alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11

                            VALCOM, INC.
                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                      FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
                        JUNE 30, 2001 AND 2000
<TABLE>
Computation of earnings per common share
<CAPTION>
                                            Six Months     Six Months
                                              Ended            Ended
                                          June 30, 2001    June 30, 2000
                                            --------------   --------------

                                       <c>              <c>
Shares outstanding:                          93,356,507       90,039,843
Weighted average shares outstanding          91,735,000       89,900,000
Net loss                                   $ (1,569,888)    $    (63,541)
Preferred Dividend                                --               --
                                           --------------   --------------
Total                                        (1,569,888)        (63,541)
Net loss per share                         $    (0.02)     $     (0.00)

</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 267 

To provide for the correction of a survey of certain land in the State of 

Alaska. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 

Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the correction of a survey of certain land 

in the State of Alaska. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF FEDERAL LAND WITHIN THE 

4 SWAN LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 

5 BOUNDARY. 

6 Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 

7 of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior, after consulta8 tion with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall— 

9 (1) survey the exterior boundaries of the tract 

10 of Federal land within the project boundary of the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 267 IS

1 Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2911) 

2 as generally depicted and labeled ‘‘Lost Creek’’ on 

3 the map entitled ‘‘Swan Lake Project Boundary— 

4 Lot 2’’ and dated February 1, 2016; and 

5 (2) issue a patent to the State of Alaska for the 

6 tract described in paragraph (1) in accordance 

7 with— 

8 (A) the survey authorized under paragraph 

9 (1); 

10 (B) section 6(a) of the Act of July 7, 1958 

11 (commonly known as the ‘‘Alaska Statehood 

12 Act’’) (48 U.S.C. note prec. 21; Public Law 85– 

13 508); and 

14 (C) section 24 of the Federal Power Act 

15 (16 U.S.C. 818). 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### HUFF v. STATE.

No. 19389.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 13, 1937.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is murder; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for twenty-five years.

The indictment appears regular and properly presented. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. The charge of the court, to which no exceptions were addressed, adequately protected the rights of *theL*appellant.

No error having been perceived requiring a reversal, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

BENITO TORRES, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-595

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 17, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Manatee County; Edward Nicholas, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Bolender v. State, 658 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1995); Cassoday v. 

State, 237 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1970); Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2006) (en banc); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Golden v. 

State, 870 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Carr v. State, 495 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 

1986). 

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2836 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to expand the number 

of employers required to provide a reasonable time and place for employees to express milk at the workplace. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2015 

Ms. MENG (for herself, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. 

FRANKEL of Florida, Mr. SWALWELL of California, Ms. LEE, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. O’ROURKE, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mrs. 

NAPOLITANO, Ms. NORTON, Ms. KUSTER, Mr. HASTINGS, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, and Mrs. TORRES) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to expand 

the number of employers required to provide a reasonable 

time and place for employees to express milk at the 

workplace. 

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


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2836 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair 

2 Access for Moms Act’’. 

3 SEC. 2. EMPLOYERS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE 

4 TIME AND PLACE FOR EXPRESSING MILK. 

5 Section 7(r)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 

6 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207(r)(3)) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘50’’and inserting ‘‘15’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF APPLIED ANALYTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. 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>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,842
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,456
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,255
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,829
<PP&E>                                          76,074
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,699
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,121
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,690
<SALES>                                         24,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,906
<CGS>                                           13,526
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,999
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   114
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    524
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       524
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

As adopted pursuant to

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Quarterly Report of Park
Bancorp, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2010, (the Report), I, Victor E. Caputo, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Victor E. CaputoVictor E. CaputoTreasurer and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 15, 2010




27
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2799 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand access to stroke 

telehealth services under the Medicare program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 17, 2015 

Mr. GRIFFITH (for himself, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. HARPER, Mr. THOMPSON of California, and Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 

Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand 

access to stroke telehealth services under the Medicare 

program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Furthering Access to 

5 Stroke Telemedicine Act’’ or the ‘‘FAST Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2799 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDING ACCESS TO STROKE TELEHEALTH 

2 SERVICES UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1834(m)(4)(C) of the So4 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(m)(4)(C)) is amend5 ed— 

6 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘The term’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘Subject to clause (iii), the term’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

9 clause: 

10 ‘‘(iii) STROKE TELEHEALTH SERV11 ICES.—With respect to services related to 

12 the evaluation or treatment of an acute 

13 stroke that are provided within the evi14 dence-based window of treatment, the term 

15 ‘originating site’ means any site at which 

16 the eligible telehealth individual is located 

17 at the time the service is furnished via a 

18 telecommunications system, regardless of 

19 where the site is located.’’. 

20 (b) NO ORIGINATING SITE FACILITY FEE FOR NEW

21 SITES.—Section 1834(m)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act 

22 (42 U.S.C. 1395m(m)(2)(B)) is amended, in the matter 

23 preceding clause (i), by inserting ‘‘(other than an origi24 nating site that is only described in clause (iii) of para25 graph (4)(C), and does not meet the requirement for an 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2799 IH

1 originating site under clause (i) of such paragraph)’’ after 

2 ‘‘the originating site’’. 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to services furnished on or after 

5 the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment 

6 of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### SEIGLE et ux. v. STATE.

No. 3261.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Jan. 2, 1936.

A. T. Folsom, of Wink, for plaintiffs in error.

H. E. Wassell, Co. Atty., of Wink, for the State.

PELPHREY, Chief Justice.

This is a suit by the state of Texas to collect delinquent taxes alleged to be due on lot 9, block 26, in the city of Wink, Tex.

The original petition named both plaintiff in error and his wife, Mrs. A. R. Seigle, residents of the state of New York, as being the record owners of the property, and sought a recovery of $173.97, the taxes for the year 1929. A notice to serve nonresident defendant was issued and such notice was served on Mrs. Seigle alone. Thereafter an amended petition was filed naming both plaintiffs in error as defendants, in which a recovery of taxes for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931 was sought. In this petition A. R’. Seigle was named as the record owner, and both he and Mrs. Seigle were named as being personally liable because of their ownership of the property at the time the taxes accrued. A nonresident notice of this petition was served on A. R. Seigle alone. Defendant in error later filed a, second amended petition in which taxes for the years 1932 and 1933 were included. No notice was given of the filing of the latter amendment. Judgment by default was rendered against both plaintiffs in error for the full amount of taxes alleged to be due, together with the statutory penalty and a foreclosure of a tax lien on the property.

From such judgment the cause comes to this court on writ of error.

The sole assignment presented by plaintiffs in error questions the judgment because of lack of service as to the cause of action alleged in the second amended petition.

 We shall not here discuss the question presented for the reason that we have reached the conclusion that fundamental error is shown by the record in another particular. The notices to nonresidents which were served upon the plaintiffs in error are apparently those provided by article 2037, R.S. 1925; and do not constitute service in a suit for taxes. A special method of serving nonresidents in tax suits is provided by article 7342, R.S.1925, and is exclusive. Stoneman v. Bilby, 43 Tex.Civ.App. 293, 96 S.W; 50 (writ refused) ; Mote v. Thompson (Tex.Civ.App.) 156 S.W. 1105; Rousset v. Settegast (Tex.Civ.App.) 210 S.W. 219.

The service being insufficient to confer jurisdiction*, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
# C_2022459EN.01000201.xml

| 2.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10947 – ATLAS ARTERIA / OTPP / SKYWAY CONCESSION COMPANY)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 459/02)

On 25 November 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10947. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10947. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
[No. 24918-9-II.

Division Two.

December 21, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. William Henry Ameline, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 92-1-05238-7, Terry D. Sebring, J., entered July 23, 1999. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Armstrong, C.J., and Seinfeld, J.
# C_2022245EN.01001801.xml

| 28.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/18

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures

(2022/C 245/12)

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no duly substantiated request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-subsidy measure mentioned below will expire.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (2).

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Certain stainless steel bars and rods | India | Anti-subsidy duty | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1141 of 27 June 2017 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India following an expiry review under Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and the Council
  (OJ L 165, 28.6.2017, p. 2) | 29.6.2022 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

Certain stainless steel bars and rods

India

Anti-subsidy duty

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1141 of 27 June 2017 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel bars and rods originating in India following an expiry review under Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and the Council

(OJ L 165, 28.6.2017, p. 2)

29.6.2022

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 27.9.2021, p. 9.

(2)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55.

(3)  The measure will expire at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column.

---
# C_2022471EN.01000201.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10934 – VINCI ENERGIES / KONTRON IT SERVICE COMPANIES)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 471/02)

On 16 November 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10934. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10934. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Date: 

## (hO'fld_OLJ 1-cj 

# Ctj J'f 

## Clt 3frn Meeting: 

# f'fti>t~' £c'tf-Yl 

# f->P **~a** V

## f' 

# {M- **~ ~A----­**  Rule(s)Discussed: 

# Re.tvt· tfj Jeclr;-YL
**~e) o~"Y/.-e**  fJ **t17rtt~)** IYJ-fX:hCU1 e_, Written Materials? Yes/No Name Organization Phone N urnb er I I I,

'I I I ;(
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.40

                                PROMISSORY NOTE

$9,226.28                                                           May 10, 1996


      For value received, Robert M. Doyle ("Maker") promises to pay to the order
of Coinmach Laundry Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), at its
offices in Roslyn, New York, or such other place designated in writing by the
holder, the aggregate principal sum of $9,226.28. Maker will pay the aggregate
principal sum in eight equal payments of $1,153.29 on each of the first eight
anniversary dates of the date hereof and, on each such date, Maker will pay
interest accrued through such date at the rate specified below.

      Interest will accrue on the outstanding principal amount of this Note at a
rate equal to the lesser of (i) 8% per annum or (ii) the highest rate permitted
by applicable law, and shall be payable at such time as the principal of this
Note becomes due and payable.

      The amounts due under this Note are secured by a pledge of 599 shares of
the Company's Class B Common Stock, par value $.01 per share ("Common Stock")
issued to the Maker on the date hereof. such shares of Common Stock shall remain
in the possession of the Company until this Promissory Note is paid in full.

      In the even Maker fails to pay any amounts due hereunder when due, Maker
shall pay to the holder hereof, in addition to such amounts due, all costs of
collection, including reasonable attorneys fees.

      Maker, or his successors and assigns, hereby waives diligence,
presentment, protest and demand and notice of protest, demand, dishonor and
nonpayment of this Note, and expressly agrees that this Note, or any payment
hereunder, may be extended from time to time and that the holder hereof may
accept security for this Note or release security for this Note, all without in
any way affecting the liability of Maker hereunder.

      This Note shall be governed by the internal laws, not the laws of
conflicts, of the State of New York.

                                          /s/ ROBERT M. DOYLE
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Robert M. Doyle
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 22, 2023

NO. 03-22-00196-CV

John Muir, Appellant

v.

The University of Texas at Austin, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, THEOFANIS, AND JONES

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the Order granting the plea to the jurisdiction signed by the trial court on 

March 11, 2022. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that 

there was reversible error in the court’s Order. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s

Order granting the plea to the jurisdiction and remands the case to the trial court for further 

proceedings. Appellee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the 

court below.