alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11



                       OPTION CARE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATIONS OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                       (In thousands, except share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                       THREE MONTHS ENDED       NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                          September 30,           September 30,
                                         1997      1996          1997       1996
                                       -------    -------      -------     -------
<S>                                    <C>        <C>          <C>         <C>
Net income...........................  $   453    $ 1,004      $ 1,809     $ 2,720
                                       =======    =======      =======     =======

Weighted average shares issued.......   10,698     10,496       10,633      10,487
Additional shares included assuming
  exercise of stock options using
  treasury stock method..............       78        280          148         225
                                       -------    -------      -------     -------
Weighted average common shares and
  common share equivalents...........   10,776     10,776       10,781      10,712
                                       =======    =======      =======     =======

Net income per common and common
  equivalent share...................  $  0.04    $  0.09      $  0.17     $  0.25
                                       =======    =======      =======     =======
</TABLE>

                                      13
Paul Emmanuel KNIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1058

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 12, 2018

Paul Emmanuel Knight, Lake City, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*1013AFFIRMED. *See**Perry v. State*, 637 So.2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

ORFINGER, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
#### Abdul-Aziz Rashid MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Katherine LAYBOURN, Physician/Clinical Director (acting) (MD/CD); R. L. Hutchings, Associate Warden (AW); Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director of Bureau of Prisons (DBOP); Unknown Others, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-6806

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 24, 2017

Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad appeals the district court’s order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing his complaint without prejudice to his ability tó refile upon payment of the fee. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Muhammad v. Laybourn,*No. 3:15-cv-00762-HEH-RCY (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2016). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
No. 28,470.

#### C. E. Beymer, *Appellee,*v. The St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, *Appellant.*

(276 Pac. 833.)

Opinion filed May 4, 1929.

*C. A. Matson, I. H. Stearns, E. P. Villepigue,*all of Wichita, and *Lester Luther,*of Cimarron, for the appellant.

*C. E. Beymer, E. R. Thorpe,*both of Lakin, *C. E. Vance*and *A. M. Fleming,*both of Garden City, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The action was one to recover on a hail insurance policy covering a growing crop. The verdict and judgment were *173for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. The assignments of error-which are stressed are that the court erred in its ruling respecting-admission of evidence, that the evidence was insufficient to establish the making of proof of loss, and that a new trial was denied.

The petition pleaded the policy, the loss, notice of loss, proof of' loss, and nonpayment by the company. The answer was a general; denial. The policy contained a provision that the company should' not be liable for damage by hail if the crop were otherwise injured, to such an extent it was not worth harvesting. In the opening statement to the jury defendant said it had two defenses: First, that the crop dried up, and without the hailstorm would not have paid' harvesting expenses; and second, that plaintiff suffered no hail loss if there was a crop to be injured.

On cross-examination of plaintiff, defendant asked a question, leading up to the first defense stated to the jury. Objection was made on the ground the defense ‘was not pleaded. The objection was good, but the court sustained it on another ground. The court held the provision of the policy on which the defense was based', was void. Conceding, but not deciding, the reason which the court, gave for its ruling was unsound, the ruling was correct.

When defendant reached its side of the case, it made an offer of' evidence to sustain the first defense stated to the jury. Objection, was made that the evidence was not pertinent to any issue made by-the pleadings, and the objection was sustained. It is not now material whether the objection was properly sustained. The offered evidence was not produced at the hearing on the motion for new trial. Defendant’s attorney-made an affidavit stating what the-testimony of his witnesses would have been, but that did not satisfy - the requirements of the statute. (R. S. 60-3004.)

Plaintiff testified positively he sent proofs of loss as required by-the policy. Afterward he said his opinion was he sent proofs of loss. When pressed to answer whether he knew he sent proofs of' loss, he said: “Well, my recollection is that I did; I hate to say-positively.” The evidence was sufficient *prima jade*to show proof' of loss was furnished, and defendant closed its case without offering any evidence that proof of loss had not been received.

The motion for new trial was properly denied, and the judgment, of the district court is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

P ETER KOST Y SHYN , Defendant Below , Appellant,

v. NEW CASTLE COUNTY , Plaintiff Below Appellee. § § § No. 3 11 , 2023 § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § C .A. No. N22J

- 0287 2 § § §
Submitted: November 6 , 2023 Decided: November 7 , 2023
Before VALIHURA , TRAYNOR , GRIFFITHS , Justices.
ORDER
After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, P eter Kostyshyn, filed this appeal from a monition action in the Superior Court. On August 30, 2023 and September 26, 2023 , the Cler k’s office sent letters advising Kostyshyn to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis , first by September 14, 2023 and then by October 10, 2023

. The
Clerk’s o ffice warned Kostyshyn that if he failed to do so a notice to show cause
would issue. The Clerk’s office sent the letters to the addresses provided by
Kost y shyn and his sister , P atricia Kostyshyn, who had filed the same documents.2

(2) On September 27, 2023, the Deputy Prothonotary submitte d a letter stating that Kostyshyn had not paid the Superior Court’s appeal preparation fee. The Clerk’s office sent Kostyshyn a letter withdrawing the record deadline and directing
him to pay the Superior Court ’s appeal preparation fee by October 10, 2023 , or a notice to show cause would issue. Kostyshyn did not pay this Court’s filing fee or the Superior Court ’s appeal preparation fee

. H e also failed to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

. (3) On October 11, 2023 and October 12, 2023 , the Clerk ’s office issued
notice s , by certified mail, directing Kost y shyn to show cause why this appeal should
not be dismissed for his failure to pay this Court’s filing fee and the Superior Court ’s appeal preparation fee. Postal records show that both notices to sh ow cause were returned with the notation “return to send er , vacant, unable to forward.” On October 23, 2023 , the Clerk ’s office reissued the notice s to show cause by first class mail. The Court’s correspondence and notices to show cause were sent to the address es that the Kostyshyn s provided, and continue to provide, to this Court

. (4) On October 2 5, 2023 , November 3, 2023 , and November 6, 2023 , Kostyshyn filed documents that are deemed to be h is response to the notice to show

cause
. The documents do not address h is failure to pay th is Court’s filing fee or the Superior Court ’s appeal preparation fee. In light of K ostyshyn’s failure to pay those
fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pa uperis , this appeal must be dismissed.3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b),
that this appeal is DISMISSED

.
BY THE COURT: /s/ Gary F. Traynor Justice
<TABLE>
                                                                                                       Exhibit 21


<CAPTION>
                                            Subsidiaries of the Company
<S>                                      <C>                                <C>
        -------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------
                  Subsidiary                 Jurisdiction of Formation                Company's Ownership
        -------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------
        Commtouch do Brasil LTDA         Brazil                             99% owned by Commtouch Latin America
                                                                              1% owned by Company
        -------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------
        Commtouch Inc.                   California                         100%
        -------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------
        Commtouch K.K.                   Japan                               94.17% owned by Company
                                                                               5.83% owned by CSK (Japan)
        -------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------
        Commtouch Latin America Inc.     Delaware                           100%
        -------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------
        Commtouch (UK) Ltd.              United Kingdom                     100%
        -------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------
        Wingra Technologies, LLC.        Wisconsin                          100%
        -------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------
</TABLE>
B.M.P. v. MOBILE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160231

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Raymond JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D17-1496

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damon Emanuel ELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6430

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable 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 Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, *125we 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*
Leaundrea Derrico PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2301

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dustin Wayne ROGERS Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-1827

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 12, 2017

Filed: April 17, 2017

Adam Kerndt, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, Maureen McGuire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Dustin Wayne Rogers, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. '

Dustin Wayne Rogers pled guilty plea to child-pornography charges. On appeal, he challenges the sentence that the district court1 imposed. Rogers’s counsel moves to withdraw, and in a brief submitted under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), he argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

The district court imposed a sentence below the applicable advisory Guidelines range after discussing, in some detail, the nature and seriousness of the offenses, Rogers’s personal characteristics, difficult childhood, and’ admirable military service, and considered other appropriate sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This court finds that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. *See United States v. David,*682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing abuse of discretion); *United States v. Moore,*581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[Wjhere a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still.”). An independent review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. *See Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988).

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

, The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 661 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6083 

[Report No. 118–809] 

To amend the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 to extend waiver of duplicate 

benefits limitation for certain payments to individuals in the event of 

a major disaster, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 26, 2023 

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana (for himself and Mr. CARTER of Louisiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

DECEMBER 5, 2024 

Additional sponsors: Mr. LAMALFA and Mrs. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N

DECEMBER 5, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6083 RH

A BILL 

To amend the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 to extend 

waiver of duplicate benefits limitation for certain payments to individuals in the event of a major disaster, 

and for other purposes. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6083 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Duplications of Bene5 fits Victims Relief Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF DUPLICATE BENEFITS. 

7 Section 1210(a) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 

8 2018 (Public Law 115–254) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘between Jan10 uary 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021’’ and insert11 ing ‘‘during the period beginning on January 1, 

12 2016, and ending on the date on which the provision 

13 contained in such amendment is struck pursuant to 

14 paragraph (4)’’; 

15 (2) in paragraph (4) by striking ‘‘5’’ and insert16 ing ‘‘10’’; 

17 (3) by redesignating paragraph (5) as para18 graph (6); and 

19 (4) by inserting after paragraph (4) the fol20 lowing: 

21 ‘‘(5) PROHIBITION ON INCOME THRESHOLD.— 

22 In carrying out the amendment made by paragraph 

23 (1), no income threshold may be applied to limit the 

24 eligibility of a recipient from qualifying for a waiver 

25 under the amendment made by such paragraph.’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 661 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6083 

[Report No. 118–809] 

A BILL 

To amend the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 to 

major disaster, and for other purposes. certain payments to individuals in the event of a extend waiver of duplicate benefits limitation for 

DECEMBER 5, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daisy Guadalupe FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50432

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 24, 2017

Timothy D. Coughlin, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H, Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of *762Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ellis M. Johnston, III, Esquire, Trial Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Daisy Guadalupe Figueroa appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Figueroa argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to her base level offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). After Figueroa was sentenced, the United States Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”), which amended the commentary to the minor role Guideline. The Amendment is retroactive to cases pending on direct appeal. *See United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016).

The Amendment clarified that, in assessing whether a defendant should receive a minor role adjustment, the court should compare her to the other participants in the crime, rather than to a hypothetical average participant. *See*U.S.S.G. App. C. Amend, 794; *Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 523. In addition, the Amendment clarified that “[t]he fact that a defendant performs an essential or indispensable role in the criminal activity is not determinative.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) (2015). Finally, the Amendment added a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court “should consider” in determining whether to apply a minor role reduction. *See id.*Because we cannot determine from the record whether the district court followed the guidance of the Amendment’s clarifying language and considered all of the now-relevant factors, we vacate Figueroa’s sentence and remand for resentencing. *See Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d at 523-24.

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony John VALENTO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50479

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

FILED OCTOBER 2, 2017

Jean-Claude Andre, Nancy Spiegel, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, FPDCA— Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los An-geles), Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: .SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM *

Anthony John Valento appeals from the three-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release with 33 months of supervision to follow. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Valento’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Valento the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to ' withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.