alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11
              Statement Regarding Computation of Earnings Per Share
    
                 DURAMED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Year Ended December 31
                                                   1996               1995               1994
<S>                                           <C>                <C>                <C>         
Primary:
Weighted average common shares
     outstanding                                10,522,213          8,026,359          7,815,808
Assumed conversion of preferred
     shares to common shares                             *                  *            746,590
Net effect of dilutive stock options
     and warrants - based on the
     treasury stock method using the
     average market price                                *                  *          1,685,917
                                              ------------       ------------       ------------

Totals                                          10,522,213          8,026,359         10,248,315
                                              ============       ============       ============

Net (loss) income                             $(25,640,507)      $ (1,113,687)      $  9,550,867
                                              ============       ============       ============

Per share amount                              $      (2.44)      $      (0.14)      $       0.93
                                              ============       ============       ============

Fully diluted:
Weighted average common shares
     outstanding                                10,522,213          8,026,359          7,815,808
Assumed conversion of preferred
     shares to common shares                             *                  *            746,590




Net effect of dilutive stock options
     based on the treasury stock method
     using the year-end market price, if
     higher than average market price                    *                  *          1,947,297
                                              ------------       ------------       ------------


Totals                                          10,522,213          8,026,359         10,509,695
                                              ============       ============       ============

Net (loss) income                             $(25,640,507)      $ (1,113,687)      $  9,550,867
                                              ============       ============       ============

Per share amount                              $      (2.44)      $      (0.14)      $       0.91
                                              ============       ============       ============


<FN>
*  Conversion of stock options and preferred shares not assumed in the
   computations because their effect is antidilutive.
</TABLE>
Marcela Catapano CRISCITO, Appellant, v. Stephen E. HERBITS, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2005

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018.

Harvey J. Sepler, P.A., and Harvey J. Sepler (Hollywood), for appellant.

Duane Morris LLP, and Richard D. Shane, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and LAGOA and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Timothy Howard WALDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-6908

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Decided: June 7, 2017

*133Timothy Howard Walden, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Howard Walden seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. . The order is not áppealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walden has not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 To the extent Walden sought to raise his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), his claim is not cognizable because the change in law he seeks to assert did not occur “ 'subsequent to [his] direct appeal and first § 2255 motion.’ ” *Prousalis*v. *Moore,*751 F.3d 272, 275 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting *In re Jones,*226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000)).
14395

#### GRIFFIN *ET AL.*v. WHITE MAGNOLIA CAMP, W. O. W., NO. 28 *ET AL.*v. SAME

(189 S. E., 127)

*239
      *Messrs. S. R. Watt*and *C. R. Daniel,*for appellant.

*Messrs. R. B. Paslay*and *Rvans, Galbraith & Holcombe,*for respondents,

December 11, 1936.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Baker.

Appeal from decree of Hon. J. Henry Johnson, presiding Circuit Judge, confirming report of Hon. J. B. Atkinson, Special Referee, and overruling all exceptions thereto.

This Court adopts as its opinion the report of the Special Referee, which will be reported. In addition, there will be reported copy of "Paid-up Certificate” appearing folios 115-118; "Cancellation Values,” folio 119; “Surrender and Cancellation Form,” folio 120, and “Transfer Form,” folio 121.

Exceptions overruled and judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Stabrer and Messrs. Justices Carter, Bonham and Fishburne concur.
Matthew William RIDDLE v. STATE

CR-15-1478

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Opinion filed May 28, 2009

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

____________

No. 11-07-00366-CR

__________

 JOHN WILLIAM LAYTON, Appellant

V.

 STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

 Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR19046

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The jury convicted John William Layton of driving while intoxicated with a child as a

passenger and assessed his punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for one year. We affirm.

After a hearing pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b), the trial court found that appellant was

not indigent and concluded that appellant had either failed to make the necessary arrangements for

the filing of his brief or had abandoned his appeal. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(4), we will

consider this appeal on the record alone.
2

We have reviewed the record before us and note that it does not contain reversible error.

TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(a). Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

May 28, 2009

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
Exhibit 31.1



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, J. Erik Mustad, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Moving Bytes Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.





Date: April 14, 2005



/s/ J. Erik Mustad

J. Erik Mustad

Chief Executive Officer



---
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Thomas J. Baldwin, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Morton’s Restaurant Group, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

Date:  May 17, 2005

 
|   | /s/ THOMAS J. BALDWIN   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas J. Baldwin       |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FARON E. LOVELACE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

ROBIN SANDY; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35518

D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00430-REB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

Ronald E. Bush, Chief Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 16, 2016**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Idaho state prisoner Faron E. Lovelace appeals pro se from the magistrate

judge’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out

of the allegedly improper termination of a prison visit. We review de novo

whether a magistrate judge has jurisdiction. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68

FILED

AUG 26 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand. 

Contrary to the magistrate judge’s statement in its order dismissing

Lovelace’s amended complaint, Lovelace did not consent to proceed before a

magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (authorizing magistrate judge to

“conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry

of judgment in the case” “[u]pon the consent of the parties”). The consent forms

filed on October 17, 2014 and March 18, 2015 were executed by putative coplaintiff Melissa Kuntz-Corta, not Lovelace. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment

and remand to the district court for further proceedings. See Allen, 755 F.3d at 868

(judgment entered by magistrate judge a nullity where some parties did not consent

to magistrate judge’s jurisdiction).

On remand, the district court may review the complaint de novo in the first

instance pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, or may construe the magistrate judge’s

May 18, 2015 order as a report and recommendation and afford Lovelace

reasonable time to file objections.

In light of our disposition, we do not consider the other issues raised in the

opening brief. 

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 15-35518
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jacob Matthew MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-41327 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/29/2016

Amy Howell Alaniz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jacob Matthew Martinez pleaded guilty to one count of interfering with commerce by threats or violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). On remand, he was re-sentenced to 87 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, $223,627.40 in restitution, and a $100 special assessment.

As he did in his previous appeal, *see United States v. Martinez,*614 Fed.Appx. 165, 166 n.1 (5th Cir. 2015), Martinez contends that § 1951(a) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to his case. He concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve the issues for further review.

The appeal was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in *Taylor v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2074, 195 L.Ed.2d 456 (2016). *Taylor*has now been decided, and the Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance asserting that Martinez’s arguments remain foreclosed by circuit precedent. In the alternative, the Government requests *886an extension of time in which to file a brief on the merits.

“Generally, the law of the case'doctrine precludes reexamination by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal of an issue of law or fact decided on a previous appeal.” *United States v. Agofsky,*516 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2008). Because we rejected Martinez’s challenges to the constitutionality of § 1951(a) in his previous appeal, *see Martinez,*614 Fed.Appx. at 166 n.1, and none of the exceptions to the law of the case doctrine apply, *see Agofsky,*516 F.3d at 283, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Quincy PEARSON, also known as Baby Face, also known as Face, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11115 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 6, 2017

Quincy Pearson, Pro Se

Before Judges SMITH, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Quincy Pearson, federal prisoner # 42272-177, was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base. The district court sentenced him below the guidelines range to 210 months of imprisonment. On March 10, 2016, the district court granted Pearson’s motion for an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction and resen-tenced him to a term of imprisonment of 188 months.

Instead of filing an appeal of the March 10, 2016, order granting relief, Pearson filed a motion seeking recalculation of his amended sentencing guidelines range, which the district court denied. After the district court denied that motion, Pearson filed the instant “motion for modification of prison term.” The district court denied the motion and also denied Pearson leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), certifying that an appeal of the denial of his motion would not be taken in good faith.

Now Pearson moves for authorization to proceed IFP in an appeal from the district court’s denial of his “motion for modification of prison term.” By moving to proceed IFP, Pearson challenges the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); *United States v. Dedrick,*535 Fed.Appx. 334, 335 (5th Cir. 2013) (applying *Baugh*in the § 3582(c)(2) context). We must therefore determine “whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The district court correctly determined that Pearson’s motion was meaningless, unauthorized, and without any jurisdictional basis. *See United States v. Early,*27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Consequently, this appeal does not involve “legal points arguable on them merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *See Howard,*707 F.2d at 220 (internal quotation marks omitted). The appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous, and Pearson’s IFP motion is DENIED. *328*See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03575]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-543-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report of Northern Natural 
Gas Company.
    Filed Date: 2/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220211-5113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-544-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Shoshone Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Annual Adjustment of Lost and 
Unaccounted For Gas Percentage to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220211-5125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-545-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 3-1-2022 Formula Based 
Negotiated Rates to be effective 3/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220211-5140.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-546-000.
    Applicants: LA Storage, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Negotiated Rate, 
Conforming IW Agreement (Shell) to be effective 2/14/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220211-5199.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding. The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary 
system (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by 
querying the docket number. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed 
information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, 
service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 14, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03575 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P