alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1



EXHIBIT 11.1

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


                           BELDEN & BLAKE CORPORATION

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON
                          AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES
                      (in thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                    Three months                     Nine months
                                                                ended September 30,              ended September 30,
                                                          ---------------------------------  ----------------------------
                                                                 1996            1995           1996            1995
                                                          ----------------   --------------  ------------   -------------

<S>                                                             <C>           <C>           <C>               <C>  
Average  shares outstanding .............................         11,171          9,741         11,168          7,993
Net effect of conversion of stock options and
warrants ................................................           --             --             --             --

Total primary shares ....................................         11,171          9,741         11,168          7,993
Net effect of convertible securities.....................           --             --             --             --

Total fully diluted shares ..............................         11,171          9,741         11,168          7,993
Net income ..............................................        $ 3,186      $   1,155     $   10,013        $ 2,810

Less preferred stock dividends ..........................             45             45            135            135

Net income applicable to common  shares
  primary ...............................................          3,141          1,110          9,878          2,675

Plus 7.5% preferred stock dividends .....................           --             --              --             --

Net income applicable to common  shares .................          3,141          1,110          9,878          2,675
fully diluted
Earnings per common share primary .......................            .28            .11            .88            .33

Earnings per common share fully diluted .................            .28            .11            .88            .33

</TABLE>

         The effects of common stock options, warrants and convertible
securities have not been included in the computation as their effect is either
not dilutive or antidilutive.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.03

                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                      FISHER SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL INC.
                      EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN

      The Board of Directors hereby amends the Fisher Scientific International
Inc. Executive Retirement and Savings Plan (as restated effective June 23, 1997)
pursuant to Section 11.2, effective as of June 8, 2004.

      The second sentence of the definition of "Earnings" set forth in Article
II is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

            The term "Earnings" shall not include commissions, overtime,
            insurance disability pay, profit sharing payments, public or private
            retirement contributions or benefits, retainers, insurance benefits
            or company paid premiums, payments from any stock option or award
            plan or any savings or stock purchase plan or, except as otherwise
            provided by the Administrative Committee, any long-term bonus or
            incentive compensation award, any non-recurring or exceptional bonus
            (such as a deal bonus) or any other special benefits or awards.
IPHIS Offices and User Roles

IPHIS uses a branching hierarchy to define relationships between organizations and offices, which in turn define 

security rights and the visibility of data. Offices under one hierarchy cannot edit or view data within an office

under a different hierarchy unless permitted by contract or granted by the office. USDA/APHIS/PPQ offices fall 

under one hierarchy and state and local cooperators under a separate hierarchy.

There are several user roles available within each office. The first role granted is that of Security Officer.

Security Officer: the only role that can manage user access. 

Data Collector (data entry): can only access screens that are related to data entry, such as the Location, Activity, 

and Compliance Agreement Inspection pages. This role cannot access anything related to management of the 

system.

Data Supervisor (data validator): the only role that can validate data (i.e. New Locations, Activity data, etc.).

Data Manager: has access to management components of the system as well as the same access as a Data 

Collector (i.e. Survey Template, Compliance Templates, etc.).

SPHD (state) Approver: the only role that can review and approve or deny survey supply orders at the state 

level. 

Regional Approver: the only role that can review and approve or deny survey supply orders at the regional level. 

HQ Approver: the only role that can review and approve or deny survey supply orders at the headquarters level; 

one of two roles that can access the Orders tab. 

Warehouse User: Role can only access Home, Survey Supplies, Orders, and Reporting tabs. Users with this role 

will primarily interact with the system through the Orders tab (manage shipments, orders, and inventory)

Read Only: role can generally view all data within the system but cannot change any data.

Review role and request additional roles

Once you receive e‐mail that your role has been approved, log in to IPHIS and review your account. If your 

account is the first login to your Office, you will have been given the role of Security Officer, and if this is your

first time into IPHIS click on your name, just after “Logged in as:” in the upper right. The Update User Profile

window will appear (Figure 2).

Figure 2 ‐ Update User Profile form

Click here 

to request 

new roles.

View existing roles
Click the “Request a New Role” button in

the lower right and request the roles

“data collector,” “data manager” and

“data supervisor” (Figure 3).

Figure 3 ‐ Request a New Role form

Each role will require a new request and subsequent approval (Figure 4).

Once you have approved your new roles, log out and back in to IPHIS for the new roles to take effect.

This is the same process for granting other users access to your office, although most others will not require the 

roles of Security Office or Data Supervisor.

Figure 4 ‐ User Approval form
June 27, 2016

Docket Operations

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12

- 140

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Petition for Exemption (Number: 9918B)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Request:

P ursuant to Sections 11.61 and 11.63 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), GoJet Airlines, LLC

respectfully petitions for an extension of Exemption No. 9918 B as amended (Conditions and

Limitations shown below)

.

GoJet Airlines relies on 1 Exemption No. 9918B, from 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations

, to substitute a qualified and authorized check airmen or aircrew program designee for

an Federal Av iation Administration (FAA) inspector to observe a qualified pilot in command (PIC) who

is completing initial or upgrade training specified in 121.424 during at least one flight leg that

includes a takeoff and a landing.

There have been no changes to the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that

were the basis for granting the original exemption. Exemption No. 9918B is scheduled to expire on

August 31, 2016

.

Conditions and Limitations:

1. A GoJet check airman or aircrew program desi gnee may conduct a PIC observation in place of an

FAA inspector when

—

a. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation of a qualifying PIC

candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal to the FAA in each case. GoJet, therefore, mus t

contact an appropriate FAA office, in each instance, before substituting that check airman or

aircrew program designee;

1 Pleas e see attachments for the current Exemption No. 9918B Captain Randy L. Bratcher

Director of Flight Operations

11495 Navaid Road , Suite 3 77

Bridgeton , Missouri 63044

314.222.4 786 o ffice

314.853.1031 mobile

rbratcher@gojetairlines.comb. The qualifying PIC candidate has completed no less than 10 hours of supervised operating

experience (OE) and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and landings; and

c. The qualifying PIC candidate is performing PIC duties during a complete flight leg, inc luding

flight deck preparation, before starting engines checklist, taxi, takeoff, all other flight

phases, landing, taxi, and securing checklist.

2. Each GoJet check airman or aircrew program designee conducting a PIC observation in place of an

FAA inspecto r must

—

a. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation;

b. Have served as a check airman or aircrew program designee for GoJet for no less than 6

months; and

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the initial line check for the qualifying PIC cand idate being

observed.

3. GoJet must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that

demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this exemption.

P lease contact me if you require additional information. Thank you very much for your time.



### Sincerely,

Randy Bratcher
#### G. W. West, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed April 13, 1915.

Evidence examined and found sufficient to support tbe verdict.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court for Holmes County; D. J. Jones, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Taylor, C. J., and Ellis, J., dissent.

*J. G. Mathis,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*401
      *T. F. West,*Attorney General, and *G. O. Andrews,*Assistant, for the State.

Shackleford, J.

G. \Y. West was tried and convicted of the crime of larceny of a heifer.

The only error assigned is based upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial, which questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. A careful •consideration of all the evidence adduced convinces us that it is amply sufficient. The conflicts therein and the credibility of the witnesses were for the jury to pass upon and settle, which was done by the verdict rendered. We must concur with the trial judge in refusing to disturb the verdict. See Roland v. State, 68 Fla. 153, 67 South. Rep. 42.

Judgment affirmed.

Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur.

Taylor, C. J., and Ellis, J., dissent.
# C_2021349EN.01002402.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Moreno Pérez v Council

(Case T-246/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maikel José Moreno Pérez (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 14) and of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 6), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Maikel José Moreno Pérez to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Maikel José Moreno Pérez to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.

---
#### Swett *v.*Swett.

The decree of the supreme court in a divorce case, assigning to the'wife part of the. real estate of her husband, effectively vests the title to such portion of the real estate in the wife, without any conveyance from the husband.

Petition for partition * by Susan E. Swett against Timothy E. Swett.

*Shirley,*for petitioner.

*Barnard & Sanborn,*for petitionee.

Smith, J.

The petitioner’s title is founded on a decree in a divorce suit, whereby this court assigned to her ‘ ‘ one undivided half” of the real estate of which she now seeks to have partition. The petitionee objects that, as no order was made for the libellee to convey said real estate to the libellant, she has not such a title as will sustain this petition. We are of opinion that the law was correctly stated by Bell, J., in *Whittier*v. *Whittier,*31 N. H., 452, p. 458-9 ; the undivided interest in the real estate vested in the wife, “by the mere force of the decree,” “ as effectually as the same could be done by any conveyance of the husband himself.”

*Objections overruled.*
#### State v. Kato

22689

04/03/2001

Affirmed
21572

#### State v. Mohr

Affirmed
# C_2019025EN.01002601.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 November 2018 — Procureur-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

(Case C-678/18)

(2019/C 25/32)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Procureur-Generaal bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Question referred

Must Article 90(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 (1) be interpreted as requiring the mandatory granting, to all courts and tribunals of a Member State referred to therein, of jurisdiction to grant provisional and protective measures, or does it leave the Member States — in full or in part — free to delegate jurisdiction to grant such measures exclusively to the courts and tribunals which, in accordance with Article 80(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, have been designated as courts (of first and second instance) for Community design?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, pp 1-24).

---
17873

#### State v. Abordo

February 12, 1997

Order No. 97-14

Affirmed
July 9, 2002

24377

#### French v. French

Vacated
#### MARY CUYLER *v.*BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF DANBURY

(AC 19203)

Spear, Hennessy and Mihalakos, Js.

Submitted on briefs March 21

officially released August 15, 2000

*340
      *A. Scott Falls*filed a brief for the appellants (plaintiffs).

*Mark J. Sommaruga*filed a brief for the appellee (defendant).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs1 appeal from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, the board of education of the city of Danbury. The plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly ruled that they had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and that their claims were covered under the collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiffs also claim in their brief that the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing before dismissing the action, but we will not review that claim because it was not raised in the trial court.

Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuades us that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The issues presented were resolved properly in the trial court’s thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision. See *Cuyler*v. *Board of Education,*46 Conn. Sup. 486, 757 A.2d 694 (1998). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See *East*v. *Labbe,*54 Conn. App. 479, 480, 735 A.2d 370 (1999), aff'd, 252 Conn. 359, 746 A.2d 751 (2000).

The judgment is affirmed.

Forty-two similarly situated teachers joined the named plaintiff, Mary Cuyler, as party plaintiffs.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 8, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00275-CV 

BRADY BRINKMAN, Appellant 

V. 

INFINITY HOMES INC., Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-07052-B 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Carlyle 

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III 

On April 29, 2024, we sent a letter to the parties questioning our jurisdiction 

over this appeal because it appears the appeal is moot. We directed appellant to file 

a letter brief addressing our jurisdictional concern no later than May 9, 2024. We 

expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so might result in the dismissal of the 

appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed a letter brief nor 

further corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c). 

240275F.P05 

 

/Bill Pedersen, III/

BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

BRADY BRINKMAN, Appellant 

No. 05-24-00275-CV V. 

INFINITY HOMES INC., Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-07052-

B. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Pedersen, III. Justices PartidaKipness and Carlyle participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered July 8, 2024
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-11-00701-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 11DCV187301

Style: Glenn Blair

v Angela McClinton

Date motion filed*: August 26, 2013

Type of motion: Motion to post to web

Party filing motion: Appellant, Glenn Blair

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: 

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes 

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle.

Date: October 1, 2013
**EXHIBIT
      31.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**




I,
      Jerry
      A. Weberling, certify that:




1.  I
      have
      reviewed this Form 10-K/A of MAF Bancorp, Inc.; and




2.  Based
      on
      my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
      fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
      in
      light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report.




Date:
                April 30, 2007
            /s/
                Jerry A. WeberlingJerry A. Weberling
              Executive
                Vice President and Chief Financial
                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




Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q  for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




This 27th day of July 2012


/s/ R. Daniel BlantonR. Daniel Blanton

President &

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal executive officer)/s/ Darrell R. RainsDarrell R. Rains

Group Vice President &

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal financial officer)
115 P.3d 148

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

#### State v. Gomes

26466

06/22/2005

Denied

107 Hawai'i 308, 113 P.3d 184
# C_2019423EN.01004601.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper)

(Case T-666/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Figurative mark ad pepper - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

(2019/C 423/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: 6Minutes Media GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch and T. Hilser, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ad pepper media International NV (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Lux, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2018 (Case R 839/2017-1), relating to revocation proceedings between 6Minutes Media and ad pepper media International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
# Fourth Court **of Appeals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 1, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00562

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.B., G.H., AND E.W.,

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- PA

- 00127

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presid ing



### ORDER

Elva G. Chapa’s notification of late reporter’s record is NOTED.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of October, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court