alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CHESTER VALLEY BANCORP INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                       (Computation of Earnings Per Share)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Year Ended June 30,
                                                --------------------------------------------
                                                   1997             1996             1995
                                                ---------        ---------        ----------
                                                (Dollars in Thousands, Except Per Share Data)

<S>                                             <C>              <C>              <C>       
Net income .............................        $   1,926        $   2,439        $    2,153
                                                =========        =========        ==========

PRIMARY:
   Weighted-average number of shares and
   common equivalent shares outstanding         2,061,557        2,073,044         2,074,477
                                                =========        =========        ==========

  Earnings per common and common
  equivalent share .....................        $    0.93        $    1.18        $     1.04
                                                =========        =========        ==========

FULLY DILUTED:
   Weighted-average number of shares and
   common equivalent shares outstanding         2,064,711        2,074,141         2,074,915
                                                =========        =========        ==========

  Earnings per common and common
  equivalent share .....................        $    0.93        $    1.18        $     1.04
                                                =========        =========        ==========
</TABLE>

Note 1 - Earnings  per share is based on the  weighted-average  number of shares
actually  outstanding  plus the shares that would be  outstanding  assuming  the
exercise of dilutive  stock  options,  all of which are  considered to be common
stock  equivalents.  Shares  outstanding for the 1996 and 1995 periods have been
adjusted to reflect 5% stock  dividends paid during fiscal 1997 and 1996 and the
March 1997 five-for-four stock split effected in the form of a dividend.
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 16

                    [MARVIN E. JEWELL & CO., P.C. LETTERHEAD]


March 20, 2002

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Mail Stop 11-3
450 5/th/ Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

         Re:      Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.

Dear Sir or Madam:

         We have read Item 4 of the Form 8-K of Professional Veterinary
Products, Ltd. dated March 20, 2002 and agree with the statements concerning our
Firm contained therein.

                                               Very truly yours,

                                               /s/ Marvin E. Jewell & Co., P.C.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7598

WILLIE GILMORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON, III,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. 

(1:14-cv-04540-RMG)

Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: May 18, 2016

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Gilmore, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Gilmore seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012). 

Parties to a civil action are accorded 30 days after the entry 

of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an 

appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, the district 

court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party 

moves for an extension of the appeal period within 30 days after 

the expiration of the original appeal period and demonstrates 

excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension. Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(5); see Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 

900-01 (4th Cir. 1989). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of 

appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles

v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s final judgment was entered on the 

docket on August 13, 2015. Gilmore’s notice of appeal, dated 

September 17, 2015, was filed on Oct. 9, 2015, after the 

expiration of the 30-day appeal period but within the excusable 

neglect period. With his notice of appeal, Gilmore filed a 

motion containing language that we liberally construe as a 

request for an extension of time to appeal. Accordingly, we 

remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose 

of determining whether Gilmore has demonstrated excusable 
3

neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the 30-day 

appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be 

returned to this court for further consideration. 

REMANDED
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4853]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings

DATES: Time and Date: 10 a.m., Friday, March 30, 2012.

Place: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered

    Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the event that the times 
or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the 
change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted 
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-4853 Filed 2-24-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
#### Roy COLEMAN, Petitioner, v. SEQUOYAH COUNTY ELECTION BOARD, Respondent, and Wade Stovall, Intervenor.

No. 71661.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept. 15, 1988.

*936ORDER

Original jurisdiction is assumed.

There are no common law pre-election remedies to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for public office. The Legislature has provided in 26 O.S.1981 § 5-118 the exclusive method for a candidate to contest the candidacy of any other candidate. *Murphy v. Darnell,*268 P.2d 860 (Okl.1954). A petition pursuant to § 5-118 must be filed no later than 5:00 p.m. on the second day following the close of the filing period. 26 O.S.1981 § 5-119. A petition for irregularities pursuant to 26 O.S.1981 § 8-120 may not be used by the petitioner as an alternative remedy to 26 O.S.1981 § 5-118. The petitioner’s petition filed three days after the primary election and contesting the candidacy of another candidate for the same office is untimely. 26 O.S.1981 § 5-119. The application for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition is denied.

DOOLIN, C.J., HARGRAVE, V.C.J., and HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, OPALA, ALMA WILSON and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.

KAUGER, J., disqualified.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.75 MB)

Tags:DSCC, DLA Land & Maritime, Navy Rear Adm. John King, dla, Process excellence, columbus, EVENT, Defense Logistics Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
YTB International, Inc.
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

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


<    In connection  with the  accompanying  Annual Report of YTB  International,
Inc. (the  "Company")  on Form  10-KSB/A for the period ended  December 31, 2004
(the "Report"), I, Derek J. Brent, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:
<
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) as
applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and

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




Date: 08/25/2005
/s/ Derek J. Brent




-------------------------------------------------

[Signature] Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed December 2, 2020.

________________ No s . 3D20

- 1261 & 3D20

- 1276

Lower Tribunal No. 16

- 9652

________________


### Frank Jerome Evans , Appellant,

vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee.

Appeals under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Teresa Mary Pooler , and Alberto Milian, Judges. Frank Jerome Evans , in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, HENDO N, and MILLER, JJ. MILLER, J.
UPON CONFESSION OF ERROR2 After his conviction and sentence for aggravated battery became final, appellant, Frank Jerome Evans, filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging a myriad of claims, including ineffective assi stance of trial counsel. See Evans v. State , 255 So. 3d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ; Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. While the motion remained pending, Evans timely sought to amend, asserting two new claims. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(e) (“ A motion may

. . . be amended at any time prior to either the entry of an order disposing of the motion or the entry of an order pursuant to subdivision (f)(5) or directing that an answer to the motion be filed pursuant to (f)(6), whichever occurs first. ”). Citing facial i nsufficiency, the court denied the original motion, along with the motion for leave to amend and a subsequent motion for rehearing, by way of separate orders. Upon the State’s proper and commendable confession of error, along with our own independent revie w of the record, we discern error in the failure below to adhere to “the procedure outlined in Spera v. State , 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007) when determining that an initial motion for post

- conviction relief is legally insufficient.”
Juarez v. State , 215 So. 3d 89, 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f)(2), “[i]f the motion is insufficient on its face, and the motion is timely filed under this rule, the court shall enter a nonfinal, nonappealable order allowing the defendant [sixty] days to amend the motion.”3 Here, the summary denial of relief, without granting leave to amend, constituted an abuse of discretion. See Spera , 971 So. 2d at 761 (“[W]hen a defendant’s initial rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief is determin ed to be legally insufficient for failure to meet either the rule’s or other pleading requirements, the trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to allow the defendant at least one opportunity to amend the motion.”). Accordingly, we reverse and

rem and for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

I N R E: JOHN

NI E L EE CA RTE R, Relator. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 01 56 -C V

AN ORI GI

NAL PROCEEDI

NG I N MANDA MUS

MEMORAN DUM OP INION ON P ETIT ION F OR WRIT OF M ANDAM US Relator, Johnni e L ee Carter, has filed a pr o s e petition for writ of manda mus seeking an orde r
c o mp e ll in g th e H o n o r a

b le L in d a Ch e w , Ju d g e o f th e 3 2 7 th D is tr ic t Co u r t, to v a cate her or der g ra nti ng no ns uit nunc pro tunc . Mandamus will lie only

to corr ect a clea

r abuse of discre tion. W

alker v . Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 839-40 (Te x . 1992) (or ig. proce eding ). I n addition, the re must be no other a dequate reme dy at law. Id. at 840. B ased on the petition and record before us, Mr. Carter has fa iled to demonstrate he is entitled to mandamus relief. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 52.8. There fore , we de ny the petition. May 8, 2008 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice B e f o r e C h e w , C

. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d C a r r , JJ. Chew, C.J ., not participating
### NUMBER 13 - 15 - 00361 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MANUEL BENAVIDES, DECEASED

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. Two

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides , and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Sonya B. Rodriguez, proceeding pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order allegedly removing her as the independent executrix of the estate of Manuel Benavides, deceased. Upon review of the clerk’s record, it appeared that the record failed to contain any such order. On August 10, 2015, t he Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 37.1, 42.3 (a),(c)

. Appellant was advised that, if the defect2

was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant failed to respond to the Court ’ s notice. On August 27, 2015, the Clerk notified appellant that her notice of appeal did not comply with the appellate rules and requested correction of the defects. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(e), 25.1(d). The Clerk also advised appellant that the clerk’s record did not
inclu de the order she was attempting to appeal. The Clerk directed the appellant to request the county clerk to prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the signed order subject to appeal. The Clerk advised appellant that if a supplemental record
cont aining the order was not filed, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has failed to correct the defects or file a supplemental clerk’s record containing an appealable order. Appellee, Roberto Benavides, has now filed a motion to dismiss this appeal bas ed on the foregoing events. Accordingly, t he Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to correct the defect s in this matter, is of the opinion that appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, appe llee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED AND the appeal is DISMISSED. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P . 42.3(b),(c). Pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 10th day of December, 2015

.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
D ENNIS CHARLES HARTLEY , A ppellant ,

v. Case No. 5D 21

- 1548 LT Case No. 2019

- CF

- 003447

- A
STATE O F FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/
Decis ion filed May 24, 2022 Appeal from t he Circuit Court for Seminol e County , Melissa Souto, Judge.
Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., of Brownstone, P.A. , Winter Park, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carm en F. Corrente, Assistant A ttorney General, Dayt ona Beach, for Appellee.
P ER CURIAM.
A FFIRMED.

W ALLIS , HARRIS and SASSO , JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1488 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1488

  To extend temporarily the 18-month period of continuation coverage 
  under group health plans required under COBRA continuation coverage 
provisions so as to provide for a total period of continuation coverage 
                          of up to 24 months.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 21, 2009

  Mr. Burris introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend temporarily the 18-month period of continuation coverage 
  under group health plans required under COBRA continuation coverage 
provisions so as to provide for a total period of continuation coverage 
                          of up to 24 months.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``COBRA Coverage Extension Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF BASIC PERIOD OF COBRA CONTINUATION 
              COVERAGE FROM 18 MONTHS TO 24 MONTHS.

    (a) In General.--In any case in which an individual is eligible for 
and has elected continuation coverage under a COBRA continuation 
coverage provision as of the date of enactment of this Act and the 
period of continuation coverage applicable with respect to such 
individual under such provision would (but for this section) end before 
the end of the period of 12 calendar months following the date of 
enactment of this Act by reason of a limitation under such provision of 
such coverage to 18 months after the date of the qualifying event, such 
limitation shall be extended to the earlier of--
            (1) the end of such period of 12 calendar months; or
            (2) 24 months after the date of the qualifying event.
    (b) COBRA Continuation Coverage Provision.--For purposes of this 
section, the term ``COBRA continuation coverage provision'' means--
            (1) part 6 of subtitle B of title I of the Employee 
        Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1161 et 
        seq.);
            (2) title XXII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
        300bb-1 et seq.);
            (3) section 4980B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
            (4) section 8905a of title 5, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Chartwell  International  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2005, as filed
with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  each  of the
undersigned officer(s) of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to the
best of our knowledge:

     (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.


December 15, 2005                     /s/ Imre Eszenyi
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Imre Eszenyi
                                      Acting President and Chairman of the Board
                                      (Principal Executive Officer)


                                      /s/ Imre Eszenyi
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                      Imre Eszenyi
                                      Acting President and Chairman of the Board
                                      (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
                                      Accounting Officer)
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, William S. Marshall, director of Primegen Energy
Corporation, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Primegen Energy
      Corporation, for the period ended March 31, 2007 (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 Primegen Energy Corporation.                                                                   

Dated: May 18, 2007

William S.
Marshall
William Marshall Director (Principal Executive Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Primegen Energy
Corporation and will be retained by Primegen Energy Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---