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

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             DECEMBER 31
                                               ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1996           1995           1994          1993           1992
                                                   ----           ----           ----          ----           ----
<S>                                           <C>            <C>            <C>           <C>            <C>      
(A)   Net Income (Loss)                        $    68,279    $  (581,864)   $   459,290   $   843,479    $   834,705
                                               ===========    ===========    ===========   ===========    ===========

      Weighted Average of
      Common Shares Out-
      standing                                   1,608,163      1,550,685      1,541,670     1,590,653      1,308,037


      Potential Shares
      Attributable to
      Options Outstanding                            1,969         38,676        107,976       121,808         57,413
                                               -----------    -----------    -----------   -----------    -----------

(B)   Weighted Average of Common
      and Common Equivalent
      Shares Outstanding                         1,610,132      1,589,361      1,649,646     1,712,461      1,365,450
                                               ===========    ===========    ===========   ===========    ===========

      Primary Net Income (Loss) Per Common
      Share (A/B)                              $       .04    $      (.37)   $       .28   $       .49    $       .49*
                                               ===========    ===========    ===========   ===========    ===========
</TABLE>

*Restated to reflect a five-for-four stock split, effected in the form of a 25%
stock dividend to Shareholders of record on March 19, 1993.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 Current Report Filed Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report
(Date of earliest event reported): June 5, 2007
 Repros Therapeutics Inc.
  Delaware
    
    001-15281
    
    76-0233274(State or other jurisdiction of
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)incorporation or organization)
 2408 Timberloch Place, Suite B-7
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
 (281) 719-3400
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



Item 8.01. Other Information
   Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits
  ExhibitNumber
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release dated June 5, 2007.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  Repros Therapeutics Inc.Date:  June 5, 2007.
    By:
    /s/ Louis Ploth, Jr.Louis Ploth, Jr.Vice President, Business Development and
Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 ExhibitNumber
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release dated June 5, 2007.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7723

JOHN WAYNE SIMMONS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ENNIS OATES,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,

District Judge. (5:12-hc-02180-FL)

Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 21, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Wayne Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Wayne Simmons seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Simmons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Spectra Energy Partners, LP;2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date:
November 14, 2007
    
    /s/ Lon C. Mitchell, Jr.Lon C. Mitchell, Jr.Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerSpectra Energy Partners GP, LLCGeneral Partner of Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LPGeneral Partner of Spectra Energy Partners, LP
<PAGE>


                                                                    EX 23.1

                             ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT
                                        
The Board of Directors
Pinkerton's, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-36200, 33-41795, 33-68492, 33-93902, and 333-31243) on Form S-8 of
Pinkerton's, Inc. of our report dated February 12, 1999, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Pinkerton's, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December
25, 1998 and December 26, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years ended
December 25, 1998, December 26, 1997 and December 27, 1996, and the related
financial statement schedule (Schedule II), which report appears in the December
25, 1998 Form 10-K of Pinkerton's, Inc.

KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 25, 1999
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.5A


CHS LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
Plan Appendix


Fiscal 2014-2016 RETURN ON ADJUSTED EQUITY


	
				
	Performance Targets
	CHS ROAE
	Description
	Award as % of Target Goal

	Superior Performance Maximum
	20.0%
	Superior Performance Goal
	400%

	Maximum
	14.0%
	Maximum Performance Goal
	200%

	Target
	10.0%
	Target Performance Goal
	100%

	Threshold
	8.0%
	Minimum Performance Goal
	20%






Note: Compensation earned for any Performance Period is mathematically interpolated when
performance results occur between the three ROAE Performance Targets.


RETURN ON ADJUSTED EQUITY
	
			
	ROAE
(percentage determined by dividing three year adjusted year-end earnings by three year adjusted beginning year equity)
	=
	

Three year Adjusted Year-End Earnings
(earnings minus preferred stock dividends)

	

Three year Adjusted Beginning Year Equity
(beginning year equity minus preferred stock)






* Equity is the difference between total assets and total liabilities in the balance sheet.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 192 ) M-K-(I)- 5 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:55AM Sheet 192 of 325P. 2

II-K-(I)- 5
FOSSI L FUE L DEMAN

D FO R STATIONAR Y- SOURC E COMBUSTIO N AN D OTHE R SELECTE D DAT A FOR EAC H STAT E AN D AI R QUALIT Y CONTRO L REGION . WORKING PAPER . Th e Mitr e Corporation . Apri l 1975 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)- 5
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2880 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2880

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 2016

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To redesignate the Martin Luther King, Junior, National Historic Site 
            in the State of Georgia, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Martin Luther King, Jr. National 
Historical Park Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

    The Act entitled ``An Act to establish the Martin Luther King, 
Junior, National Historic Site in the State of Georgia, and for other 
purposes'' (Public Law 96-428) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a) of the first section, by striking 
        ``the map entitled `Martin Luther King, Junior, National 
        Historic Site Boundary Map', number 489/80,013B, and dated 
        September 1992'' and inserting ``the map entitled `Martin 
        Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park Proposed Boundary 
        Revision', numbered 489/128,786 and dated June 2015'';
            (2) by striking ``Martin Luther King, Junior, National 
        Historic Site'' each place it appears and inserting ``Martin 
        Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park'';
            (3) by striking ``national historic site'' each place it 
        appears and inserting ``national historical park'';
            (4) by striking ``historic site'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``historical park''; and
            (5) by striking ``historic sites'' in section 2(a) and 
        inserting ``historical parks''.

SEC. 3. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law (other than this Act), map, regulation, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to ``Martin 
Luther King, Junior, National Historic Site'' shall be deemed to be a 
reference to ``Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 24, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Andre L. Richard Co., Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Swiss Pine Importing Co., Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

April 29, 1958.

*Jaclt Last*for plaintiff.

*Gainsburg, Gottlieb, Levitan & Cole*for defendant.

Aron Steuer, J.

Plaintiff markets a product called ‘1 Lavender Mist ” which is a lavender-scented spray for linens, closets and the like. Defendant has come on the market with a product to be similarly used called “ Lavender Sachet Mist ”. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the use of that name.

“ Lavender ” is a descriptive word of the scent and color of the flower of the same name. No exclusive rights to its use in connection with a product so scented or colored can be obtained. It is different with the word “mist.” Mist refers to a natural phenomenon similar to a fine rain but suspended in the atmosphere rather than falling. The word also defines the obscurity resulting from its presence. Its use in connection with a spray might ordinarily be said to be fanciful and rights in connection with it can be obtained. However the record shows that three manufacturers other than the parties use the word “ mist ” to describe a like product. Where a use is general, even though fanciful, no proprietary rights can be maintained. This is not to say that if several manufacturers adopt a title to which another has rights, the latter is without remedy any more than a patentee loses no rights because there are several infringers instead of one. It merely means that the existence of these *211several users in the field easts doubt on whether the title is exclusive with plaintiff or in the public domain.

Plaintiff also complains of defendant’s packaging. An almost unbelievable number of similar products were exhibited on the argument. They are all sold in cans of very similar size and generally of a pastel color associated with the flower suggested. Likewise they all have a spraying device in the cap. In fact, of the lot, defendant’s package appears to this nonprofessional eye as the most distinctive from the others.

Final determination will have to await the trial but sufficient has been shown to defeat relief in advance.
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 17797.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 11, 1935.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for forgery; punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary. The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
*

Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not

participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of

the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7841

RONALD A. PEGUESE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-05-196-2)

Submitted: April 24, 2006 Decided: May 24, 2006

Before LUTTIG* and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald A. Peguese, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Anthony Peguese, a state prisoner, moves this

court for a certificate of appealability that, if issued, would

authorize an appeal from the district court’s order accepting the

report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Peguese 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 contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 23.1
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
  No. 123(R), Share-based Payment, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations,
**MAXCO,
      INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**




**EXHIBIT
      32.1 - CERTIFICATION**








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 this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Maxco, Inc. (the “Company”)
      for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Max A. Coon, as Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
            This
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and




(2)
            Information
                contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
                the
                financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.




Date: 
      February 3, 2006


/s/
      MAX
      A. COON


Max
      A.
      Coon


Chief
      Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Official Journal C 94A/28 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 94A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5028 April 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 94A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5028 April 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2007/C 094A/01 | Corrigendum to Notice of open competition: research manager — forecasting expert — Reference EF/TA/07/02 (OJ C 68 A, 24.3.2007) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Corrigenda

2007/C 094A/01

Corrigendum to Notice of open competition: research manager — forecasting expert — Reference EF/TA/07/02 (OJ C 68 A, 24.3.2007)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 99.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Polymer research Corp. of
America (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002
( the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

               April __, 2003                 /s/ Carl Horowitz
                                              ------------------------
                                              Carl Horowitz
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              and Chief Financial Officer
#### Herman KIRBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 20870.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 17, 1940.

No attorney for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to rob; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for eight years.

Upon the written request of appellant, duly verified by his affidavit, the appeal is dismissed.

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.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

|  | (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. |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                  May 12, 2008 |                                                                           |                                   |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                |                                                                           |                                   |
|                                | By:                                                                            | /s/                  Raymond Threlkeld |
|                                |                                                                           |                                   |
|                                | Raymond                Threlkeld                                               |
|                                | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |

----