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


               MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Income                Shares              Per Share
                                                                 (Numerator)           (Denominator)            Amount
                                                                 -----------           -------------            ------
                                                                      FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
                                                                      --------------------------------------------
<S>                                                            <C>                   <C>                     <C>
Net loss applicable to common shareholders                      $   (858,532)
                                                                ============

BASIC EPS
   Loss applicable to shareholders                                                         17,477,035            ($0.05)
                                                                                                                 ======
EFFECT OF DILUTIVE SECURITIES
   Options                                                                                          -
                                                                                      ---------------
DILUTED EPS
   Loss applicable to shareholders                                                         17,477,035            ($0.05)
                                                                                      ===============            ======

<Caption>
                                                                      FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2001
                                                                      --------------------------------------------
<S>                                                            <C>                   <C>                     <C>
Net loss applicable to common shareholders                      $ (7,029,003)
                                                                ============

BASIC EPS
   Loss applicable to shareholders                                                          8,512,183            ($0.83)
                                                                                                                 ======
EFFECT OF DILUTIVE SECURITIES
   Options                                                                                         -
                                                                                      ---------------
DILUTED EPS
   Loss applicable to shareholders                                                          8,512,183            ($0.83)
                                                                                      ===============            ======

</TABLE>
#### HAYNES PAINTING & DECORATING and Phoenix Assurance Company, Petitioners, v. Lora MOSLEY and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38168.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 12, 1969.

Rehearing Denied March 31, 1969.

Walsh & Dolan, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.

Harry Goodmark and Plisco & Zalla, West Palm Beach, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date December 4, 1968.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petitions, records and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition for certiorari is therefore denied.

Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $250.00 are awarded to respondent-Lora Mosley’s attorneys.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. LESTER RAY NICHOLS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-3041 (D.C. No. 6:13-CR-10106-JTM-1) (D. Kansas)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before McHUGH , McKAY , and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Nichols v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 1113 (2016), we previously recal led the mandate and vacated the judgment in
this case. The mandate recalle d on May 6, 2016, is hereby reissued forthwith. We now
remand to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas for further proceedings consistent with th e Supreme Court’s decision.
Entered for the Court

Carolyn B. McHugh Circuit Judge

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, exce pt under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral es toppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 16, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
260 La. 1142

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ernest C. BERGERON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana *State Penitentiary,*et al.

No. 52240.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 8, 1972.

In re: Ernest C. Bergerson applying for habeas corpus.

Since the trial judge has ordered the return of applicant to be re-sentenced, the application is moot.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


    We hereby consent to the use in this Amendment No. 5 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-1 of our reports dated July 21, 2000, relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedules of Integrated Telecom
Express, Inc., which appear in such Registration Statement. We also consent to
the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration Statement.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, CA
August 15, 2000
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3293

To prohibit the imposition of additional charges or fees for attendance at

the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy,

the United States Air Force Academy, the United States Coast Guard

Academy, and the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 15, 1993

Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER,

Mr. LEVY, Mr. MANTON, Mr. KING, Mr. FIELDS of Texas, Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. LAZIO, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. STUDDS, Mr. HANSEN,

and Mr. FISH) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly

to the Committees on Armed Services and Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To prohibit the imposition of additional charges or fees for

attendance at the United States Military Academy, the

United States Naval Academy, the United States Air

Force Academy, the United States Coast Guard Academy, and the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3293 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL

2 CHARGES OR FEES FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE

3 ACADEMY ATTENDANCE.

4 (a) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in subsection

5 (b), no charge or fee for tuition, room, or board for attend6 ance at a national defense academy may be imposed unless

7 the charge or fee is specifically authorized by a law en8 acted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

9 (b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition specified in sub10 section (a) shall not apply with respect to any item or serv11 ice provided to cadets or midshipmen at a national defense

12 academy for which a charge or fee is imposed as of the

13 date of the enactment of this Act. The Secretary of De14 fense or the Secretary of Transportation, as the case shall

15 be, shall notify the Congress of any change made by a

16 national defense academy in the amount of a charge or

17 fee authorized under this subsection.

18 (c) NATIONAL DEFENSE ACADEMY DEFINED.—For

19 purposes of this section, the term ‘‘national defense acad20 emy’’ means any of the following:

21 (1) The United States Military Academy.

22 (2) The United States Naval Academy.

23 (3) The United States Air Force Academy.

24 (4) The United States Coast Guard Academy.

25 (5) The United States Merchant Marine Acad26 emy.
3

•HR 3293 IH

Æ
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

Each of the undersigned, in his capacity as an officer of CubicCorporation hereby certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 that:

 

1.               The annualreport of Cubic Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the yearended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”), which accompanies thiscertification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition of the Registrant at the end of such year and the resultsof operations of the Registrant for such year.

 

 
|   | /s/ W. J. Zable |                     | /s/ W.W. Boyle |
|--------|--------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|
|   | W. J. Zable                    | W.  W. Boyle             |
|   | Chief Executive Officer        | Chief  Financial Officer |
|   |                           |                     |
|   | Date: December 7, 2010    |                     |

 

----
[LETTERHEAD OF HYDRON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.]

                                            May 20, 1997

Mr. Charles Fox
Charles Fox Associates, Inc.
39-08 Tierney Place
Fairlawn, NJ 07410

Dear Charlie:

      This will confirm our agreement with regard to your television appearances
on QVC for the two (2) year period of May 1, 1997 through April 30, 1999.
Charles Fox agrees to be available to appear on live television broadcasts at
the studios of QVC, as may be requested by Hydron Technologies, Inc. ("HyTech")
or QVC, for the purpose of marketing products of HyTech. In consideration
thereof, HyTech agrees to pay Charles Fox a royalty fee out of the sales of
products based upon patents assigned by Charles Fox to HyTech equal to the sum
of $3,000 per month for each month during which you make personal "appearances"
at QVC. As you are aware, the term "appearances" is defined in the License
Agreement (as amended) with QVC and means live appearances over a one (1) to
three (3) consecutive day period, on dates determined by QVC and HyTech, during
hours determined by QVC.

      During the term of this letter agreement, Charles Fox agrees to be
available to appear for taping or retaping of one (1) or more infomercials for
the purpose of marketing products of HyTech. For purposes hereof, such
appearance at a taping for an infomercial shall also constitute an appearance
for which Charles Fox shall be paid the above royalty fee.

      Charles Fox hereby consents to the use in perpetuity of the name, image,
likeness, signature and voice of the undersigned in any and all manner, method
and media as Hydron Technologies, Inc. shall in its sole and absolute discretion
determine.

      If Charles Fox shall travel outside of the State of New Jersey at the
request of HyTech, then HyTech shall reimburse Charles Fox for the reasonable
expenses of such traveling.

      If this accurately sets forth our agreement and understanding, kindly
indicate your acceptance by signing all three (3) duplicates in the lower left
hand corner, retain one for your files and return the other two (2) to me.

                                          Very truly yours,


                                          /s/ Richard Tauman

                                          Richard Tauman,
                                          Executive Vice President

Accepted and Agreed:


/s/ Charles Fox   5/22/97
-------------------------
Charles Fox
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 320

To amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for

inclusion of the services of licensed practical nurses under the medicare

and medicaid programs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. QUILLEN introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act

to provide for inclusion of the services of licensed practical nurses under the medicare and medicaid programs.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. COVERAGE UNDER MEDICARE PROGRAM.

4 Section 1861(s) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

5 1395x(s)) is amended by inserting immediately before the

6 matter following paragraph (14) the following: ‘‘The term

7 ‘medical and other health services’ also includes medical

8 care, or any other type of remedial care recognized under
2

•HR 320 IH

1 State law, furnished by licensed practical nurses within

2 the scope of their practice as defined by State law.’’.

3 SEC. 2. COVERAGE UNDER MEDICAID PROGRAM.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905(a) of the Social Se5 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)), as amended by the Om6 nibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

8 (21);

9 (2) in paragraph (24), by striking the comma

10 at the end and inserting a semicolon;

11 (3) by redesignating paragraphs (22), (23), and

12 (24) as paragraphs (25), (22), and (23), respec13 tively, and by transferring and inserting paragraph

14 (25) after paragraph (23), as so redesignated; and

15 (4) by inserting after paragraph (23) the fol16 lowing new paragraph:

17 ‘‘(24) medical care, or any other type of reme18 dial care recognized under State law furnished by li19 censed practical nurses within the scope of their

20 practice as defined by State law; and’’.

21 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section

22 1902(a)(10)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A))

23 is amended by striking ‘‘(17) and (21)’’ and inserting

24 ‘‘(17), (21), and (24)’’.
3

•HR 320 IH

1 (2) Section 1902(a)(10)(C)(iv)) (42 U.S.C.

2 1396a(a)(10)(C)(iv)) is amended—

3 (A) by striking ‘‘(5) and (17)’’ and inserting

4 ‘‘(5), (17), and (24)’’; and

5 (B) by striking ‘‘through (21)’’ and inserting

6 ‘‘through (24)’’.

7 (3) Section 1902(j) (42 U.S.C. 1396a(j)) is amended

8 by striking ‘‘through (22)’’ and inserting ‘‘through (25)’’.

9 (4) Sections 1916(a)(2)(D) and 1916(b)(2)(D) (42

10 U.S.C. 1396o(a)(2)(D), 1396o(b)(2)(D)) are each amend11 ed by inserting ‘‘services described in section

12 1905(a)(24),’’ before ‘‘family planning services’’.

13 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

14 The amendments made by this Act shall be effective

15 with respect to payments under titles XVIII and XIX of

16 the Social Security Act for calendar quarters commencing

17 with the first calendar quarter beginning after the date

18 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### Robert H. MACKENZIE, Appellant, v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 72-958.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 20, 1973.

*695Robert H. Mackenzie, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee State of Fla.

Michael J. O’Brien, Tampa, for appellee Hillsborough County.

ORDER TRANSFERRING CAUSE

PER CURIAM.

Mackenzie, appointed counsel, sought compensation in excess of the maximum of $750 provided by Fla.Stat. § 925.035 (1971), F.S.A. for defending Warren Carey Riley, claiming that the statutory maximum is unconstitutional. This pro-needing, which involves Hillsborough County and Mackenzie as the sole parties in interest, is taken as an appeal from a costs order, and we are asked to' rule on the threshold question whether it is reviewable by appeal or by certiorari, as was done in Lunetto v. State, Fla.App.2d 1973, 274 So.2d 251; Dade County v. Strauss, Fla.App.3d 1971, 246 So.2d 137; and Dade County v. Carr, Fla.App.3d 1970, 231 So.2d 844.

Our view is that the constitutional question involved is one committed by the Constitution, in Article V, Section 3, F.S.A., to the Supreme Court, and we accordingly transfer the cause there. The trial judge clearly was asked to1 rule and did rule on the question of the constitutionality of the $750 limitation in Fla.Stat. § 925.035 (1971).

The cause is transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant to F.A.R. 2.1. subd. a. (5) (b), 32 F.S.A.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.

LILES, J., dissents, with opinion.

LILES, Judge

(dissenting).

I would dissent from the majority transferring this to the Supreme Court for the reason that this is a non-appealable order. Appellant was not a party in the criminal action but was the attorney for defendant Warren Carey Riley.

Appellant may bring a suit in his own name for attorney fees, but I don’t believe he is a proper party to this appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains the thirteen week summary financial information extracted
from APAC TeleServices, Inc. and Subsidiaries 1998 first quarter From 10-Q and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS <F1>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1998
<CASH>                                           1,043
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,580
<PP&E>                                         138,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,654
<BONDS>                                          1,816
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           489
<OTHER-SE>                                     130,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,668
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,481
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,684
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,209
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,117
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,917
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,917
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
<FN>
<F1> Thirteen weeks
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DATA DIMENSIONS, INC. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994
AND FOR EACH OF THE THREE YEARS IN THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          64,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,486,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,088,000
<PP&E>                                         259,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                (93,300)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,254,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,282,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,200
<OTHER-SE>                                    (97,200)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,254,300
<SALES>                                      6,231,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,231,600
<CGS>                                        3,484,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,746,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,235,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             206,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                304,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                   450,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            754,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   754,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                  Exhibit 10.9


Incentive Compensation Arrangement for John W. Cramer

The 2000 incentive compensation plan for John W. Cramer, approved December 9,
1999, is as follows:

The target bonus for 2000 is $80,000, which represents 50% of base salary. Each
target is measured and paid independent of achievement of other metrics and is
either achieved or not achieved. The components and breakdown of the bonus plan
are:

$20,000 (25%) based on achievement of Corporate revenue
$20,000 (25%) based on achievement of Division revenue
$16,000 (20%) based on achievement of Corporate operating margin
$16,000 (20%) based on achievement of Division operating margin
$8,000 (10%) based on achievement of Corporate Days Sales Outstanding (DSO) of
75 days by 12/31/00
#### Marvin Earl HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 1, 1970.

Marvin Earl Harris, in Pro. Per., appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing from the record before this court that the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error by the lower court in denying appellant’s Rule 1.850 motion to vacate, the order appealed from is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and SPECTOR and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
#### Harold BELLMAN, individually and as Trustee, and Clemence Bellman, his wife, et al., Appellants, v. YARMARK ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 67-241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 26, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 15, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.