alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BELL SPORTS CORP.
                          EXHIBIT - 11 - STATEMENT RE:
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
               (Unaudited; In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Nine Months Ended     Three Months Ended

                                            Mar. 29,    Mar. 30,    Mar. 29,    Mar. 30,
                                             1997        1996        1997        1996
                                           --------------------------------------------
<S>                                        <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>     
Net (loss) income                          $(22,414)   $(12,382)   $(21,943)   $    713


Net effect on net (loss) income
from conversion of other pontentially
dilutive securties                            1,820       2,215         819         738
                                           --------------------------------------------


Adjusted net (loss) income                 $(20,594)   $(10,167)   $(21,124)   $  1,451
                                           ============================================



Weighted average number of common
and common equivalent shares outstanding
- primary                                    13,774      13,876      13,774      13,738

Net effect of other potentially dilutive
securities                                    1,595       1,595       1,595       1,595
                                           --------------------------------------------

Adjusted average shares outstanding for
fully diluted computation                    15,369      15,471      15,369      15,333
                                           ============================================

Per share amount - fully diluted           $  (1.34)   $  (0.66)   $  (1.37)   $   0.09
                                           ============================================
</TABLE>
                                       39
HILDA MALAVE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CRISTIAN E. MALAVE, DECEASED, CARLOS E. MALAVE, MELISSA MALAVE AND HILDA AND CARLOS E. MALAVE, AS GUARDIANS AND PARENTS OF ALYSSA MALAVE, A MINOR

, Appellant s ,

v.

JAMES J. TAYLOR, JR., AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF VIRGINIA LEE PAGEL, DECEASED

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 5732

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 1, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Monica J. Brasington , Judge

. Christopher V. Carlyle and John N. Bogdanoff, The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, The Villages , for Appellant s

.
Daniel M. Bachi, Sellars, Marion & Bachi, PA, West Palm Beach , for Appellee.2 PER CURIAM.

AFFIRME D.

LEWIS

, RAY

, and JAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.17



CALIX, INC.


Non-Employee Director Cash Compensation Policy, as amended June 7, 2018




		
	1.
	General. This Non-Employee Director Cash Compensation Policy (“Policy”) was adopted by the Board of Directors (“Board”) of Calix, Inc. (“Company”) on and is effective as of June 7, 2018.




		
	2.
	Annual Cash Compensation. Each member of the board who is not employed by the Company or one of its affiliates shall be entitled to an annual retainer with the amount determined as follows (the net sum for each director, his or her “Annual Retainer”):






	
			
	 
	Chair
	Members

	Board of Directors Retainer
	$40,000
	$40,000

	 
	 
	 

	Committee Retainers
	 
	 

	Audit Committee
	$35,000
	$10,000

	Compensation Committee
	$20,000
	$7,500

	Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee
	$10,000
	$5,000

	Cybersecurity Committee
	$10,000
	$5,000

	Strategic Committee
	$10,000
	$5,000








		
	3.
	Timing of Payment. Annual Retainers shall be paid in quarterly installments in arrears on the date of each regularly scheduled quarterly board meeting. Installments will be pro-rated for any partial period of service.




		
	4.
	Policy Subject to Amendment, Modification and Termination. This Policy may be amended, modified or terminated by the Board at any time in the future at its sole discretion.
Kimberly Ann LAMB, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Patrick Wayne MOSLEY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0756

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 25, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellant's failure to satisfy this court's February 28, 2018 fee order.

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         197,584
<SECURITIES>                                       250
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               374,818
<PP&E>                                         184,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,792
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 702,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          537,715
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           974
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,141
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   702,520
<SALES>                                      1,215,585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,215,585
<CGS>                                          721,812
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,700,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,991
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (505,852)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (505,852)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (505,852)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.35)
        

</TABLE>
Anthony DALE, Appellant, v. Tenisha FAIRCLOUGH, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4146

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Michael J. Lyftogt,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Christopher &Banks Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q****for the period ended November 29, 2008 as filed withthe United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: January 8,  2009 |   |                                                                                    |
|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   |                                                                                    |
|                        | By:    | /s/ Michael J. Lyftogt                                                                  |
|                        |   | Michael J. Lyftogt *Vice President – Finance**and Interim Chief Financial Officer* |

# ** **

# ****
## Court of Appeals

Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler



## B I L L O F C O S T S

Court of Appeals No. 12-15-00222-CV

Trial Court No. CV-12-9397

Debbie Tarver

Vs.

Josette Newberry and Monica Newberry

DOCUMENTS FILED AMOUNT FEE PAID BY

Indigent

Required Texas.gov efiling fee

Filing

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee

Motion fee $25.00

$30.00

$100.00

$50.00

$10.00 Indigent

Indigent

Indigent

Indigent

Julie L Conn

TOTAL: $215.00

I, Pam Estes, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler, Texas,

certify that the above copy of the Bill of Costs is true and correct. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND

AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at Tyler, this 30th day of November 2015

, A.D.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By:

_____________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk
Cordero Otistroy BLAIR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2341

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Cordero Otistroy Blair, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN RE: COMMITTEE ON BAR ADMISSIONS CFN-17816

NO. 2018-BA-0882

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 2018

Denied. See Supreme Court Rule XVII, § 4(C). Any fees previously paid by applicant to take the February 2018 bar exam may be applied to a subsequent application. See Supreme Court Rule XVII, Appendix A.
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 00 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 02 41 -WSD-ECS-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us SCOTT AHN, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st7, 2 01 2) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, JOR DAN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10003 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 1 of 2Ja y

L. Stro ng wate r, ap po in te d c ou ns el forSco ttAhn inth is di rectcri m in al ap pe al , has m ov edto withd raw fro m furth er re pr es en ta ti on of t he ap pe ll an t an d fil eda br ie f pu rs ua ntto And er s v. C al if or ni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2 d 4 93 (19 67 ). Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s t ha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o a rg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andAhn ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc e are AFFIRMED .

2

Case: 12-10003 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 Page: 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wade Robert ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7589

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Wade Robert Ellis, Appellant Pro Se.

Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wade Robert Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Ellis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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*
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
     1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Excalibur Industries, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Matthew C. Flemming, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

      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/ Matthew C. Flemming
-----------------------
Matthew C. Flemming, Chief Financial Officer
April 14, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8266-8267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03091]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer 
Institute Council of Research Advocates.
    The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and is open to the 
public. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need 
special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the 
meeting, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of 
the meeting. The meeting will be videocast and can be accessed from the 
NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (http://videocast.nih.gov).

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Council of Research 
Advocates.
    Date: March 9, 2022.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.
    Agenda: Welcome and Chairman's Remarks, NCI Updates, Legislative 
Update, and Director's Update.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

[[Page 8267]]

    Contact Person: Amy Williams, NCI, Office of Advocacy Relations, 
National Cancer Institute, NIH, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, Room 
10A28, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9723, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#67100e0b0b0e06060a270a060e0b49090e0f49000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="65120c09090c0404082508040c094b0b0c0d4b020a13">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: NCRA: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ncra/ncra.htm, where 
an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be 
posted when available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 9, 2022.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03091 Filed 2-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6954
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEREK MARQUIS FLEMING, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-179, CA-93-584) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 23, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Marquis Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying his28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion and denying his motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error in the denial of § 2255 relief. Nor do we find an abuse of discretion in the court's denial of Appellant'smotions for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Fleming , Nos. CR-91- 179; CA-93-584 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 20, 1995; May 2, 1995; May 11, 1995).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.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher HOLLEY, also known as Christopher Caruthers, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50520 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 2, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Berenguer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, *U.S. Attorney’s*Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for

Laura G. Greenberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Christopher Holley appeals the consecutive 120-month sentences imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The presentence investigation report (PSR) recommended enhancements under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines for, *inter alia,*Holley’s prior Texas attempted-murder conviction as a crime of violence under Guideline § 4B1.2(a)(2). At sentencing, Holley asserted his attempted-murder conviction did not constitute a crime of violence and the Guideline was unconstitutionally vague. Over his objection, the court adopted the PSR’s recommendation.

Although *posirBooker,*the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 48-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. *Id.**231at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; *United States v. Delgado-Martinez,*564 F.3d 750, 751-53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed *de novo;*its factual findings, only for clear error. *E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,*517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

On appeal, Holley claims the residual clause of Guideline § 4B1.2(a)(2) is unconstitutionally vague in the light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). After Holley’s brief was filed here, however, the Supreme Court foreclosed this issue, holding “the Guidelines are not amenable to a vagueness challenge”. *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 894, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017).

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,942,000                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,637,000                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,498,000                       0
<PP&E>                                       5,308,000                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,382,000                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,591,000                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       111,000                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,451,000                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,382,000                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,447,000              58,351,000
<CGS>                                       17,459,000              34,952,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,923,000              17,846,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               755,000               1,406,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             242,000                 571,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,865,000               3,180,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   784,000               1,336,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,081,000               1,844,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,081,000               1,844,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.09                    0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09                    0.16


</TABLE>