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

MERCURY FINANCE COMPANY

COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME/(LOSS) PER SHARE

Year Ended December 31 (dollars in thousands except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             1996            1995             1994 

<S>                                                        <C>              <C>               <C>     
Income Data:

1.       Net Income/(loss)                                 $(28,968)          $74,129          $86,545
2.       Weighted average common
             shares outstanding, adjusted
             for stock splits                               177,129           175,631          173,864
3.       Weighted average shares of
             treasury stock outstanding,
             adjusted for stock splits                        4,361             3,182              522
4.       Weighted average shares reserved
             for stock options (utilizing the
             treasury stock method)                               0             1,660            1,808

         NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE

5.       Common Shares Outstanding                          172,768           174,109          175,150
             (Line 2-3+4)
6.       Net income/(loss) per common shares                 ($0.17)             $.43             $.49
             (Line 1 / 5)

         DIVIDEND DATA

1.       Dividends Declared                                 $51,821           $42,849          $33,581
2.       Average common shares
             outstanding on dividend
             record date                                    172,737           172,548          173,694
3.       Dividends per common share                            $.30              $.25             $.19

</TABLE>

Note 1.

As the Company incurred a net loss for the year ended December 31, 1996, common
share equivalents totaling 923,236 would be anti-dilutive to earnings per share
and have not been included in the weighted average shares calculation.

The Company has determined that the implementation of SFAS 128 "Earnings Per
Share", would have had no effect on the calculated earnings per share for the
period ended December 31, 1996.  This standard prescribes that when computing
the dilution of options, the Company is to use its average stock price for the
period, rather than the more dilutive greater of the average share price or end-
of-period share price required by APB Opinion 15.  As the options are excluded
from the calculation due to the anti-dilutive characteristics indicated above,
there is no effect on the earnings per share calculation.
50450.

#### LEWIS et al. v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI.

Webb, Judge.

This case was submitted to the trial court for determination upon the following stipulation of the parties: "It is hereby stipulated by and between the above-entitled parties, through their attorneys of record, for the purpose of a hearing on a Motion and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in the above referenced case that: 1. The sole issue before this Court is an issue of law and that issue is — Whether, in an action to recover a deficiency, where a motor vehicle is purchased in the State of Florida under a contract formed in the State of Florida and a security interest is created in that motor vehicle under Art. 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code and where subsequently the motor vehicle is removed by the debtor to the State of Georgia, where later the motor *799vehicle is repossessed in the State of Georgia by an agent of the creditor who is a Georgia corporation from debtors who are citizens of Georgia, resold in the State of Georgia by an agent of the creditor who is a Georgia corporation and remains in the State of Georgia, are the rights of the Plaintiff-Creditor to a deficiency judgment to be determined by the law of the State of Florida or the law of the State of Georgia. 2. If this Court finds that the law of the State of Florida applies, then the motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment should be granted, but if this Court finds that the law of the State of Georgia applies, then the motion of the defendants for summary judgment should be granted.”

Argued April 7, 1975

Decided April 24, 1975

Rehearing denied May 13, 1975.

The trial court granted the plaintiff creditor’s motion for summary judgment, thus finding that Florida law applies. *Held:*

We reverse. Contrary to the assertion made here by the creditor, the parties to the contract did not agree to be bound by Florida law with respect to repossession and resale, the contract reciting only that "In the event of a default... seller shall have the right... to (c) exercise any or all of the rights on default of a secured party under the Uniform Commercial Code.” Absent an agreement that the law of another state shall govern, as to which we express no opinion, we hold that Georgia law applies to the repossession, resale, and right to a deficiency judgment since the collateral was located in Georgia at the time of the repossession and resale. Ga. U.C.C. §§ 109A-1—105(1)(2), 9-102; U.C.C. § 9-102, comment 3, 1962 Official Text; Associates Discount Corp. v. Cary, 47 Misc.2d 369 (262 NYS2d 646), cited in *Moody v. Nides Finance Co.,*115 Ga. App. 859 (156 SE2d 310); Fidelity Bank &c. Co. v. Production Metals Corp., 366 FSupp. 613, 617 (D.C. Pa.); First Nat. Bk. &c. Co. v. Atlas Credit Corp., 417 F2d 1081, 1082 (CA 10). See also Universal C.I.T. Corp. v. Hulett, 151 S2d 705 (La. Ct. App.).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.*

*800*M. David Harrison,*for appellants.

*Stanley M. Lefco,*for appellee.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Charles E. Wetzler et al., Petitioners, and Equi-Flow, Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

February 18, 1959.

*Solomon Kcmfman*for petitioners.

*Kursman & Frank (Samuel B. Seidel*and *H. Stephen Frank*of counsel), for respondent.

Irving H. Saypol, J.

Motion to stay arbitration is denied. The facts are not in dispute. The parties made a five-year contract in writing on September 21, 1953, for the use of the respondent’s technical advice and patents by the petitioners and for certain payments. They agreed in the broadest way to arbitration ‘ ‘ of any dispute of any nature in any way arising hereunder, between the parties hereto, in any way* relating to this agreement or the subject matter thereof, in whole or in part ”.

October 29, 1953, they made a further written agreement complementing their agreement of September 21, 1953, including therein escrow provisions conditioning payments upon delivery by the respondent to the petitioners of writings, such as assignments and patents, etc., by December 15, 1953, making time of the essence. Since then there has been substantial performance of both agreements on both sides, including payment of $13,500 of the original escrow fund to the respondent. On the *525respondent’s notice of arbitration as to a $5,000 payment which became due on March 30, 1958, under the agreement of September 21,1953, the petitioners seek this stay on the contention that there is no agreement for arbitration because there has not been total compliance with three of the seven items in the second agreement which were to have been fulfilled by December 15, 1953. Paragraph Fourth of the latter agreement conditions the existence of the first agreement upon compliance with the conditions which have been fulfilled in part.

The court on this application may deal only with “ the making of the contract [for arbitration] ” *(Matter of Paloma Frocks [Shamokin],*3 N Y 2d 572, 574), and *“ ‘*all acts of the parties subsequent to the making of the contract which raise issues of fact or law, lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators ’ *(Paloma- Frocks [Shamokin], supra,*p. 574, quoting *Matter of Lipman [Haeuser Shellac Co.],*289 N. Y. 76, 80). The parties have acted under both agreements so that the first, of September 21, 1953, with its arbitration clause, is effective in delegating issues, of law and fact to the agreed tribunal as to the recognition and adherence on both sides despite the provision of the second agreement making the existence of the first agreement dependent upon compliance with the conditions *(Matter of Uraga Dock Co. [Mediterranean & Oriental S. S. Corp.],*6 A D 2d 443). The conduct of both sides in continued recognition of both agreements after December 15,1953, despite the nullifying provisions of the second contract in the event of noncompliance, leaves no scope for a finding that there is no arbitrable issue because there is no contract.

Settle order.
#### STATE ex rel. Dennis R. WIGGINS v. Charles C. FOTI, Jr., Judge Frank J. Shea, and District Attorney, Harry Connick.

No. 87-KH-2006.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Wiggins, Dennis R.; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 319077.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





Each of
the undersigned officers of Cyalume Technologies Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the "Report"),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Date:
      August 11, 2010
              /s/  DEREK
  DUNAWAYDerek
      Dunaway, Chief Executive Officer(the
      Principal Executive
Officer)





Date:
      August 11, 2010
              /s/  MICHAEL
    BIELONKOMichael
      Bielonko, Chief Financial Officer(the
      Principal Financial
Officer)





This
certification is being furnished and not filed, and shall not be incorporated
into any document for any purpose, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or
the Securities Act of 1933.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7106

JOHN R. TAYLOR, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CAPTAIN JOHNSON, Shift Supervisor at

Pasquotank Correctional Institution;

LIEUTENANT GATLING, Lieutenant at Pasquotank

Correctional Institution; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

BOCA, Correctional Officer at Pasquotank

Correctional Institution; D. M. TODD,

Assistant Unit Manager at Pasquotank

Correctional Institution; THOMAS W. STRAHAN,

Superintendent of Programs at Pasquotank

Correctional Institution; GEROTHA R. SPAIN,

Inmate Grievance Examiner at Pasquotank

Correctional Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-03-294-5-BO)

Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

John R. Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

John R. Taylor, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find

that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. See Taylor v. Johnson, No.

CA-03-294-5-BO (E.D.N.C. June 26, 2003). 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.

DISMISSED
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1184

MARIE A. BECTON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:20

- cv - 00394

- D )

Submitted : May 20, 2021 Decided: May 25, 2021

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER , and MOTZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Marie Becton, Appellant Pro Se. Wanda Denise Mason, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Marie A. Becton seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ first
motion for an extension of time in which to file the administrative record and answer her complaint

. * This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final o rders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Becton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeala ble interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
DISMISSED

* Becton states in her informal brief that she is also seeking to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion for default judgment. We conclude that Becton’s informal brief may not serve as a notice of appeal of that order because Becton filed her brief outside the 60

- day appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248

- 49 (1992) (holding that appella te brief may serve as notice of appeal provided it otherwise complies with rules governing proper timing and substanc e).
December 15, 1998


Mr. C. Wayne Prater
2702 Windrush Way
Baton Rouge, LA  70809

Re:  Stock Options, VarTech Systems Inc.
     and C. Wayne Prater

Dear Mr. Prater:

This will confirm that as consideration for your financial assistance and
consulting services for the years 1992 through 1997 for VarTech Systems Inc.,
or its subsidiaries or affiliates, you are hereby granted the option to
purchase up to 150,000 shares of the authorized, but unissued common stock of
VarTech Systems Inc. upon the terms and conditions as set forth herein.

The purchase price for shares of stock purchased pursuant to this option shall
be $1.00 per share.  You may exercise these options commencing with the date
of this letter for a period of 5 years from the date of this letter.

To exercise the options provided herein, you shall be required to give written
notice of such exercise to the company.  The notice of exercise shall state the
number of shares to be purchased.  The notice shall be accompanied by payment
of the option price for each option so exercised.  The company shall then cause
a timely issuance of certificates representing the shares so exercised through
its transfer agent for delivery to you.

The company looks forward to a long and mutually profitable relationship
concerning your involvement.

Sincerely yours,

J. Keith Henderson
President

<PAGE>
AFS-14-127-E

February 24, 2014

 Exemption No. 10553A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0544

Ms. Tracy McGinnis

Parent of Brendan McGinnis

5664 Kipling Parkway, Apartment 8-102

Arvada, CO 80002

Dear Ms. McGinnis:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10553. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received January 7, 2014 and February 18, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Brendan McGinnis for an extension of Exemption 

No. 10553. That exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) allows Brendan to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAAapproved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of 

that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Brendan.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10553

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Any air carrier or 

commercial operator operating under part 121 while Brendan is aboard its aircraft is granted 

an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary to allow him to use an FAAapproved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft. 

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Brendan’s parents

or a caregiver accompanying him. Brendan McGinnis may only occupy a passenger seat with 

no passenger seated behind him. In addition, Brendan’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy 

of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 

48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on February 28, 2019, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0271. MAYS v. THE STATE.

Lavester Lee Maysseeks discretionary review of the trial court’s order denying

his motion for a transcript. OCGA §§ 5-6-35; 9-15-2; 42-12-8. In his application,

Mays explains that he has filed a petition for habeas relief in the district court for the

Northern District of Georgia. Generally, to obtain a free transcript, a prisoner is

required to provide some “justification or showing of necessity.” Mydell v. Clerk,

Superior Court of Chatham County, 241 Ga. 24 (243 SE2d 72) (1978). Where the

prisoner seeks a transcript to prosecute a pending or proposed habeas petition, the

prisoner must attach a copy of such petition with the transcript request. Shelby v.

McDaniel, 266 Ga. 215 (465 SE2d 433) (1996). The failure to attach the requisite

petition authorizes the trial court to deny the motion for a transcript. Syms v. State,

250 Ga. App. 177, 178 (1) (550 SE2d 723) (2001).

Here, because Maysfailed to submit a copy of any pending or proposed habeas

petition along with his request to the trial court, the trial court was authorized to deny

his request. Accordingly, Mays’s request for discretionary review of the trial court’s

order is DENIED. 

March 15, 2016
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/15/2016
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-102221 on Form S-3 and in Registration Statement’sNo.’s 333-23237, 333-41327, 333-62157 and 333-71892 of Radiant Systems, Inc. on Forms S-8 of our reports dated March 15, 2005, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Radiant Systems, Inc and management’sreport of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Radiant Systems, Inc for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Atlanta, Georgia

March 15, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TOTAL WORLD TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDED ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                               <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                              OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                                SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                        1,704,020
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 8,343,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    143,629
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             19,367,450
<PP&E>                                                        7,218,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                                2,092,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               73,004,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        30,128,854
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                          12
<COMMON>                                                             66
<OTHER-SE>                                                   38,808,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 73,004,044
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             21,584,874
<CGS>                                                        19,082,736
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                12,855,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              835,167
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (12,125,097)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         (12,125,097)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (12,125,097)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                     (6.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (6.31)
        

</TABLE>