alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                 EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                     MICROS SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
               (Unaudited - in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                        Three Months Ended 
                                                                                           September 30,
                                                                                       1997             1996
                                                                                       ----             ----
<S>                                                                                  <C>               <C>
Weighted-average number of common shares                                              7,999             7,946
Dilutive effect of outstanding stock options                                            246                25
                                                                                        ---                --
Weighted-average number of common and common  
 equivalent shares outstanding                                                        8,245             7,971
                                                                                      =====             =====
Net income                                                                           $3,015            $2,327
                                                                                     ======            ======
Net income per common and common      
 equivalent share                                                                    $ 0.37            $ 0.29
                                                                                     ======            ======
</TABLE>



                                      14
..... ~ ...... .,:0 ... ·-"~.-~~"'''' ... 4''.'''''.~.,.,.. .... ''''''' __ ,; .. ;#f ............... ' •• ', 

..:s:AI:~U~+"" IICLUDlm rlOK AUTOJIATIC REGRADING; 

NRO APPROVED DOD DIB. 5200.10 0018 10'1 APPLY FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON:'1 OCTOBER 2012 

oPPlC. Oft TItlE UNDKR SllCR&'rARY 

WMHINGTON 

__ ,. '1'D DlPDft SBCIlIUUOF lID'lIU 

'the atuehed ill • redraft of • ,bal. of 1IIlCI ... c.acU. .. 

betwMa the Cetral I:atel1lpllH Aaency &ad the De""t..at 

of Dlf .... relative to the Iatlou1 bCcmul .... ce Pnar-. • *cretGy JIc1I-er.a.lped the oriaiul draft, kit lIr. -,11 •• 

felt that ~ertaiD.c1NmI •• were de.t.r.bl. .. ~D felt tIIat 

he wwld,refar to have it 1D ~. f"mof a letter rat .. thaD a fonral • '.C'raad.ua. . 

"lite '-oa17 'uHtaative chale bas to do with tM de_.- tloa of »1.li ... l1m • .,..1£, •• tiq joiJIt,l,.. ... n-.... - aibl. for the proar- rather. thaa the .rfiCtct,... .... t:J" Ilreetft 

re1ac1eaahip ill the or18laal .111.r .... •• whielllk •••• n 

81ped 41 '!lie. other c:haps. wre al1- Jd.Dor. . . ! 

S.cr.t:ar;' .... ar. hu r ..... ted tlaat you _t.p tile ... 

doc*-1lt, 1f qr ... ~l.. I _c1e •• the oriataal-RI·i.dwe 

of ...... tadilll for ref.race .hoa14 yeu·:'''l~. to ..... it 111 detail. 

Inch. 

1 •. Oril· ... of Uaderatad1118 

2. hopo." Itr to lIr. ))all .. for. alpatare. wiatt .ora. chart 

1'1l1a dOCNlll8Dt ooDs1at8 ot __ L ..... 

~ ., .... ;..t...... ~ ~,.. ..... T9~6EGRET 

SPECIAL HANDLING 

,-

·1-···· 

I .
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Stripcropping, Tree/Shrub Establishment, Upland Wildlife Habitat Management, Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2979

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Kenton Burton, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

___________________________

No. 20-2983

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Kenton Burton, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________ Submitted: May 6, 2021 Filed: May 11, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Kenton Burton appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed at his consolidated sentencing after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery and his supervised release was revoked. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence. Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issues counsel raises challenging the brandishing enhancement and the substantive reasonableness of the bank robbery sentence. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). To the extent Burton challenges the calculation of his criminal history, we conclude that the district court’s calculation was correct. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (construction and application of Guidelines are reviewed de novo). To the extent he challenges the reasonableness of his supervised release revocation sentence, we conclude it was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive

1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2-reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in part based on the appeal waiver, otherwise affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-3-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         4536527
<SECURITIES>                                     29999
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2829701
<ALLOWANCES>                                     44249
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              22601523
<PP&E>                                       125725771
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5451021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               150402353
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         68043122
<BONDS>                                       68179741
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                   36247675
<COMMON>                                      27956185
<OTHER-SE>                                     6030438
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 150402353
<SALES>                                       53960624
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              54082088
<CGS>                                         44318731
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 54178326
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7710154
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5421373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (7806392)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    121500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (7927892)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (7927892)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.57)
        

</TABLE>
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-18-00108-CR

MICHAEL BRANDON GARRETT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 46938-A

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
2

O RDER

Appellant Michael Brandon Garrett was convicted of family violence assault and, after a 

sentence enhancement, was sentenced to twelve years’ incarceration. Garrett has appealed from 

that conviction and the resulting sentence. On November 26, 2018, Garrett’s court-appointed 

appellate counsel, Jason Cassel, filed an Anders1 brief, and on December 20, 2018, Garrett filed a 

pro se motion for access to the appellate record for purposes of preparing a response to his 

counsel’s Anders brief. Under Kelly v. State,

2 we are required to enter an order specifying the 

procedure to be followed to ensure Garrett’s access to the record.

To ensure that Garrett receives a complete copy of the appellate record in a timely manner, 

we hereby order our clerk’s office to provide a complete paper copy of the appellate record to 

Garrett care of the Bradshaw Unit in Henderson, Texas. Allowing ten days for that record to be 

delivered to Garrett and giving Garrett thirty days to prepare his pro se response, we hereby set 

February 11, 2019, as the deadline for Garrett to file his pro se response to his counsel’s Anders

brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

DATE: January 3, 2019

 1

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7826

ARTHUR CARL DOVE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus QUALITY DENTAL SERVICE; CYNTHIA IDZIK, Doctor, DDS; OSWALD WARNER, Doctor, DDS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-157-AW) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 1, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Joseph Bernard Tetrault, PRISM, Chestertown, Maryland, for Appellant. Kevin Bock Karpinski, ALLEN, JOHNSON, ALEXANDER & KARP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Arthur Carl Dove appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Dove v. Quality Dental Serv. , No. CA-98- 157-AW (D. Md. Nov. 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2005024EN.01000401.xml

| 29.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 January 2005

(2005/C 24/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3035 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,69 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4419 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69255 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0875 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5461 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 80,77 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2500 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5832 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,223 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,13 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6962 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4313 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0530 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 37 705 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,78 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,338 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7377 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6847 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6167 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1663 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8312 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1315 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 334,52 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,7643 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3035

JPY

Japanese yen

134,69

DKK

Danish krone

7,4419

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69255

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0875

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5461

ISK

Iceland króna

80,77

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2500

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5832

CZK

Czech koruna

30,223

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,13

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6962

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4313

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0530

ROL

Romanian leu

37 705

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,78

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,338

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7377

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6847

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6167

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1663

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8312

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1315

KRW

South Korean won

1 334,52

ZAR

South African rand

7,7643

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### Surviving Partners of Auley McNaughton & Co. *v.*Lester.

The Plaintiff produced a notice of taking a deposition, purporting I hat the. deposition would be taken on a certain day iu Housertown, before Justices, naming them.. The caption of the deposition expressed that it was taken on that day at Housertown.

Per *curiam*

The deposition cannot he read. The house where it is to be taken must be specified in the notice,, not the town only *;*for then the deposition may be taken at a place ¡11 the town, of which the adverse party may know nothing, and thus he deprived of the benefit of cross-examination.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 16, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 16, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A25D0013. ERIN KAKHADZE v. LEVAN KAKHADZE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2023CV390498
' • UM MIMI

RUXQAA

RUXQAA 566'2911333

ZNY XXXXX VVV ZN%

R.151332Z •

3T swa

I1PD-T

U rSECPET

3T

C,

C

iiiii1775

PASS11111111,

C.

1513327. OCT 73 CITE 312.

7CUR

-4ERAL 3RAD3URN FROM GENERAL KULFA.

inJEZTS VISIT OF O. LABERGE

10N)AY I BRIEFED THE NEW ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

THE A TP rrRCE ('.tD), DR. WALTER B. LA3ERGE, SSAN:

CLEARED SI/Tit AND ALL BYEPIAN PROJECTS.

- SIVE`, THE USUAL OVERVIEW OF THE tap INCLUDING

SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS. IN PREPARATION FOR DR. LA3ERGE'S

VISIT WITH YOU ON OCTOBER 25, I PASS ALONG THE FOLLOWING

SUZJECTS 1.4MICH ARE OF INTEREST TO HIM.

1. THE USE OF LAUNCH PADS AND BC...ETERS AT VANDENBER: AFB— INCLUDIMI PLANNEZ FREZUENCY OF LAUNCHES,

c3mrsrlok! PR33LEnS ON THE PADS, AND TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN

1M: 14:CHEF F7OM EAST AND VEST COAST SITES. .

C

PAGE 2 CITE 312

MRP .n.uDS AND :HE

PUN 007N ON USE OF THE SATELLITE TEST

e CENT EE.

4. ArROSP CE CORPORA OFFICE.

C.

C.

F

C

HE

y esr . 3 ra w".

- e

flirt:: • . . . 6 tai,4 LI;

rettr"•4 Prr""" uset11

C.

C

• t:

•• am al.. Ma.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                 Certification


In connection with the periodic report of Optika Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Mark K. Ruport, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:

                  (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
                  indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


         February 4, 2004                  /s/ Mark K. Ruport
    ---------------------------     ----------------------------------
              (Date)                          Mark K. Ruport
                                    President, Chief Executive Officer
                                         and Chairman of the Board
Written Agreement by and amongCITIZENS REPUBLIC BANCORP, INC.
    
    
    
    Docket Nos. 10-159-WA/RB-HCFlint, Michigan
    
    
    
    10-159-WA/RB-SMCITIZENS BANKFlint, MichiganFEDERAL RESERVE BANK OFCHICAGOChicago, IllinoisandMICHIGAN OFFICE OF FINANCIALAND INSURANCE REGULATIONLansing, Michigan




---



##### 



Source of Strength
  Management Review
   2




---



##### 



Credit Risk Management
   3




---



##### 



Credit Administration
    Asset Improvement
  4




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses
  6




---



##### 



7




---



##### 



Capital Plan
     8




---



##### 



Earnings Plan and Budget
   9




---



##### 



Funds and Interest Rate Risk Management
    Dividends and Distributions
   10




---



##### 



Debt and Stock Redemption
   11




---



##### 



Compliance with Laws and Regulations
 et seq.
  Compliance with Agreement
   12




---



##### 



Approval and Implementation of Plans and Programs
    Communications
  (a)
    
    Mr. Douglas J. Kasl
Vice President
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
230 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
 (b)
    
    Mr. Gary L. Thielsen
Assistant Director, Bank and Trust Division
Michigan Office of Financial
and Insurance Regulation
Post Office Box 30220
Lansing, Michigan 48909-0220
 (c)
    
    Ms. Cathleen H. Nash
President and Chief Executive Officer
Citizens Republic Bancorp and Citizens Bank
328 South Saginaw Street
Flint, Michigan 48502-2401
 13




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
     14




---



##### 



th
 CITIZENS REPUBLIC BANCORP, INC.
    
    
    
    FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF CHICAGOBy:
    
    /s/ Cathleen H. Nash
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Douglas J. KaslCathleen H. Nash
    
    
    
    
    
    Douglas J. KaslVice PresidentCITIZENS BANK
    
    
    
    MICHIGAN OFFICE OF FINANCIAL
AND INSURANCE REGULATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Cathleen H. Nash
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Stephen R. HilkerCathleen H. Nash
    
    
    
    
    
    Stephen R. HilkerChief Deputy Commissioner
 15
# Soil Science Contacts

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Conservation Basics 
-  Natural Resource Concerns 
-  Soil 
-  Soil Science Contacts 

Directories for the Soil and Plant Science Division, National Soil Survey Center, Soil Survey Regions, State Soil Scientists, and Focus Teams.

Soil and Plant Science Division
The Soil and Plant Science Division (SPSD) provides national direction for the soil and ecological science that supports conservation and leadership of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

National Soil Survey Center
The National Soil Survey Center manages the national soils, laboratory, ecological, and botanical databases—the world’s largest collection of natural resources data!

Soil Survey Regions
Soil survey regional offices provide leadership in the production and quality assurance of soil survey and ecological site information. Soil Survey Regional Directors supervise and manage the staff within their respective soi...

State Soil Scientists
State soil scientists provide statewide leadership in the application and use of soil survey information.

Focus Teams
Effectively and efficiently delivers soil and ecological site knowledge to the user community.

**  Anonymous Feedback**

Use this Feedback Form to anonymously submit comments or suggestions to the Soil and Plant Science Division Director.

##   Contact Soils

Please contact us if you see something that needs to be updated, if you have any questions, or if you need accessibility assistance.
                  -    Soils Webmaster 
                  -    402-437-5499 
                  -    Soils-Webmaster@usda.gov 

## Find Your Local Service Center

    USDA Service Centers are locations where you can connect with Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or Rural Development employees for your business needs. Enter your state and county below to find your local service center and agency offices. If this locator does not work in your browser, please visit offices.usda.gov.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Our company is looking for a UAV commercial license exception in order to take drone video footage of golf courses for our client events. The drone footage would not be taken from an altitude higher than 200 feet, and will always take place on private golf course property. The drone will be used to act like someone hitting a golf ball, thus, the drone will never fly higher than 200 feet (or roughly the highest a human can hit a golf ball into theair). Drone footage will primarily occur in the early morning hours, when limited (or no) golf course staff or golfers will be on the golf course, for purposes of safety.

Our company has been in business since 1977 and operates a golf tour operator business, in which we coordinate golf travel to various destinations throughout the US and the world. In recent years/months, clients have continually requested we take drone footage of the golf courses they are playing, in order to turn the footage into an online video/photography montage. We have also been approached by various golf courses to take drone footage, which will then be utilized on their respective websites for marketing purposes. Since the requested drone footage will always take place on private property, with limited or no humans present, and never at high altitudes, we respectfully request an exceptional be allowed under the above outlined circumstances.