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

Exhibit 11.1

                           DESTRON FEARING CORPORATION

     Calculation of Net Income (Loss) Per Common and Common Equivalent Share
                     (in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                       Quarter Ended March 31,   Six Months Ended March 31,
                                       ----------------------    -------------------------
                                            1997     1996             1997     1996
                                            ----     ----             ----     ----
<S>                                       <C>      <C>              <C>      <C>
Net income (loss)                            $201    ($660)            $282    ($962)
                                          -------  -------          -------  -------
                                          -------  -------          -------  -------
Weighted average number of common
  and common equivalent shares
  outstanding:

Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding                12,766   11,612          12,205   11,399

Dilutive effect of stock options after                            
  application of the treasury stock                                 
  method                                      244       --             244       --
                                          -------  -------         -------  -------
                                           13,010   11,612          12,449   11,399
                                          -------  -------         -------  -------
                                          -------  -------         -------  -------
Net income (loss) per common                                      
  and common equivalent share               $0.02   ($0.05)          $0.02   ($0.08)
                                          -------  -------         -------  -------
                                          -------  -------         -------  -------
</TABLE>


                                      -14-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. : CRIMINAL NO: CR-1-00-93

: JUDGE SPIEGEL

TODD, B. OLIVER, 

Defendant.

SATISFACTION OF CRIMINAL JUDGMENT

Now comes the United States of America and notifies this Court that the Defendant died

November 13, 2007. As a result of the Defendant’s death, his liability to pay the fine imposed in

this case is terminated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3613 (b). Therefore, the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Ohio is authorized and empowered to satisfy said

judgment of record.

Respectfully submitted,

GREGORY G. LOCKHART

United States Attorney

s/Deborah F. Sanders

DEBORAH F. SANDERS (0043575)

Assistant United States Attorney

Southern District of Ohio

303 Marconi Boulevard, Suite 200

Columbus, Ohio 43215-2401

(614) 469-5715

Case 1:00-cr-00093-SAS Document 62 Filed 08/14/2008 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true copy of the above and foregoing Satisfaction of Judgement was electronically

filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and mailed to the Estate of 

Defendant, Todd, B. Oliver, 2636 Stanton Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45206 by first class mail,

postage prepaid, this 14th day of August, 2008.

s/Deborah F. Sanders

DEBORAH F. SANDERS (0043575)

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 1:00-cr-00093-SAS Document 62 Filed 08/14/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### Kansas City, Pittsburg *&*Gulp Railway Company *v.*Parker.

Opinion delivered June 15, 1901.

Gabnishment — Situs of Debt. — A citizen of the sta.te can garnish & foreign railroad company operating its road within the state for a debt due to one of its employees for labor performed in the state, though the employee is a resident of a foreign state.

Appeal from Polk Circuit Court.

Will P. Feazel, Judge.

*Road &*McDonough, for appellant.

Garnishment did not lie against appellant for the debt due in another state to a citizen of such other state. 78 Ala. 524; Ell. .Railroads, § 634; 2 *id.*p. 888, note 1. There being no showing that the money was due the defendant in garnishment in Arkansas, garnishment did not lie against appellant. 8 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1129.

Wood, J'.

The appellee brought suit against one B. B. Gil-ham, obtained personal service, and recovered judgment against him. Gilham was a citizen of Missouri. Appellee also garnished the appellant for a debt due Gilham for work done for it in the state of Arkansas, and recovered judgment, from which this appeal is taken. The question is, can appellee, a citizen of Arkansas, garnish a foreign railroad corporation operating a railroad in this state for a debt due one of its employees for labor performed in the state of Arkansas, the employee being a citizen of Missouri ?

There is great contrariety of judicial opinion on the question of the situs of debt for the purpose of garnishment. Prof. Minor, in his recent work on Conflict of Laws, after stating and reviewing the various theories held upon the subject, states the true theory to be that the situs of a debt, for purposes of garnishment, is not only at the domicil of the debtor, but in any state in which the garnishee may be found, provided the municipal law of that state permits the debtor to be garnished, and provided the court acquires jurisdiction over the garnishee through his vol*402untary appearance or actual service of process upon him within the state. We concur in this view. For a full discussio-n of the question see Minor on Conflict of Laws, p. 270, chap. 10; Waples, Debtor and Creditor, *situs of*debt, §§ 171, 174, 176, 177, and authorities cited and reviewed therein; 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 801, *et seq..*and cases cited.

The court had jurisdiction of the person of the principal debtor, and also jurisdiction of the railroad company, which, under our statute (since it operates a railroad in the state, and is presumed to have complied with the law), is to all intents and purposes a domestic corporation. Sand. & H. Dig., §§ 6326, 6327. So, from any view point, the judgment is correct, and must be affirmed. So ordered.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                         PHYCOR, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                   THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND 1996

    (ALL AMOUNTS ARE EXPRESSED IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT FOR EARNINGS PER SHARE)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                 MARCH 31,    
                                                           -------------------
                                                           1997           1996
                                                           ----           ----
<S>                                                       <C>             <C>  
Earnings per common share:

      Net income                                          $12,307         7,690
                                                          =======         =====

      Earnings per share                                  $   .19           .13
                                                          =======         =====

      Weighted average common shares outstanding           65,142        60,306
                                                          =======         =====

Earnings per common share, assuming full dilution:

      Net income                                          $12,307         7,690
                                                          =======         =====

      Earnings per share                                  $   .19           .13
                                                          =======         =====

      Weighted average common shares outstanding           70,734        63,744
                                                          =======         =====

</TABLE>

Note:  The convertible debentures were not included in the fully diluted
       earnings per share calculation since the effect of inclusion would be
       antidilutive.
NO. 07-06-0093-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	AUGUST 9, 2006

	______________________________

	MICHAEL D. PHILLIPS AKA ANDRICK ADAMS, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2005-407958; HONORABLE JIM BOB DARNELL, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Appellant Michael D. Phillips aka Andrick Adams has given notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for the offense of possession of a controlled substance.  The appellate court clerk received and filed the trial court clerk’s record on March 28, 2006.  The trial court reporter’s record was filed on April 25, 2006. 

	By letter dated July 17, 2006, the appellate clerk reminded counsel for appellant that appellant’s brief was due on July 10, 2006, and that neither the brief nor a motion for a further extension of time had been received.  Counsel for appellant was further advised by such letter that if no response to the letter was received by July 27, 2006, the appeal would be abated to the trial court for hearing pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b).  No response has been received. 

	Accordingly, this appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the trial court.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2).  Upon remand, the judge of the trial court is directed to immediately cause notice to be given of and to conduct a hearing to determine: 

	(1) 	whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; 

	(2)	if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, then whether appellant is indigent, and if not indigent, whether counsel for appellant has abandoned the appeal; 

	(3)	if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, whether appellant’s present counsel should be replaced; and

	(4)	what orders, if any, should be entered to assure the filing of appropriate notices and documentation to dismiss appellant’s appeal if appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, or, if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, to assure that the appeal will be diligently pursued.

If the trial court determines that the present attorney for appellant should be replaced, the court should cause the clerk of this court to be furnished the name, address, and State Bar of Texas identification number of the newly-appointed or newly-retained attorney.  

	In support of its determination, the trial court shall prepare and file written findings of fact and conclusions of law and cause them to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record.  The hearing proceedings shall be transcribed and included in a supplemental 

reporter’s record.  Those supplemental records shall be submitted to the clerk of this court no later than September 11, 2006.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Motion Denied as Moot; Order filed July 11, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00274-CV

____________

SAMER W. YACOUB, Appellant

V.

SURETEC INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1003979

ORDER

Appellant filed a brief in this appeal on June 27, 2013. The court has 

determined that appellant has not properly presented this cause in his brief on file. 

Appellant failed to substantially comply with Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. In particular, appellant has failed to file a complete statement 

of facts, and failed to provide a clear and concise argument for each contention 

made with appropriate citations to the record and to legal authority. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 38.1(f), (g), (i).
2

Litigants who appear pro se must comply with the applicable procedural 

rules and are held to the same standards that apply to licensed attorneys. See 

Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 185 (Tex. 1978); Steffan v. Steffan, 

29 S.W.3d 627, 631 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). 

Accordingly, the court issues the following order:

Pursuant to Rule 38.9(b), we STRIKE the brief filed June 27, 2013, and 

ORDER appellant to file an amended brief complying with the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure on or before August 9, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(b). If appellant

fails to file an amended brief on or before August 9, 2013, the appeal will be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
#### Robert Daniel SMITH *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 74-159

520 S.W. 2d 301

Opinion delivered March 10, 1975

*Harold L. Hall,*Public Defender, by: *Robert L. Lowery,*Dep. Public Defender, for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Robert A. Newcomb,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether appellant Robert Daniel Smith, an indigent, is entitled to credit for jail time served by him prior to conviction.

The record shows that appellant was held in custody from December 8, 1973, until the date of his trial before the court on January 11, 1974. The record also shows that appellant was sentenced and committed to the penitentiary for 15 years upon a charge of robbery with a firearm without *782being given the opportunity to show why he should not receive the full 15 year sentence.

Thus unlike *Coleman*v. *State,*257 Ark. 538518 S.W. 2d 487 (1975), the record shows appellant was not given the right of allocution and consequently, we cannot indulge in the presumption that the trial court did its duty according to law or that it exercised its discretion pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2813 (Supp. 1973), in denying jail time, *Shelton*v. *State,*255 Ark. 932, 504 S.W. 2d 348 (1974). Consequently, this case seems to be controlled by *Smith*v. *State,*256 Ark. 425, 508 S.W. 2d 54 (1974), where we pointed out that the denial of jail time solely because of the indigency of the defendant amounts to an unconstitutional discrimination based on wealth, absent some “compelling government interest.”

Reversed and remanded with directions to give credit for jail time.
Exhibit 4.4


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT 

TO THE 

ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC.

2002 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


 


WHEREAS, Advanced Medical
Optics, Inc. (the “Corporation”) adopted the Advanced Medical Optics, Inc.
2002 Incentive Compensation Plan effective June 19, 2002, and amended and
restated such plan with the approval of the Corporation’s stockholders on May 20,
2004 (as so amended, the “Plan”), subject to the right of the Board of
Directors of the Corporation (the “Board”) to amend the Plan from time to time,
as set forth in paragraph (a) of Section 9.6; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board as
determined that it is in the best interests of the Corporation to amend the
Plan as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, THEREFORE
the Plan is hereby amended effective November 18, 2004 as follows:


 


1. Article IV of the
Plan is amended by striking Sections 4.1 and 4.2 in their entirety and by
renumbering Sections 4.3 through 4.5 accordingly and all cross-references to
these sections.


 


2. Article IV, Section 4.3,
which is renumbered Section 4.1, is hereby amended in its entirety to read
as follows:


 


“4.1         Discretionary Grants


 


“The
Board may, in its discretion, grant Options to Independent Directors at any
time and from time to time, the terms of which shall be determined by the
Board. In the discretion of the Board, Options granted hereunder to Independent
Directors may be granted in lieu of director fees.”


 


The undersigned hereby
executes this First Amendment on behalf of the Corporation on this 18th day of
November, 2004.


 


	
   

  	
  ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS,
  INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: 

  	
  /s/ Aimee S. Weisner

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Aimee S. Weisner,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Corporate Vice President,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  General Counsel and
  Secretary
EXHIBIT 10.22

                                  CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED - EDITED COPY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT. THE
COPY FILED HEREWITH OMITS THE INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE CONFIDENTIALITY
REQUEST. OMISSIONS ARE DESIGNATED AS [****]. A COMPLETE VERSION OF THIS EXHIBIT
HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          ADDENDUM TO PRIVATE LABEL MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT

Date:           Sep. 21, 2006
Description:    Addendum to the Private Label Manufacturing And Supply
                Agreement (11/13/03)
Items:          (For details, please refer to the attached Meeting Minutes:
                Discussion Between Abaxis and Diatron on Cooperation Issues
                Meeting Minutes on September 15, 2006 and Agreement Details
                Finalized on September 21, 2006)

1.   Abaxis commits for minimum order quantity: [****] units of [****] per
     quarter, [****] per year starting from October 1, 2006 to Sep. 30, 2007.

2.   The minimum quantity of [****] units includes max. [****] demonstration
     units of [****] per quarter.

     o    The unit price of [****]: [****] ex works Budapest.

     o    The unit price for demo units [****]: [****] ex works Budapest.

3.   Delivery:

     o    Order for Q4 2006: min. [****] units (including [****] demonstration
          units) by December 31, 2006, the balance of [****] units by March 31,
          2007 in addition to the order for Q1 2007.

     o    Orders for Q1-Q3 2007: min. [****] units by the end of each month, a
          total of [****] units by the end of each quarter.

     o    Partial shipments will be done on pallets [****] units each, min.
          [****] pallets per shipment.

4.   Payment terms:

     o    [****] down payment for [****] units at unit price of [****] will be
          transferred to Diatron by Oct. 1, 2006.

     o    Wire transferring net 30 days.

     o    [****] discount for amount paid within 14 days from invoice date and
          [****] discount for amount paid upon presentation of the invoice.

     o    A total of 25% of the down payment [****] will be deducted by Abaxis
          from the actual invoice amount at the beginning of each quarter
          starting from January 1, 2007 and ending on Oct. 1, 2007.

Note: The SCHEDULE B: MIMINUM PURCHASE COMMITMENTS in the Private Label
Manufacturing And Supply Agreement (11/13/03) is invalid during the effective
period and the execution of this addendum.

Diatron               /s/ Alex Walker                    10/12/06
----------------      ---------------------              --------------
Company               Signature                          Date

Abaxis                /s/ Clinton Severson               10/11/06
----------------      ---------------------              --------------
Company               Signature                          Date
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JEFFREY EBRIGHT, 

Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-246

 

vs.

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

(Consent Case)

Defendant.

ORDER: (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD 

OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”)

(DOC. 22); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $3,000.00 IN EAJA FEES

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on the parties’ joint 

stipulation in which they agree that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $3,000.00. Doc. 22. Based 

upon the parties’ stipulation in which they present no dispute that all requirements are met for the 

reasonable award of EAJA fees, the Court: (1) APPROVES the parties’ joint stipulation (doc. 22); 

and (2) GRANTS Plaintiff EAJA fees in the amount of $3,000.00. As no further matters remain 

pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 10/16/2019 s/ Michael J. Newman 

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Kenneth Y. Tanji,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Prudential Annuities Life Assurance Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.

Dated: May 12, 2008



/s/ Kenneth Y. TanjiName:

Kenneth Y. TanjiTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



23
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE 2 FISCAL QUARTERS ENDED JULY 11, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-11-1999
<CASH>                                      29,004,558
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,198,970
<ALLOWANCES>                                   573,713
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,299,197
<PP&E>                                     142,284,710
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,795,266
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             282,758,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,813,853
<BONDS>                                    130,117,557
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  95,788,742
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               282,758,075
<SALES>                                     34,661,033
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,031,847
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,694,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,999,788
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,999,288
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,279,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,720,288
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,720,288
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50


</TABLE>