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




                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1




                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                        YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                                                 ------------------------------------
                                                                                 1994           1995             1996
                                                                                 ----           ----             ----
<S>                                                                         <C>             <C>             <C>         

NET EARNINGS (LOSS) FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------

Net earnings (loss) from continuing operations ..........................   $       (974)   $        169    $      5,906

Dividends on preferred stock applicable to continuing operations (1) ....            (59)           (643)           --
                                                                            ------------    ------------    ------------

Net earnings (loss) from continuing operations applicable to common stock   $     (1,033)   $       (474)   $      5,906
                                                                            ============    ============    ============

Net earnings (loss) from continuing operations per common share .........   $      (0.07)   $      (0.02)   $        .29
                                                                            ============    ============    ============


NET EARNINGS (LOSS)
-------------------

Net earnings (loss) .....................................................   $     (1,654)   $      1,780    $      5,906

Dividends on preferred stock ............................................            (86)           (944)           --
                                                                            ------------    ------------    ------------

Net earnings (loss) applicable to common stock ..........................   $     (1,740)   $        836    $      5,906
                                                                            ============    ============    ============

Net earnings (loss) per common share ....................................   $      (0.12)   $       0.05    $        .29
                                                                            ============    ============    ============

Weighted average common shares outstanding ..............................     14,190,029      17,931,993      20,457,398
                                                                            ============    ============    ============
</TABLE>



(1)  Dividends on the preferred stock issued in connection with the acquisition
     of ING were allocated between continuing operations and discontinued
     operations based on the ratio of net assets discontinued to the total net
     assets acquired from ING.
# C_2008209EN.01002201.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Panevėžio apygardos teismas lodged on 20 May 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Edgar Babanov

(Case C-207/08)

(2008/C 209/31)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Panevėžio apygardos teismas

Party to the main proceedings

Edgar Babanov

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 265 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, in so far as it imposes criminal liability unconditionally for the cultivation of any type of hemp without exception, irrespective of the amount of active substance in it, contrary to provisions of the European Union and, specifically, which ones? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 265 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, in so far as it imposes criminal liability unconditionally for the cultivation of any type of hemp without exception, irrespective of the amount of active substance in it, contrary to provisions of the European Union and, specifically, which ones?

| 2. | If it is contrary to those provisions, may a court of the Republic of Lithuania adopt a decision applying national law (Article 265 of the Criminal Code), if the active substance in the hemp cultivated does not exceed 0,2 %? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If it is contrary to those provisions, may a court of the Republic of Lithuania adopt a decision applying national law (Article 265 of the Criminal Code), if the active substance in the hemp cultivated does not exceed 0,2 %?

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
      ( print page 89464)    
*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; CTSA Small Grant Program.                    

*Date:*                         February 13, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 1073, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         M. Lourdes Ponce, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 1073, Bethesda, MD 20892,  301-435-0810,                         *lourdes.ponce@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 20, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-28476 Filed 12-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### In the Matter of Rachel Sady et al., Appellants, v J. Emmett Murphy, Respondent, and Anthony J. Colavita et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating J. Emmett Murphy as a candidate in the Republican Party primary election, Democratic Party primary election, and Conservative Party primary election, to be held on September 12, 1991, for the nomination of those parties as its candidate for the public office of Judge of the County Court of the County of Westchester, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), dated August 13,1991, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioners failed to adduce evidence sufficient to warrant invalidating the petitions designating the respondent-respondent Murphy. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket** Docket Number: F AA- 2009 - 0288 Directorate Identifier: 2008NM214AD

737 - 57 - 1293 IN 01 --- 2/25/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
# C_2009019EN.01002002.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/20

---

Action brought on 1 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-524/08)

(2009/C 19/36)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by N. Yerrell and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC or, in any case, by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC or, in any case, by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

1

| — | an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period allowed for transposition of the Directive expired on 10 December 2007.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 323, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2011211EN.01000201.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/2

---

Opinion of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities

(Opinion 1/08) (1)

1

(Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC - General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) - Schedules of specific commitments - Conclusion of agreements on the grant of compensation for modification and withdrawal of certain commitments following the accession of new Member States to the European Union - Shared competence - Legal bases - Common commercial policy - Common transport policy)

2011/C 211/02

Language of the case: all the official languages

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicant:

Re:

Re:

Request for an Opinion — World Trade Organisation (WTO) — General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) — Schedules of specific commitments concerning market access and the grant of national treatment — Agreements relating to the modification and withdrawal of specific commitments following the accession of new Member States to the European Union and to the compensatory adjustments for WTO members affected by that modification and withdrawal — Nature of the Community’s competence (exclusive or shared) to conclude such agreements and appropriate legal bases — Scope of the common commercial policy and the common transport policy respectively

Operative part

Operative part

| 1. | The conclusion of the agreements with the affected members of the World Trade Organisation, pursuant to Article XXI of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), as described in the request for an Opinion, falls within the sphere of shared competence of the European Community and the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The conclusion of the agreements with the affected members of the World Trade Organisation, pursuant to Article XXI of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), as described in the request for an Opinion, falls within the sphere of shared competence of the European Community and the Member States.

| 2. | The Community act concluding the abovementioned agreements must be based both on Article 133(1), (5) and (6), second subparagraph, EC and on Articles 71 EC and 80(2) EC, in conjunction with Article 300(2) and (3), first subparagraph, EC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Community act concluding the abovementioned agreements must be based both on Article 133(1), (5) and (6), second subparagraph, EC and on Articles 71 EC and 80(2) EC, in conjunction with Article 300(2) and (3), first subparagraph, EC.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6813

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FLOYD N. SIMMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CR-89-111, CA-95-268-2)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Floyd N. Simms, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Simms, Nos.

CR-89-111; CA-95-268-2 (S.D.W. Va. May 3, 1995). We also deny

Appellant's motion for sanctions. 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2009055EN.01000803.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 December 2008 — Fokus Invest AG v FIAG Finanzierungsberatung-Immobilientreuhand und Anlageberatung GmbH (FIAG)

(Case C-541/08)

(2009/C 55/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fokus Invest AG

Applicant:

Defendant: FIAG Finanzierungsberatung-Immobilientreuhand und Anlageberatung GmbH (FIAG)

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 25 of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to treat as nationals for the purposes of the acquisition of immovable property applies only in relation to natural persons, but not to companies? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 25 of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to treat as nationals for the purposes of the acquisition of immovable property applies only in relation to natural persons, but not to companies?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
  Do the provisions of the Wiener Ausländergrunderwerbsgesetz (Viennese law on the purchase of real property by non-nationals; ‘WrAuslGEG’) which in the case of acquisition of immovable property by foreign companies as defined in point 3 of Paragraph 2 of the WrAuslGEG require the production of a certificate attesting to exemption from the requirement to obtain authorisation (Paragraph 5(4) and point 3 of Paragraph 3 of the WrAuslGEG) constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital (Article 56 EC) permitted under Article 57(1) EC in relation to Switzerland as a third country? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Do the provisions of the Wiener Ausländergrunderwerbsgesetz (Viennese law on the purchase of real property by non-nationals; ‘WrAuslGEG’) which in the case of acquisition of immovable property by foreign companies as defined in point 3 of Paragraph 2 of the WrAuslGEG require the production of a certificate attesting to exemption from the requirement to obtain authorisation (Paragraph 5(4) and point 3 of Paragraph 3 of the WrAuslGEG) constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital (Article 56 EC) permitted under Article 57(1) EC in relation to Switzerland as a third country?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.

1

---
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 7
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 7
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 7
#### Richardo Santos, Jr., Individually and as Administra*119tor of the Estate of Kevin Santos, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v Cornealouis Davis, Defendant, and Sallie M. Porter, Respondent.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated March 2; 1990, as denied their cross motion for a stay of proceedings pending a resolution of the related appeal in *Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Santos*(175 AD2d 91 [decided herewith]).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The reason for the plaintiffs’ application for a stay of proceedings in this action was to await the determination of an appeal in a related case. Since that appeal is now decided *(see, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Santos,*175 AD2d 91 [decided herewith]), the issue presented by this appeal has been rendered academic. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
Order entered January 7, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00340-CR

JANINE JOYCE CHARBONEAU, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-80751-2012

ORDER

The Court DENIES appellant’s July 11, 2013 motion to appoint counsel. The trial court 

conducted a hearing and made findings that appellant is not indigent. The Court adopted those 

findings and denied several motions to reconsider. Appellant must either retain counsel to 

represent her in the appeal or proceed on her own.

We note that appellant’s brief wad due by January 2, 2014, and has not yet been filed. 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file her brief within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order. If appellant’s brief is not filed within the time specified, we will, without further notice, 

submit the appeal without briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b), Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, Joyce 

Charboneau and John Rolater, Collin County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       538,000
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           2,539,000
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             2,730,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      3,866,000
<BONDS>                                    3,058,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     218,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  (455,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               2,730,000
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,000
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              3,221,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (71,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (11,344,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (3,148,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                            (7,644,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             (552,000)
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                             (11,344,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.57)
        


</TABLE>