alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 11
Computation of Per Share Earnings



                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER-SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   FOR PERIOD ENDED
                                                                  SEPTEMBER 30, 2001

<S>                                                                  <C>
     Net loss available to common ................................   $ (1,311,000)

     Average shares outstanding ..................................     12,343,000

Basic net loss per-share .........................................   $      (0.11)
                                                                     ============


     Average shares outstanding ..................................     12,343,000
     Stock options incremental shares ............................           --
                                                                     ------------

     Average shares outstanding, diluted .........................     12,343,000

Diluted net loss per-share .......................................   $      (0.11)
                                                                     ============


Diluted net loss per-share assuming conversion of preferred stock:
     Net loss available to common ................................     (1,311,000)
     Preferred stock dividends for the period ....................        208,000
                                                                     ------------

     Net loss before preferred stock dividends ...................   $ (1,103,000)
                                                                     ============

     Average shares outstanding ..................................     12,343,000
     Assumed conversion of preferred stock .......................        260,000
     Stock options incremental shares ............................           --
                                                                     ------------

     Total .......................................................     12,603,000

     Per-share amount (anti-dilutive) ............................   $      (0.09)
                                                                     ============
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7915

CALVIN G. GRAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM TED JONES, Individually and in his

personal capacity as a private citizen and in

his official capacity as a Bluefield, West

Virginia Police Officer and/or Detective;

RICHARD M. POE, Individually and in his personal capacity as a private citizen and in his

official capacity as a former Sergeant of The

Bluefield City Police Department and current

Chief of Police of the Bluefield, West Virginia Police Department,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District

Judge. (CA-95-861-1)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 30, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin G. Gray, Appellant Pro Se.

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 relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gray v. Jones,

No. CA-95-861-1 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 18, 1995). 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
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 0489 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 013

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Revision (retained) 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 

### 755 $ 64,175.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 64,175 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@ $85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Anal **ysis** ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant r egulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Exp lanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
#### CLARK v. STATE.

No. 25579.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 19, 1951.

Rehearing Denied. Jan. 9, 1952.

*512No attorney on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor in a dry area; the penalty assessed is a fine of $300.

The transcript ‘before us contains no notice of appeal, in the absence of which this court is without authority to consider the appeal. It is therefore dismissed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 293 

To expand retroactive eligibility of the Army Combat Action Badge to include 

members of the Army who participated in combat during which they 

personally engaged, or were personally engaged by, the enemy at any 

time on or after December 7, 1941. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2013 

Mr. NUGENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To expand retroactive eligibility of the Army Combat Action 

Badge to include members of the Army who participated 

in combat during which they personally engaged, or were 

personally engaged by, the enemy at any time on or 

after December 7, 1941. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RETROACTIVE AWARD OF ARMY COMBAT AC4 TION BADGE. 

5 (a) AUTHORITY TO AWARD.—The Secretary of the 

6 Army may award the Army Combat Action Badge (estab7 lished by order of the Secretary of the Army through 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 293 IH

1 Headquarters, Department of the Army Letter 600–05– 

2 1, dated June 3, 2005) to a person who, while a member 

3 of the Army, participated in combat during which the per4 son personally engaged, or was personally engaged by, the 

5 enemy at any time during the period beginning on Decem6 ber 7, 1941, and ending on September 18, 2001 (the date 

7 of the otherwise applicable limitation on retroactivity for 

8 the award of such decoration), if the Secretary determines 

9 that the person has not been previously recognized in an 

10 appropriate manner for such participation. 

11 (b) PROCUREMENT OF BADGE.—The Secretary of 

12 the Army may make arrangements with suppliers of the 

13 Army Combat Action Badge so that eligible recipients of 

14 the Army Combat Action Badge pursuant to subsection 

15 (a) may procure the badge directly from suppliers, thereby 

16 eliminating or at least substantially reducing administra17 tive costs for the Army to carry out this section. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORBERTO FARAON, AKA Norberto

Fraon, AKA Norberto Praon,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71692

Agency No. A042-575-492

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2012** 

Pasadena, California

Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Because Faraon did not argue before the BIA that he attempted to withdraw

or should have been allowed to withdraw his concession to the charge of

FILED

MAR 13 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

removability, we have no jurisdiction to consider his petition. See Barron v.

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). 

DISMISSED.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-11745

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00316-VMC-CPT-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DECIO VIVEROS GRANJA, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(May 20, 2021)

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-11745 Date Filed: 05/20/2021 Page: 1 of 3
2

Decio Viveros Granja appeals from his conviction for conspiracy to 

distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board of a vessel subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 

70506(a) and (b), and 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), and sentence of 121 months’ 

imprisonment. 

Granja’s appointed counsel in this direct criminal appeal has moved to 

withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967) (when 

counsel determines that a criminal defendant’s case is “wholly frivolous,” counsel 

must “so advise the court and request permission to withdraw”). As required, his 

counsel filed a brief setting out any irregularities or other potential errors in 

Granja’s plea and sentencing processes that might arguably be meritorious. See

United States v. Blackwell, 767 F.2d 1486, 1487–88 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). 

His counsel notes the existence of a valid appeal waiver in the plea agreement and 

says the record does not reveal that any exception to that waiver applies. He also 

notes that Granja received a below-guidelines sentence. He concludes that he was 

unable to find the existence of any meritorious argument on appeal. 

Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s 

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent 

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s 

USCA11 Case: 20-11745 Date Filed: 05/20/2021 Page: 2 of 3
3

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Granja’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-11745 Date Filed: 05/20/2021 Page: 3 of 3
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of

The State ofConnecticut and

PSEG Power Connecticut LLC

)

)

)

)

)

Trading Agreement and Order No. 8240

Modification No.3

Whereas, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection ("Commissioner") and PSEG Power

Connecticut LLC ("Respondent") having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading

Agreement and Order No. 8240 and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual

agreement, further modify said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows:

I. All references to May I, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions

reduction credit trading and/or emission reduction credits and NOx allowances to

comply with the emissions limits of Subsections 22a-174-22(d)(l) through 22a-174-

22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies ("Regulations") are

hereby replaced with May I, 20 Io.

2. Any references to October 1

st with respect to the date by which the Respondent shall

estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits ("DERCs") and/or

allowances for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009.

3. Any references to May 31, 2007 and May 31, 2008 with respect to calculation and

retirement of non-ozone season DERCs shall now include May 31, 2009 and May 31,

2010.

4. All references to September I, 2008 with respect to the submission of Future

Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1,2009.

5. No later than May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading

Agreement and Order No. 8240 and/or its subsequent modifications, the Respondent

shall comply with the requirements of Sections 22a-174-22(d)(l) and 22a-174-

22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations.

6. All other terms and conditions ofTrading Agreement and Order No. 8240, as modified,

shall remain in effect.

( Pri nled on Recycled Paper)

79 Elm Street • Hartford. CT 06106 - 5127

hup:l!www.cLgov/dcp

All Equal Opporllmiry Employer
•

PSEG Power Connecticut LLC 2 Trading Agreement and

Order No. 8240

Modification No.3

The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement

and Order without further notice.

PSEG Power Connecticut LLC

Signatur~ r;:;~

Name: _baX(y,~~kOJk

Title:r-vt..o •.::A:: I{'I\(nOJ~S?"'- _

Date: Af. - /:2 - 09

Issued as a modification of a Trading Agreement and Order.

~rlk Director

Engineering and Enforcement Division

Bureau of Air Management

Date
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER TO REINSTATE

Appellate case name: James L. Menefee v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-09-00090-CR; 01-09-00091-CR

Trial court case number: 1153928; 1153929

Trial court: 183rd District Court of Harris County

These cases were abated and remanded to the trial court on July 20, 2012. In the order of 

abatement, we ordered the trial court to appoint appellate counsel to represent appellant. The 

trial court held a hearing on our order of abatement on August 20, 2012, and the court reporter 

has filed a record of the hearing. The reporter’s record shows that the trial court appointed 

Thomas Lewis to represent appellant. Accordingly, we REINSTATE these cases on the Court’s 

active docket.

Appellant’s brief is ORDERED to be filed no later than September 19, 2012. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellee’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the filing of 

appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Jim Sharp, Jr.

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 22, 2012
EXHIBIT
      32











CERTIFICATIONS
      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 The Bombay Company, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
      of
      the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their
      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.

















/S/
      DAVID B. STEWART  /S/
      ELAINE D. CROWLEY


David
      B.
      Stewart     Elaine D. Crowley


Chief
      Executive
      Officer                                                                                 Senior
      Vice President, CFO and


Treasurer





Dated:
      September 6, 2006    Dated:
      September 6, 2006
#### In re Guardianship of Corby: Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., Appellant, *v.*Patterson, Gdn., et al., Appellees.

(No. 27682

Decided October 11, 1939.)

*Messrs. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Mr. H. J. Crawford, Mr. Frank Harris on, Mr. John W. Barkley*and *Mr. Otis B. Bosworth,*for appellant.

*Mr. Bay T. Miller, Mr. Grover C. Hosford*and *Mr. Donald W. Kling,*for appellee, • R. J. Patterson, guardian.

*Messrs. Laylin & Smith,*for appellee, Central National Bank of Cleveland.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right he, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 12****ADVANTACORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES****COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**                   **Three Months Ended**  **Six Months Ended** **($ in thousands)** **June 30,**  **June 30,**   **2005**  **2004**  **2005**  **2004**  Income from continuing operations $14,382  $10,832  $87,052  $20,271 Income tax expense  9,195   7,071   21,542   13,234  Earnings before income taxes  23,577   17,903   108,594(1)  33,505 Fixed charges:                Interest on debt, deposits and otherborrowings  11,428   8,556   21,724   17,798 Interest on subordinated debt payableto preferred securities trust  2,290   2,290   4,579   4,579 One-third of all rentals  415   408   801   1,042  Total fixed charges  14,133   11,254   27,104   23,419  Earnings before income taxes and fixed charges $37,710  $29,157  $135,698  $56,924 Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(2)  2.67x  2.59x  5.01x  2.43x 
(1) Earnings before income taxes in the six months ended June 30, 2005 includes a $67.7million gain on transfer of consumer credit card business relating to our May 28, 2004agreement with Bank of America. (2) For purposes of computing these ratios, “earnings” represent income before incometaxes plus fixed charges. “Fixed charges” consist of interest expense and one-third(the portion deemed representative of the interest factor) of rental expense onoperating leases.
#### MATA v. STATE.

No. 22206.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1942.

H. G. Williams, of San Antonio, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Assault with intent to murder without malice is the offense; the punishment, three years in the state penitentiary.

No bills of exception accompany the record. The only question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

*188The State’s testimony showed that appellant, at close range, shot the injured party, with a pistol, the bullet not hitting him but passing through the front of his shirt. The appellant admitted having fired the shot, and asserted that what he did was in self-defense but with no intent to hit the injured party.

The disputed issue arising under the facts was for the jury’s consideration, and its verdict is amply sustained by the State’s testimony.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
**Docket No. FAA -**  **2013 -**  **1031**
# TIME AND DATE: 

10 a.m. (EST), February 14, 2000.

# PLACE: 

4th Floor, Conference Room 4506, 1250 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

1. Approval of the minutes of the January 10, 2000, Board member meeting.

2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.

3. Labor Department audit briefing.

4. Investment policy review.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

Dated: February 1, 2000.

Elizabeth S. Woodruff,

Secretary to the Board, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

[FR Doc. 00-2679  Filed 2-2-00; 1:19 pm]

BILLING CODE 6760-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2728]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Virotek, LLC

AGENCY:  Department of the Navy.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent 
to grant to Virotek, LLC, a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license 
to practice worldwide the Government-owned inventions described in U.S. 
Patent No. 6,015,681 issued 18 January 2000, and its PCT serial No. 96/
12135, filed 12 Dec 1996, entitled ``Rapid Immunoassay for Cariogenic 
Baceria''; and U.S. Patent Serial No. 90/44214, filed on 3 Aug 1999 and 
its PCT serial No. 99/10482 filed on 3 Aug 1999, entitled ``Rapid 
Immunoassay to Detect Infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis'' in 
the field of Rapid, Hand-held Salivary Diagnostics for Streptococcus 
mutans, lactobacillus and Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

DATE:  Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file 
written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later 
than April 10, 2000. Written objections are to be filed with the Office 
of Technology Transfer, Naval Medical Research Center, 8901 Wisconsin 
Ave, Bethesda, MD 20889-5607, telephone (301) 319-7428.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  CDR Charles Schlagel, MSC, USN, 
Director, Office of Technology Transfer, Naval Medical Research Center, 
503 Robert Grant Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500, telephone (301) 
319-7428.

    Dated: January 27, 2000.
J.L. Roth,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-2728 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3812-FF-P