alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMEDICS
DETECTION INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 29,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                          47,265
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,172
<INVENTORY>                                      9,413
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,361
<PP&E>                                           5,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,108
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,932
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,335
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    85,412
<SALES>                                          9,073
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,429
<CGS>                                            4,614
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,071
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    18
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 306
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,706
<INCOME-TAX>                                       682
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,024
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,024
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
OPTICAL COATING LABORATORY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 EXHIBIT 11.  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


Years Ended October 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995
(Amounts in thousands, except per share data)         1997      1996    1995


PRIMARY SHARES:

Average common shares outstanding.................  10,191    9,629    9,144
Common equivalent shares outstanding..............     482      672       367

 ..................................................  10,673   10,301     9,511



Net income........................................  $7,125   $5,196   $ 7,391
Less dividend on preferred stock..................     693      960       462


Net income applicable to common stock.............  $6,432   $4,236   $ 6,929



Net income per common and common
  equivalent share, primary.......................  $  .60   $  .41   $   .73



FULLY DILUTED SHARES:

Average common shares outstanding.................  10,191   9,629     9,144
Common equivalent shares outstanding..............     525      685      456
Potential dilution of preferred stock.............       *        *       553
 ..................................................  10,716   10,314    10,153



Net income applicable to common stock.............  $6,432   $4,236   $ 6,929
Add back dividend on preferred stock..............       *        *       462


Net income for calculating fully diluted
  earnings per share..............................  $6,432   $4,236   $ 7,391



Net income per common and common
  equivalent share, fully diluted.................  $  .60   $  .41   $  .73





*Excluded because the result would be anti-dilutive.

NOTE:     Fully diluted earnings per share do not result in dilution of
          three percent or more or are anti-dilutive and, therefore, are
          not separately presented in the consolidated statements of income.
TELCO COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.
SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE


WEIGHTED  AVERAGE  NUMBER OF SHARES

The  weighted  average  number  of  shares of  common  stock  and  common  stock
equivalents,  after  adjusting for the 425-to-1  stock split,  was determined as
follows:

For all periods  presented  prior to the initial  public  offering,  outstanding
options for common stock granted  within 12 months of the initial filing date of
the initial public offering have been included in the calculations of common and
common  equivalent  shares  outstanding using the treasury stock method based on
the initial public offering price of $14 per share as the market price.

                                           Three months ended March 31,
                                        (in thousands, except per share data)

                                                 1996                   1997
                                                -----                  -----

Common Stock:
    Shares outstanding beginning of period     20,864                 32,755
    Shares issued during period, net (1)           --                    144
    SEC SAB 83 shares (2)                       5,889                     --
                                               26,753                 32,899

Common Stock Equivalents:
    Options (3)                                   956                  1,334
    Warrants (4)                                  636                     --
                                                1,592                  1,334

Weighted average number of shares              28,345                 34,233

Net income (loss)                            $  3,281                $ 6,859

Net income (loss) per share                  $   0.12                $  0.20
      
---------------------------------------------

(1)  Weighted average shares issued
(2)  Shares and employee options issued from June 14, 1995
       through June 13, 1996                                            7,094
         Less shares reacquired under treasury stock method             1,205
                                                                      --------
         Net SAB 83 shares                                              5,889
                                                                      ========
(3)  Options granted, less shares acquired under treasury stock method,
         on a weighted average basis.
(4)  Represents warrant held by Signet Media Capital Group to purchase
         636,158 shares of common stock at a nominal exercise price.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

[DESCRIPTION] Article 5 Fin. Data Schedule for 10-Q
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            Mar-31-2000

<CASH>                                       25,360
<SECURITIES>                                  6,998
<RECEIVABLES>                                19,551
<ALLOWANCES>                                  2,736
<INVENTORY>                                   1,930
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             56,099
<PP&E>                                       43,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              102,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        18,141
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        168
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   80,770
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                102,499
<SALES>                                      25,207
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             25,207
<CGS>                                        13,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                23,636
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (314)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               1,885
<INCOME-TAX>                                    813
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           1,072
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  1,072
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.06


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF POST APARTMENT HOMES, L.P. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>   0001012271
<NAME>  POST APARTMENT HOMES, L.P.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       8,140,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                   2,482,243,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             287,841,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,257,398,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    893,400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,000
<COMMON>                                       386,000
<OTHER-SE>                               1,247,859,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,257,398,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           254,442,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              133,863,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          24,075,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             89,655,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         78,976,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                521,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                78,455,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.78


</TABLE>
II 

Calendar No. 429 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2377 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ‘‘Walter H. Rice 

Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2018 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. PORTMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

MAY 23, 2018 

Reported by Mr. BARRASSO, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Walter H. Rice Federal Building and United 

States Courthouse’’. 

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


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2377 RS

1 SECTION 1. WALTER H. RICE FEDERAL BUILDING AND 

2 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building and United 

4 States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd Street in Day5 ton, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Walter 

6 H. Rice Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the Federal building and United States court10 house referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 

11 a reference to the ‘‘Walter H. Rice Federal Building and 

12 United States Courthouse’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 429 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2377 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United 

house’’. Federal Building and United States CourtStreet in Dayton, Ohio, as the ‘‘Walter H. Rice States courthouse located at 200 West 2nd 

MAY 23, 2018 

Reported without amendment 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7390

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LEE BENTLEY FARKAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:10-cr-00200-LMB-1; 1:13-cv-01191-LMB)

Submitted: January 30, 2015 Decided: February 5, 2015

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Erica Tamar Dubno, Herald Price Fahringer, FAHRINGER & DUBNO, 

New York, New York, for Appellant. Paul Nathanson, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lee Bentley Farkas seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Farkas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                                        5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000076063
<NAME>                        PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                           DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               94,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                 55,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           180,000
<PP&E>                                                   2,777,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                           1,798,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           1,973,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      914,000
<BONDS>                                                    299,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                     1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                 557,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             1,973,000
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           496,000
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              213,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            82,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          77,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            225,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                57,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         91,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0    
<NET-INCOME>                                                91,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0 <F1>
        
<FN>
<F1>Not meaningful since Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company is a
wholly-owned subsidiary.
</FN>

</TABLE>
SCWC-17-0000570

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

SHAUN WRIGHT and ANNETT WRIGHT,

Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellees,

vs.

MIYAKE CONCRETE ACCESSORIES, INC.,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,

and

MIYAKE CONCRETE ACCESSORIES, INC.,

Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

SAMUEL S. KIYABU, dba KIYABU CONSTRUCTION, INC., SANDPIPER

CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Hawai#i corporation, DESPINS GENERAL

CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Hawai#i corporation, BRIAN SHIMOMURA and

BRIAN SHIMOMURA & ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Hawai#i Limited Liability

Company, Respondents/Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.

(CIVIL NO. 09-1-0748(3))

DESPINS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee/Counter-Defendant-Appellee,

vs.

SHAUN WRIGHT and ANNETT WRIGHT, 

Respondents/Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees,

(CIVIL NO. 10-1-0191(3))

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-17-0000570

29-DEC-2017

03:05 PM
MIYAKE CONCRETE ACCESSORIES, INC., a Hawai#i corporation,

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

BRIAN SHIMOMURA and BRIAN SHIMOMURA &

ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Hawai#i Limited Liability Company,

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

(CIVIL NO. 11-1-0153(1))

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-17-0000098 and CAAP-17-0000570)

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

It appearing that there is no judgment on appeal or

dismissal order filed in the above-referenced matter, see Hawai#i

Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) (Supp. 2013); see also Hawai#i Rules

of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 36(b)(1) (2012),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner/PlaintiffAppellant’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on

December 18, 2017, is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing

the application pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1(a) (2014). (“The

application shall be filed within thirty days after the filing of

the intermediate court of appeals’ judgment on appeal or

dismissal order, unless the time for filing the application is

extended in accordance with this rule.”).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 29, 2017.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20258 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN MANUEL SAUCEDA, also known as Manuel Sauceda, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CR-130-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 10, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. *
PER CURIAM: ** Appellant Juan Manuel Sauceda appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Sauceda argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to tell him, prior to Sauceda taking the stand in his own defense, that the district court, rather than the jury, would be sentencing him. Sauceda contends that he testified so that the jury wouldNo. 98-20258 -2- mitigate his sentence. “As a general rule, Sixth Amendment claims of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be litigated on direct appeal, unless they were adequately raised in the district court.” United States v. Gibson , 55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1995). The court will reach the merits of the claim only “in rare cases where the record [allows the court] to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim.” United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). This is not one of those “rare cases.” We decline to review this claim because it was not adequately raised before the district court. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment, but without prejudice to a subsequent motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We express no view on the merits of such motion.
AFFIRMED.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Richard Lynn Key , Appellant

No. 06

- 22

- 00090

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 52nd District Court of Coryell County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 21

- 26855 ). Memorandum Op inion delivered by Justice van Cleef

, Chief Justice Stevens

and Justice Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Richard Lynn Key , has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MAY 3, 2023
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
SCOTT E. STEVENS
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk