alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
SGV BANCORP, INC.
EXHIBIT NO. 11: STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Three Months Ended
                                           September 30, 1996
                                           ------------------
                                      (in thousands except per share amounts)
<S>                                            <C>
Net Loss                                        $ (464)
                                                ======
 
Weighted average shares outstanding              2,350

Common stock equivalents due to dilutive
  effect on stock options                            0
                                                ------
 
Total weighted average common shares
  and equivalents outstanding                    2,350
                                                ======
 
 
Primary earnings per share                      $(0.20)
                                                ======
Total weighted average common shares
  and equivalent outstanding                     2,350
 
Additional dilutive shares using the end of
  period market value versus the average
  market value when applying the treasury
  stock method                                       0
                                                ------
 
Total weighted average common shares and
  equivalent outstanding for fully diluted
  computation                                    2,350
                                                ======

Fully diluted earnings per share                $(0.20)
                                                =======
</TABLE>
Notice of Appearance – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

§

v. § CIV. A. NO. 4:22-cv-343-Y

§

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL §

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, ET AL., §

§

Defendants. §

§

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

TO THE HONORABLE TERRY R. MEANS:

Please take notice that James D. Sanford of the law firm of GILLESPIE 

SANFORD LLP enters his appearance as local counsel for Defendants/CounterClaimants Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), Julie 

Hedrick, and Erik Harris. Mr. Sanford’s contact information is:

James D. Sanford 

Gillespie Sanford LLP

4803 Gaston Ave.

Dallas, Texas 75246

Tel: 214.800.5111

Fax: 214.838.0001

Email: jim@gillespiesanford.com

Jeffrey A. Bartos of GUERRIERI, BARTOS & ROMA, P.C. (application for 

admission pro hac vice forthcoming) will be lead counsel and attorney of 

record for these Defendants/Counter-Claimants. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 94 Filed 05/23/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 2094
Notice of Appearance – Page 2

Dated: May 23, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

GILLESPIE SANFORD LLP

4803 Gaston Ave.

Dallas, Texas 75246

Tel: 214.800.5111

Fax: 214.838.0001

By: s/ James D. Sanford

James D. Sanford

Texas Bar No. 24051289

Email: jim@gillespiesanford.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR 

DEFENDANTS/COUNTERCLAIMANTS APFA, HEDRICK, AND 

HARRIS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 23 , 2023, I electronically submitted this 

document to the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of Texas using the court’s electronic case filing system. The electronic 

case filing system sent a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to the following 

individuals, who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of 

this document by electronic means: 

Kerri Phillips

KDPHILLIPS LAW FIRM PLLC

6010 W. Spring Creek Parkway

Plano, Texas 75024

Email: notice@kdphillipslaw.com

s/ James D. Sanford 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 94 Filed 05/23/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 2095
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          65,470
<SECURITIES>                                    40,558
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,600
<INVENTORY>                                        427
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               167,156
<PP&E>                                          48,914
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 285,198
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,218
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       216,878
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   285,198
<SALES>                                         28,534
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,534
<CGS>                                            4,667
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (1,154)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12,853)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,114)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,739)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,739)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.23)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00297-O

ORDER

Before the Court is Texas Christian University’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File 

Appendix Under Seal (ECF No. 88), filed September 19, 2022. TCU seeks to attach documents 

under seal in support of its Motion for Summary Judgement (ECF No. 93), filed September 19, 

2022. 

As this Court has stated previously on the record, Courts presume that judicial records are 

to be kept open to the public. United States v. Abdullah, 2009 WL 2246156, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 

24, 2009) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). But the public’s 

right to access court records is not absolute, and district courts have supervisory power to seal 

documentsif the interest favoring nondisclosure outweighsthe presumption in favor of the public’s 

common law right of access. Test Masters Educ. Servs. Inc., 799 F.3d 437, 454 (5th Cir. 2015) 

(citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 

Because the Court finds that TCU has demonstrated good cause to file the records under 

seal, and noting the motion is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the motion and DIRECTS the 

Clerk of the Court to file the exhibits accompanying the motion (ECF No. 88-1 through 88-6, 

ECF No. 89-1 through 89-4, ECF No. 90-1 through 90-4, ECF No. 91-1 through 91-5, and ECF 

No. 92-1) under seal as TCU’s Appendix in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 97 Filed 09/22/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 5674
2

SO ORDERED on this 22nd day of September, 2022. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 97 Filed 09/22/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 5675
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

 

REGINALD FRITZ BELL, §

TDCJ No. 01923613, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 7:22-cv-00033-M-BP

 § 

WARDEN SMITH, et al., §

 §

Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

in this case. Plaintiff filed objections on October 4, 2022 [ECF No. 13]. The District Court 

reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation de novo. Finding no error, 

the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge.

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Reginald Bell’s case is DISMISSED with 

prejudice.

SO ORDERED this 17th day of October, 2022.

Case 7:22-cv-00033-M-BP Document 14 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 98
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 11.1

                                     PSINet Inc.
                                   and Subsidiaries
                                           
                    Calculation of Loss per Share  (Unaudited) (1)
                                           
<TABLE>                                           
                                                                                 Three Months Ended
                                                                                    June 30, 1997
                                                                                 ------------------
<S>                                                                                 <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
     Shares outstanding at beginning of period...................................      40,173,502
     Weighted average shares issued during the three months ended June 30, 1997
     (222,271 shares)............................................................          51,902
                                                                                       ----------
                                           
                                                                                       40,225,404
                                                                                       ----------
                                                                                       ----------

Net loss........................................................................     $(11,323,000)
                                                                                     ------------
                                                                                     ------------
Loss per share (unaudited)......................................................     $      (0.28)
                                                                                     ------------
                                                                                     ------------

</TABLE>

(1) For a discussion of loss per share, see Note 2 of the Notes to the 
    Consolidated Financial Statements.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 338 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 338

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2013

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to include certain territories 
and possessions of the United States in the definition of State for the 
    purposes of chapter 114, relating to trafficking in contraband 
                   cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Tobacco Smuggling in the 
Territories Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDED IN 
              THE DEFINITION OF STATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE 
              PROHIBITION AGAINST TRAFFICKING IN CONTRABAND CIGARETTES 
              AND SMOKELESS TOBACCO.

    Paragraph (4) of section 2341 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ``or the Virgin Islands'' and inserting ``the 
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands, or Guam''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 10.20
 COINSTAR, INC.
1997 AMENDED AND RESTATED EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
STOCK OPTION GRANT NOTICE
  Participant:Identification Number (SS#):Address:Option Number:Grant Date:Type of Option:Number of Shares Subject to Option:Exercise Price (per Share):Total Option Price:Vesting Commencement Date:Vesting and Exercisability Schedule:
    
    [The Share Option shall be
exercisable in accordance with a
vesting schedule under which
one-fourth (1/4) of the Share Options
will vest on the first anniversary of
the Grant Date, and one-fourth (1/4)
of the Share Options will vest on
each of the second, third and fourth
anniversaries of the Grant Date.]Option Expiration Date:
    
    (subject to earlier termination in
accordance with the terms of the Plan
and the Stock Option Agreement)
 Additional Terms/Acknowledgement
 COINSTAR, INC.
    
    PARTICIPANT[Electronic signature]
    
    [Electronic signature]Attachments:1. Stock Option Agreement2. 1997 Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan3. Plan Summary




---



##### 



COINSTAR, INC.
1997 Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan
 STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
   Vesting and Exercisability
 Securities Law Compliance
 Incentive Stock Option Qualification
  Notice of Disqualifying Disposition
 Method of Exercise




---



##### 



Treatment Upon Termination of Employment or Service Relationship
 General Rule
 Disability
 Death
 It is your responsibility to be aware of the date the Option terminates.
 Limited Transferability
 Withholding Taxes
 Company Transaction.
 -2-




---



##### 



Good Reason
       Cause 
 Option Not an Employment or Service Contract
 No Right to Damages
 -3-




---



##### 



Binding Effect
 Section 409A.
 [Insert these sections for non-US Residents: Limitation on Rights; No Right to Future
Grants; Extraordinary Item of Compensation
 15. Employee Data Privacy
 [Insert this section for UK residents only 16. Tax Withholding.
 (i)
    
    by deduction from salary or any other payment payable to you at any
time on or after the date on which any income tax charge arises in
respect of the Plan;
 -4-




---



##### 



(ii)
    
    directly from you by payment in cleared funds, or(iii)
    
    by arranging for the sale of some of the shares which you are
entitled to receive on the exercise of the Option.]]
 -5-




---



##### 



COINSTAR, INC.
1997 AMENDED AND RESTATED EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
ELECTRONIC CONSENT
  By using my electronic signature on this consent form, I authorize
Coinstar, Inc. to:
 1.
    
    accept my electronic signatures as binding and final on any
employment administration form, ESPP subscription agreement or stock option
agreement between myself and Coinstar (or any third party agent acting on
Coinstars behalf); and2.
    
    process all employment-related transactions or any other
electronic submission which I have approved using an electronic signature
process. and
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00549-CV

T. L., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-FM-19-004438, THE HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant T. L. filed her notice of appeal on November 12, 2020. The appellate 

record was complete on December 7, 2020, making appellant’s brief due on December 28, 2020.

To date, appellant’s brief has not been filed.

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals 

from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days 

for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with briefing 

deadlines. Therefore, we order Robert Galvin to file appellant’s brief no later than January 22, 

2021. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he should 

not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on January 8, 2021.

Before Justices Baker, Kelly, and Smith
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              9
<MULTIPLIER>           1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             598
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,987
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               741
<LOANS>                                         90,882
<ALLOWANCE>                                        699
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,575
<DEPOSITS>                                      76,763
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,232
<LONG-TERM>                                      8,412
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,152
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 103,575
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,997
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  103
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   168
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,268
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,010
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 322
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,936
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       24
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,228
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    798
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         798
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       798
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.78
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,228
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   704
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       78
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  650
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               650
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### SULLIVAN v. STATE.

No. 22038.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1942.

Wiley B. Thomas, of Groveton, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty to the offense of assault with intent to murder with malice, appellant was convicted and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

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.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MATTHEW WOLTERS

, Appellant,

v.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2897

[ November 13, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Florence T. Barner , Judge; L.T. Case No. 15

- 6958 CACE

(11)

.

Samantha Neides of Loan Lawyers, LLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Donald A. Mihokovich of Adams and Reese LLP, Tampa, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d

1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).

C IKLIN

, G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I 

~ 

/ 

.. 

CRAIG ELVIS RUMBLE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

APR 1 9 2011 

Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptc 

Courts for the District of COlumbfa 

11 0742 

This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff's application to proceed informa 

pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the 

complaint. 

Plaintiff's complaint lists a series of encounters with police, arrests and tickets issued by 

various authorities in New Jersey and New York, as well as a parking ticket issued in the District 

of Columbia, between April 2009 and February 2011. During this time period, plaintiff allegedly 

has been hospitalized and forcibly medicated, see id. at 6, has received a death threat, see id. at 9, 

has been the victim of a hate crime, see id. at 12, and has been photographed and videotaped 

without permission, see id. at 15. As compensation for the "controlled internal corruption 

involving New Jersey and New York authorities" evidenced by the events set forth in the 

complaint, id. at 20, plaintiff demands damages of $950 billion, id. at 21. 

The court must dismiss a complaint ifit is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.c. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 

1 
.. 

319 (1989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has the authority to dismiss not only 

claims based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions 

are clearly baseless. Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category of 

cases whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. !d. at 328. The trial court has the discretion 

to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged 

are irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). 

Mindful that a complaint filed by a pro se litigant is held to a less stringent standard than 

that applied to a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 

(1972), the Court concludes that the factual contentions of the plaintiffs complaint are irrational 

and wholly insufficient to state a cognizable civil claim. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss 

this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous.! 

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued on this same date. 

DATE: ~ 14/ 2-0 tI 

In addition, the Court will grant the plaintiffs motion to use a post office box for 

his mailing address, and will deny the remaining motions filed with the complaint. 

2
# SBLF Banks QSBL 0412

Page &P of &N

# SBLF CDLFs QSBL 0412

Page &P of &N

# SBLF Business Lending 0412

Page &P of &N

# image1.png

# image2.png