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE:

    Continuing Operations                                 $0.45            $(0.31)
    Discontinued operations                                  --             (0.35)
                                                          -----            ------
    Net earnings (loss)                                   $0.45            $(0.66)
                                                          =====            ======
</TABLE>
No. 11412.

#### Byal *v.*The Toledo Urban & Interurban Railway Co. et al.

Decided *538December 21, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Hancock county.

*Mr. John Sheridan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. J. A. & E. V. Bope,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.1


 





 



     


     


    

 





 



    2


     


    

 





 



    3


     


    

 





 



    4


     


    

 





 



    5


     


    

 





 



    6


     


    

 





 



    7


     


    

 





 



    8


     


    

 





 



    9


     


    

 





 



    10


     


    

 





 



    11
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Continental Information Systems Corporation as of and for the year ended May 31,
1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,211
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (76)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,755
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,652
<PP&E>                                          25,172
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,656)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,605
<BONDS>                                          7,637
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,202
<SALES>                                         10,933
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,419
<CGS>                                            9,566
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,957
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 560
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    856
<INCOME-TAX>                                       325
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                531
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (5,904)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,373)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.77)
        

</TABLE>
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-CN.54 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  THURSDAY, FEB. 17, 2011 Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Release Local 2010 Census Data for Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, Missouri, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington According to Public Law 94-171, the Census Bureau must provide redistricting data to the 50 states no later than April 1 of the year following the census. As a result, the Census Bureau is delivering the data state-by-state on a flow basis in February and March. All states will receive their data by April 1, 2011.
  Each state's geographic products and redistricting data are first delivered to the state's leadership, such as the governor and majority and minority leaders in the state legislative body. Upon confirmation of delivery to the state leadership, we will release a news release with five custom tables of data. Within 24 hours, the full set of five detailed tables will be available to the public online at http://factfinder2.census.gov. For more information on the Census Bureau's Redistricting Data Program, visit https://www.census.gov/rdo.
  For more information about the U.S. Census Bureau, please visit https://www.census.gov and http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau).
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF NORTH MIAMI, Appellant, v. SOUTHEASTERN GENERAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 66-423.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 14, 1967.

Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody & Cole and James Elliott Messer, Miami, for appellant. •

Smith & Mandler, Miami Beach, Joe N. Unger, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: 10 Am.Jur.2d, Banks, § 629; 99 A.L.R.2d, § 7, p. 646; II Paton’s Digest of Legal Opinions, Forged Paper, § 2D :1 (American Banker’s Association, 1940) ; Paton’s Digest of Legal Opinions, Forged Paper, § 2D:1 (Supplement 2, April, 1959).
#### Linda S. POLLARD, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, and the Quick Red Fox II, Respondents.

No. 73-409.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 18, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.
#### Mildred SIMON, Appellant, v. BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellee.

No. 71-812.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 14, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORIO SANTIAGO SANTIAGO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 71307

Agency No. A088

- 923

- 474

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24 , 2017 **

Before: THOMAS , Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON

, Circuit Judges

.

Gregorio Santiago Santiago, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his app eal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal and voluntary

departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We revie w for substantial

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 71307

evidence the agency ’ s factual findings

, and we review de novo questions of law

.

Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for

review

.

The agency did not err in determining that Santiago Santiago was statutorily

barred from establishing the good moral character required for cancellation of

removal and voluntary departure , where substantial evidence supports the agency’s

finding that he did not sufficiently establish that his period s of incarceration did not

exceed 180 days

. See 8 U.S.C. § § 1101(f)(7), 1229b(b)(1)(B), 1229c(b)(1)(B)

.

We do not consider the extra

- record evidence submitted for the first time

with Santiago Santiago’s opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial

review is limited to the administrative record); Dent v. Holder , 627 F.3d 365, 371

(9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out

- of

- record evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
June 11, 2015

Mr. Kyle Joseph Brow

3086 West Cook Road Grand Blanc, MI 48439

Dear Mr. Brow:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 28, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1972), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB10-CN.50 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
(301) 763-3691
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2010 Four Days Left to Mail Back 2010 Census Forms Residents who need a form are encouraged to visit “Be Counted” sites Residents are encouraged to promptly mail back their forms, but for those who have lost or did not receive a census form in the mail, there is help available. Households can pick up a Be Counted form at nearly 39,000 community locations nationwide. These replacement forms are available in multiple languages, including English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Russian. To find a Be Counted site, visit 2010census.gov (see "Need Help with Your Form") or search the Take 10 map at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/take10map/. "Nationwide, about 66% percent of households have mailed back their census forms. In 2000, the mail participation rate was 72 percent," U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said. "Residents who fail to mail back their forms by April 16 may be visited by a census worker in May." ABOUT THE 2010 CENSUS The 2010 Census is a count of everyone living in the United States and is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Census data are used to apportion congressional seats to states, to distribute more than $400 billion in federal funds to tribal, state and local governments each year and to make decisions about what community services to provide. The 2010 Census form is one of the shortest in U.S. history, consisting of 10 questions, taking about 10 minutes to complete. Strict confidentiality laws protect the respondents and the information they provide.
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
No. 11515.

#### The Somers Mining Co. *v.*Martinenche.

Decided September 28, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Carroll county.

*Messrs. Fimple & Eckley*and *Mr. Davis Hawley, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Allen Cook,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Spear and Price, JJ., concur-.
# C_2011374EN.01000502.xml

| 22.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6437 — Enterprise Holding/Citer)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 374/04

On 15 December 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6437. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6437. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 1997 (unaudited) and the
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three months ended March 31,
1997 (unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000949244
<NAME> ALTERNATE POSTAL DELIVERY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,001
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                       102
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,259
<PP&E>                                             895
<DEPRECIATION>                                     686
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,772
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,386
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,546)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,791
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,046
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (31)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (3)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (28)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     38
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        10
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

 

I,James L. Koenig,  Chief Financial Officer of Eye Care International, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

| (1) | the quarterly report on Form10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") which this statementaccompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) |  the information containedin this Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations ofEye Care International, Inc..                                                         |

Dated: February 1, 2004

|  | /s/ James L. Koenig        James L. KoenigChief Financial Officer |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 10.1.1

February 18, 1999

Mr. Robert S. Benou 
525 Hillside Avenue 
Mountainside, New Jersey 07092

Dear Mr. Benou:

Reference
is made to the Employment Agreement between you and Conolog Corporation, dated
as of June 1, 1997 (the Employment Agreement), as amended by an amendment
dated as of November 1, 1997 (the Amendment).

This
is to set forth our agreement and understanding as follows:

1.     The
sentence inserted after the first sentence of section 3.01 by the Amendment is
hereby deleted.

2.     Within
30 days after the execution of this letter, the Company will pay you a bonus
equal to the amount you would have received had your salary been $190,000 per annum
as of June 1, 1998. Effective the date hereof, your salary will be $190,000 per
annum and will increase annually as provided in the Employment Agreement.

3.     Except
as expressly provided herein, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect in accordance with its original terms.

If
the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding, kindly so indicate by
signing this letter in the space provided below.

| |                     |             | 
| | ------------------- | ----------- | 
| | Very truly yours,  
| |                    
| | CONOLOG CORPORATION
| |                    
| | By                  | (SIGNATURE) | 
| |                     |            
| | (Title)             | Exec. VP   

|                    |  | 
|------------------- |  | 
|AGREED:            
|-s- Robert S. Benou | 
|                    | 
|Robert S. Benou     | 

---
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 22, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-17-00309-CR

NO. 14-17-00311-CR

COURTNEY DRAN SARGENT, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 212th District Court 

Galveston County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. 16CR0338 & 16CR0339 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery. Appellant’s 

appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly 

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by assigning issues that might arguably support the 

appeal, and explaining why those issues do not raise arguable error. See Gainous v. 

State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969.]
2

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 

days have passed and no pro se response has been filed. 

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error 

in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for 

review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).