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

                                                                      Exhibit 11

                   Calculation of Earnings Per Common Share
                                  (Unaudited)
         (In thousands, except number of shares and per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              13 Weeks Ended                               39 Weeks Ended
                                                       ----------------------------                  ---------------------------
                                                         June 28,        June 27,                      June 28,       June 27,
                                                           1998            1999                          1998           1999
                                                       -------------   ------------                  ------------   ------------
<S>                                                    <C>             <C>                           <C>            <C>
Net income (loss)                                           $(1,185)        $ 3,211                       $ 1,413        $ 9,234
Less preferred dividends                                       --              --                            --             --
                                                            -------         -------                       -------        -------
Net income (loss) available to common shareholders          $(1,185)        $ 3,211                       $ 1,413        $ 9,234
                                                            =======         =======                       =======        =======
Earnings per common share                                   $(23.70)        $ 64.22                       $ 28.26        $184.68
                                                            =======         =======                       =======        =======
Average common shares outstanding                            50,000          50,000                        50,000         50,000
                                                            =======         =======                       =======        =======
Common shares outstanding at end of period                   50,000          50,000                        50,000         50,000
                                                            =======         =======                       =======        =======
</TABLE>

                                       24
MEMORANDUM 

TO: File 

FROM: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office, Region 9, U.S. EPA 

DATE: September 20, 2012 

RE: Section 128; Control Officer’s Agents/Representatives in Washoe County, Nevada

On September 4, 2012 Washoe County Health District Air Quality Management District 

(WCHD-AQMD) submitted a comment letter that noted a minor correction/clarification 

regarding EPA’s conflict of interest/CAA section 128 technical support document. This 

comment clarified that the District Health Officer is the Control Officer for air quality purposes 

in Washoe County. 

I spoke by phone with Dan Inouye of WCHD-AQMD today to inquire if the AQMD Director 

and Branch Chief of the Permitting and Compliance Branch were designated as control officers, 

pursuant to Washoe County Air Quality Regulation (AQR) 010.042, or were designated as 

agents or representatives of the Control Officer, pursuant to AQR 020.020. Mr. Inouye affirmed 

that it is the latter – the AQMD Director and Branch Chief are agents or representatives of the 

Control Officer.
Antonio WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-3093

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-2000
<CASH>                                           1,560
<SECURITIES>                                     7,372
<RECEIVABLES>                                      825
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,801
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,210
<PP&E>                                          99,285
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,566
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,195
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,607
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                          35
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    85,195
<SALES>                                         28,724
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,724
<CGS>                                           29,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,628)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,628)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,533
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,095)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.74)


</TABLE>
Nancy GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. The KENT HOTEL/AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA OF FLORIDA, Appellees.

No. 1D17-2841

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Gosset Andretti NOVA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-704

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129070 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129070 COA: 254587 Otsego CC: 03-002953-FC JESSIE WAYNE PILLETTE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0221 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2006

Clerk
Pamelia Elmer VILLA, et al. v. GEICO CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., et al.

NO. 2018-C-0439

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant,
H.F., the father, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3547

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leland W. Brantley, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
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; 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/ Leland W. Brantley, Jr.                                   |  | 
| |  | Leland W. Brantley, Jr.Chief Financial OfficerAugust 11, 2006 |  |
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the quarterly report of RARE Hospitality International, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 25, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip J. Hickey, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)  The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 Registrant.





|Dated:  November 4, 2005 | /s/ Philip J. Hickey, Jr. | 
|------------------------ | ------------------------- | 
|                         | Philip J. Hickey, Jr.     | 
|                         | Chief Executive Officer  
|                         |                           |
----

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | The                  Report containing the financial statements 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 operation of Pomeroy                  IT                  Solutions, Inc. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August                  14, 2007 |                                                                                             |
|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             |                                                                                             |
|                             | /s/                  Kevin G. Gregory                                                            |
|                             | Kevin                  G. Gregory                                                                |
|                             | President,                  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial                  Officer |

----
Shannon Douglas ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-494

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Kareem Tijuan WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3947

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         381,677
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,880,542
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,262,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,924,065
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,262,219
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               260,216
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  93,294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                166,922
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            166,922
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   166,922
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .09



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11

                           STATER BROS. HOLDINGS INC.
                    CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)
          (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT NUMBER OF SHARES AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                           13 Weeks Ended
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Dec. 29,           Dec. 28,
                                                       1996               1997
                                                     --------           --------

<S>                                                  <C>                <C>     
Net income                                           $  4,195           $  1,373
Less:  Preferred dividends                             (1,816)              --
                                                     --------           --------

Net income available to common shareholders          $  2,379           $  1,373
                                                     ========           ========

Earnings per common share                            $  47.58           $  27.46
                                                     ========           ========

Average common shares outstanding                      50,000             50,000
                                                     ========           ========

Common Shares outstanding at end of period             50,000             50,000
                                                     ========           ========
</TABLE>

                                       21
(January 15, 2004)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory S. Kramer, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 925]

Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (McGrath, J.), rendered April 17, 2002, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant was sentenced to five years’ probation as the result of his guilty plea to the crime of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree. Conditions of his probation included an obligation to notify his probation officer prior to a change of address. In this proceeding, it is alleged that defendant failed to comply with this condition and others. After a hearing, County Court determined that defendant violated this notification condition and revoked his probation, sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years. He appeals and we affirm.

Defendant challenges the finding that he violated a condition of probation by asserting that he was denied a fair hearing when County Court failed to require that authorities provide him with his pain medication after he told County Court that he was not receiving it at the correctional facility where he was incarcerated. The record is bereft of any evidence supporting this claim; there is no evidence of either a request for such medication or a subsequent denial while incarcerated.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is similarly without merit. The record reveals that defense counsel challenged every aspect of this proceeding and obtained acquittals *665of all but one of the allegations. At sentencing, counsel noted defendant’s lack of a substantial criminal record and argued against a sentence of imprisonment. Viewing counsel’s representation in its totality, we find that it did not fall below the articulated standard *(see People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

Concerning the sentence, we find no extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion *(see People v Bell,*290 AD2d 729, 730 [2002]).

Crew III, J.P., Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Britton BLACKWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2021

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 11, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and James W. McIntire, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Damoorgian, J.

Britton Blackwood appeals his judgment for one count of armed kidnapping, two counts of sexual battery, one count of robbery with a firearm, and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

*418We affirm Appellant's judgment for these crimes and his incarceration for life.

On appeal, Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on a comment one of the testifying officers made regarding the victim's believability. While the officer's comment was improper, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for a mistrial in light of the following facts: 1) the court immediately provided a curative instruction, 2) there was substantial, independent evidence corroborating the victim's story, and 3) the comment was brief and unanticipated. *See**Tirado v. State* , 219 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Next, Appellant argues that the court committed fundamental error when it did not consider the possibility of a youthful offender sentence. Appellant concedes that because he was twenty-one or older at the time of sentencing, he was not eligible for a youthful offender sentence under the Youthful Offender Act as amended in 2008. § 958.04(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). However, Appellant asserts that by using the age at sentencing instead of the age at the time of the offense as a barometer for eligibility, the Youthful Offender Act violates substantive due process since it may force an offender on the brink of turning twenty-one to forego a trial in hopes of obtaining a youthful offender sentence. The Florida Supreme Court rejected this very same argument in *Jackson v. State* , 191 So.3d 423, 428 (Fla. 2016), wherein it held that the Youthful Offender Act's age restrictions do not violate substantive due process.

Despite this binding Florida Supreme Court precedent, Appellant urges us to find the Youthful Offender Act unconstitutional, pointing to Justice Pariente's dissent in *Jackson* . *Id.* at 428-29 (Pariente, J., dissenting). We are not inclined nor are we permitted to ignore the binding majority in lieu of a dissent. *Hoffman v. Jones* , 280 So.2d 431, 440 (Fla. 1973) ("We hold that a District Court of Appeal does not have the authority to overrule a decision of the Supreme Court of Florida.").

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., and May, J., concur.
! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 !
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 "
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 #
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 $
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 %
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 &
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 '
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 (
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 )
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 !
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 "
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 #
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 $
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 %
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 &
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 '
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 (
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 ! )
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 ! 
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 ! !
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 ! "
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 ! #
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 ! $
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 ! %
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 ! &
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 ! '
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 ! (
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 " )
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 " 
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 " !
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 " "
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 " #
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 " $
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 " %
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 " &
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 " '
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 " (
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 # )
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 # 
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 # !
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 # "
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 # #
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 # $
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 # %
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 # &
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 # '
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 # (
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 $ )
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 $ 

2 3 * 4. /3 2 3( 5 (' ( 6 7 3 /'
 ! "# $ & ' ( ) * + , -*(. * /+ 0 1 , # 1 1 $ !

8 39 :; <3 = > ? @& = A = > @B C D A = & D E A @ F @ A A G B = > ?

A G D G > > = A C C H I > G D C D H > ? J 1K J G A L M @& I = > = > M

> @B C D ? E G N E M M C E G L ? > G G O H C M @C P P = M @> F C D = N G
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00386

- CV

I N THE M ATTER OF D.J. §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 323

- 109405

- 18 )

June 24, 2021

M emorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT C OURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wallach

___________________ Justice Mike Wallach