alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<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               26 Weeks Ended
                                                        ----------------------       ----------------------
                                                        Mar. 28,      Mar. 26,       Mar. 28,      Mar. 26,
                                                          1999          2000           1999          2000
                                                        --------      --------       --------      --------
<S>                                                     <C>           <C>            <C>           <C>
Net income (loss)                                       $  3,736      $(10,953)      $  6,023      $ (9,101)
Less preferred dividends                                      --            --             --            --
                                                        --------      --------       --------      --------

Net income (loss) available to common shareholders      $  3,736      $(10,953)      $  6,023      $ (9,101)
                                                        ========      ========       ========      ========

Earnings (loss) per common share                        $  74.72      $(219.06)      $ 120.46      $(182.02)
                                                        ========      ========       ========      ========

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>


                                       20
Thomas P. FLEMING, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4872

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal of the summary denial of petitioner's postconviction motion in the trial court is granted in circuit court case number 12-CF-3423 for review of the trial court's order of August 30, 2017.

The circuit court clerk shall treat this order as a notice of appeal, promptly certify same and return it to this court as with any notice of appeal, and a new appellate case number will be assigned to this appeal and an acknowledgment letter will issue at that time. The summary record shall be transmitted to this court when the certified copy of this order is returned by the trial court clerk. After a new appellate case number is assigned and an acknowledgment letter has issued, this court will issue an order advising the appellant of the due date of the optional initial brief.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### Nancy T. KESELYAK Plaintiff-Appellant v. The CURATORS OF the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-4131

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 2, 2017

Filed: August 10, 2017

Nancy T. Keselyak, Pro Se

*166Nicholas S. Beydler, Marsha Blakemore Fischer, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, for Defqndant-Appellee

Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Nancy Keselyak appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of her lawsuit brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Keselyak, a tenured professor at the University of Missouri Kansas City School of Dentistry (University), argues that the University violated her rights under the FMLA when it suspended her salary when she was unable to return to work following an injury and failed to request FMLA leave. She also argues that the district court erred in denying her motion for default judgment.

After careful review, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Keselyak’s default motion. See Comiskey v. JFTJ Corp., 989 F.2d 1007, 1009-10 (8th Cir. 1993) (abuse-of-discretion review of denial of motion for default judgment). We also conclude that the district court properly dismissed the complaint, see Butler v. Bank of Am., N.A., 690 F.3d 959, 961 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim reviewed de novo), as the University was entitled to sovereign immunity, see Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md., 566 U.S. 30, 43-44, 132 S.Ct. 1327, 182 L.Ed.2d 296 (2012) (Congress did not abrogate states’ sovereign immunity from suits for money damages in enacting FMLA’s self-care provision). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and deny Keselyak's pending motions.

1

. The Honorable M. Douglas Haipool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
MORAN FOODS, LLC d/b/a Save-A-Lot, Appellant, v. Latasha WEST, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2036

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Daniel HEATLY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0094

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,330
<SECURITIES>                                       429
<RECEIVABLES>                                      526
<ALLOWANCES>                                        58
<INVENTORY>                                         20
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,408
<PP&E>                                           1,127
<DEPRECIATION>                                     383
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,011
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,502
<SALES>                                          1,467
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,467
<CGS>                                              791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     2
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    302
<INCOME-TAX>                                       118
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                184
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       184
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14



</TABLE>
### NUMBER 13 - 15 - 0033 0 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE KRISTIN BOWLING

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

Writ of Prohibition

.


## ORDER
Before Justices Rodriguez , Garza, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam Relator, Kristin Bowling, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and writ of prohibition

on July 17, 2015, through which she contends that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to intervene in a criminal case that has not been indicted. She seeks to compel the trial court to vacate its order denying relator’s plea to the jurisdiction a nd to retract a warrant for relator’s arrest. This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 14

- AC

0466 in the 105th District Court of Kleberg County. A separate appeal from that same2

trial court cause number has been dockete d in our appellate cause number 13

- 15

- 00300

- CR. The Court requests the real party in interest, the State of Texas, acting by and through the District Attorney for Kleberg County, Texas, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from today’s date. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(b). IT IS SO ORDERED

. PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed th e 20th day of July , 201 5

.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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 October 1, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, W. Douglas Benn, Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date:  November 2, 2006 | /s/ W. Douglas Benn |  
 

W. Douglas Benn

 
 

Executive Vice President, Finance and

 

Chief Financial Officer

 
 

 

  |
|-------------------------|---------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-60126 on Form S-8 ofour report relating to the consolidated financial statements of W Holding Company, Inc. dated April13, 2006 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraphrelating to the restatement of the 2004 and 2003 consolidated financial statements), and our reportrelating to management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingdated April 13, 2006, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of W Holding Company, Inc. forthe year ended December 31, 2005./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPSan Juan, Puerto Rico
EX PARTE M.G.

1160301 (2150823)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Martin G. LEMOINE

No. 2017-K-1984

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 15, 2018

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF POINTE COUPEE**

Writ denied.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assign reasons:

While it appears defendant committed the crime of theft, as I noted previously in my dissent to *State v. Lemoine* , 15-1120 (La. 5/3/17), 222 So.3d 688, even the precise amount of that theft cannot be ascertained beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the evidence presented by the State. Therefore, I would grant the defendant's application and enter an order of acquittal.
# 35241 + RECEIVE D eACTMA M OPP T CBIC EASTMA N
4013000002 7 20J 3 FE S 2 8 A H IJ - 5 0 _tmanChemicalCompan y Kingsport, Tennesse

e 3766 2 Telephone : 423-229-209

4 www.Eastman.co

m Februar y 26 , 201 3 Documen t Contro l Offic e (DCO ) (7407M ) Offic e o f Pollutio n Preventio n an

dToxic s (OPPT ) Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y 120 0 Pennsylvani aAve. , N.W
. Washington , D C 20460-000 1 Attn : TSC A Sectio n 4
. R E : DocketI D Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112 . Submissio n o f Test s fo r propanoi c acid , 2-methyl- , 3-(benzoyloxy)-2,2,4-trimethyIpenty l este r (CASR N 22527-63-5) pursuan tt

o 4 0 CF R799.5089 . Dea r Sir o r Madam , Eastma n Chemica

l Compan y ("Eastman" ) appreciate s the agency' s grantin g o f a n extensio n o f th e dat e t o submit th e dat arequire dfo r

propanoi c acid , 2-methyl- , 3-(benzoyloxy)-2,2,4

- trimethylpenty l este

r (CASR N 22527-63-5 ) unde r th e tes t rul e publishe do n Octobe r 21 , 201 1 (7 6 Fed
. Reg
. 65,385 ; 4 0 CF R799.5089). 1 I n accordance wit h the requirement s o f 4 0 CF R799.5089 , Eastma

n submit s th

e followin g tw o report s a s attachments to thi s letter : 1
. Acute Oral Toxicit y i n th e Rat , Up-and-Dow n Procedure
. 2. Reverse Mutation Assay "Ames Test" using Salmonella Typhimurium and Escherichia Coli. Eastma n continue s to wor k

o n th e remainin g tests an

dwil l submi t

th e finalize dreport s a

s they becom e available
. I f

yo u shoul dhav

e an y question s regardin g these report s o r th e statu s o f

the remainin g tests , pleas e contac t m e a t (423 ) 229-209 4 (email : lvelsor(5),eastman.com' ) o r Mr
. Gar y Shrum , Directo r

o f Produc t Stewardshi

p a t (423 ) 229-247 1 (email : glshrum@eastman.com')
. Sincerely ,

4-0 1 3000002 7 Leonar dVelso r Senio r Attorne y Global Trad

e an d Complianc e Eastma n Chemica

l Compan y P.O
. Bo x 511 , Buildin g 7 5 Kingsport , T N 37662-507 5

1 E-mai l communicatio

n fromJoh n Schaeffer

, Senio r Biologis t fo r th e U.S
. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y dat e Februar y 4 , 2013
. 

# CONTAIN S N O CB
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-7563 MARSHALL HAROLD, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR-94-395-S, CA-96-2405-S) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 14, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Marshall Harold, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from a district court order that concluded his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1998). Appellant's conviction b ecame final in May 1995, and he filed his habeas motion on August 2, 1996. Appellant had until April 23, 1997 to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown v. Angelone , ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (Nos. 96-7173,96-7208). Therefore, his motion was not time barred. For these reasons, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate thedistrict court's order, and remand for further proceedings. 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. VACATED AND REMANDED 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-12087

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:20-cv-80665-RAR

FRANKIE RAINES, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

OKEECHOBEE CI WARDEN,

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Respondents-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 3, 2021)

USCA11 Case: 20-12087 Date Filed: 02/03/2021 Page: 1 of 3
2

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Frankie Raines, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as impermissibly successive.

We review whether a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was successive de 

novo. Patterson v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 849 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2017). 

Although a certificate of appealability is generally required to appeal a final order in 

a proceeding under § 2254, we have held that the dismissal of a successive habeas 

petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction does not constitute a “final order in a 

habeas corpus proceeding” for purposes of § 2253(c). Hubbard v. Campbell, 

379 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004). Instead, we review that dismissal as a “final 

decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See id. 

Although we liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants, issues that a 

pro se litigant has not clearly raised on appeal are deemed abandoned and will not 

be addressed. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). 

Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a 

successive § 2254 petition. Bowles v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 935 F.3d 1176, 

1180 (11th Cir. 2019), cert. denied sub nom, Bowles v. Inch, 140 S. Ct. 26 (2019). 

When an initial habeas petition is adjudicated on the merits, a subsequent petition is 

successive. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86, 120 S. Ct. 1595 (2000). 

USCA11 Case: 20-12087 Date Filed: 02/03/2021 Page: 2 of 3
3

Because Raines did not argue, nor even mention, the issue of whether the 

petition was improperly dismissed as successive in his brief, he has abandoned the 

issue on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-12087 Date Filed: 02/03/2021 Page: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,827,650
<ALLOWANCES>                                   836,272
<INVENTORY>                                     58,152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,226,517
<PP&E>                                      11,096,459
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,712,327
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,222,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,702,912
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  7,000,000
<COMMON>                                        91,549
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,257,195)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,222,269
<SALES>                                      4,600,534
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,600,534
<CGS>                                        3,437,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,437,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,097,445
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                39,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             149,624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (122,702)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (122,702)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
Antonio L. WELCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3977

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00460-CV

SHERRI RATHER & ALL 

OCCUPANTS

APPELLANT

V.

PARADISE HILLS APPELLEE

------------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

------------

On November 19, 2012, and December 10, 2012, we notified appellant, in 

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this 

appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). 

Appellant has not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007,2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: February 14, 2013

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil 

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Aug. 28, 2007) (listing 

fees in courts of appeals).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00708-CR

Enrique GONZALEZ, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-CRD-36

Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 10, 2014.

_____________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice