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



                               GALEY & LORD, INC.
                       STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF
                               PER SHARE EARNINGS


Computation of Average Shares Outstanding (In Thousands):
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



                                         Three Months Ended                   Six Months Ended
                                      Mar. 29, 1997     Mar.30, 1996        Mar. 29, 1997    Mar. 30, 1996
<S>                                     <C>             <C>                <C>              <C>   

Average Common Shares
     Outstanding                          11,598           11,742              11,587            11,752

Add Dilutive Options                         454              186                 371               217
                                        --------         --------            --------          --------

Primary Average Shares                    12,052           11,928              11,958            11,969

Incremental Shares Arising
     from Full Dilution
     Assumption                                7               19                  41                 9
                                         -------        ---------            --------          --------

Average Shares Assuming
     Full Dilution                        12,059           11,947              11,999            11,978

</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TIMOTHY BACON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3522

[March 28, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Paul L. Backman

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 03

- 007679 CF10A

.

Timothy Bacon, South Bay, pro se.

No response required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

We affirm the denial of appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motio n to correct illegal sentence without comment. Any argument regarding appellant’s motion for return of property should be

raised in case number 4D17

- 2590.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, T AYLOR and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard JASSO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10337 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 30, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kenneth G. Leggett, Gravley & Leggett, P.L.L.C., Abilene, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Richard Jasso appeals the mandatory life sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of distribution and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (meth). He argues that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because the sentence is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense of conviction. As Jasso raised this constitutional issue below, review is de novo. *United States v. Wallace,*389 F.3d 483, 485 (5th Cir. 2004).

When evaluating an Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge, we make a threshold comparison between the gravity of the charged offense and the severity of the sentence. *McGruder v. Puckett,*954 F.2d 313, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1992). We look to *Rummel v. Estelle,*445 U.S. 263, 272, 100 S.Ct. 1133, 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980), as a benchmark. *See United States v. Gonzales,*121 F.3d 928, 943 (5th Cir. 1997), *abrogated on other grounds by United States v. O’Brien,*560 U.S. 218, 130 S.Ct. 2169, 176 L.Ed.2d 979 (2010). In light of Jasso’s extensive criminal history, which includes convictions for felony drug offenses and violent crimes such as aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, he cannot demonstrate gross disproportionality against the benchmark in *Rummel,*445 U.S. at 284-85, 100 S.Ct. 1133. *See Harmelin v. Michigan,*501 U.S. 957, 961, 994-96, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991); *United States v.*
      *427
      *Cooks,*52 F.3d 101, 105 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Jasso’s Eighth Amendment challenge does not warrant relief. *See McGruder,*954 F.2d at 315-16. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not bo published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.


SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION


906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






The
undersigned officers each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of American Wenshen Steel Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




January 13,
      2009
            /s/ Yang
      KuidongYang KuidongChief Executive Officer




January 13,
      2009
            /s/ Zhang
      LiweiZhang LiweiChief Financial Officer







This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7153 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WANSLEY OTTO MASSEY, a/k/a Pops, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 97-7154 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WANSLEY OTTO MASSEY, a/k/a Pops, Defendant - Appellant.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-94-170-3-3-V)2 Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 30, 1997 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wansley Otto Massey, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motions for disclosure of the grand jury concurrence form, a Batson challenge form, and challenging the jurisdiction of the district court. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Massey , No. CA-94-170-3-3-V (W.D.N.C. July 29 & 31, 1997). 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.
DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

#### ** **

#### **CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

I, the undersigned, JayC. Peterson, Chief Financial Officer, of Forgent Networks, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, that:

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the “Report”);

2.                                       Basedon my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by the Report;

3.                                       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in the Report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,the periods presented in the Report;

4.                                       TheCompany’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have:

(a)                                  Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within these entities, particularly during the period in whichthe Report is being prepared;

(b)                                 Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in the Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by theReport based on such evaluation; and

(c)                                  Disclosedin the Report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (thequarter ended January 31, 2007) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.                                       TheCompany’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors:

(a)                                  Allsignificant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)                                 Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting.

/s/ JAY C.PETERSON

Jay C. Peterson

Chief Financial Officer

March14, 2007

----
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3456

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Marvin F. Baker, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 21, 2007

Filed: June 26, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal of his 33-month prison sentence for possessing a

firearm with an obliterated serial number, Marvin F. Baker (Baker) challenges his

sentence as unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for failure to give appropriate

weight to mitigating factors in his criminal history, such as his age, and for making

a clear error in judgment when balancing the § 3553(a) factors. 
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

-2-

Upon careful review of the record, we conclude the district court1

 did not abuse

its discretion in sentencing Baker to 33 months’ imprisonment. See United States v.

Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 276

(2005). We afford a presumption of reasonableness to the district court’s sentence,

which fell at the bottom of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. See Rita v.

United States, No. 06-5754, 2007 WL 1772146, at *__ (U.S. June 21, 2007)

(affirming the application of a presumption of reasonableness by a court of appeals

to a district court’s sentence that reflects a proper application of the Sentencing

Guidelines); United States v. Likens, 464 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 2006) (“The

guideline range, though advisory, is presumed to be reasonable.” (citation omitted)).

The district court appropriately weighed Baker’s youth and relatively minor past

crimes against other § 3553(a) factors, such as the need for a significant prison

sentence to halt Baker’s pattern of criminal conduct and the need for a sentence long

enough to provide Baker with meaningful rehabilitation and training. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(1) (history and characteristics of defendant), (a)(2)(B) (afford adequate

deterrence), and (a)(2)(D) (provide defendant with needed educational or vocational

training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in most effective manner);

United States v. Swehla, 442 F.3d 1143, 1145-47 (8th Cir. 2006) (upholding sentence

and finding criminal history not overstated where the defendant committed many

crimes from ages 15 to 18). 

Therefore, we affirm.

______________________________
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report included in this Form 10-K/A, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statement No. 333-47362 on Form S-8, No. 333-41726 on Form S-3/A,
No. 333-64798 on Form S-3/A, No. 333-68084 on Form S-8, No. 333-69418 on Form
S-3/A and No. 333-69408 on Form S-3/A.

                                              /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                              -----------------------
                                              Arthur Andersen LLP
San Jose, California
November 5, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000883842
<NAME> M-WAVE INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         2949431
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1619536
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    1224526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7658552
<PP&E>                                         9504204
<DEPRECIATION>                               (4223593)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                16180837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1914645
<BONDS>                                        2192201
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         30698
<OTHER-SE>                                    11725346
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  16180837
<SALES>                                        2716093
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          2389494
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   586194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (37276)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (296871)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (121806)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (175065)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (175065)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Maritza MASTRAPA, Appellant, v. 8221 STAR LLC, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2591

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 9, 2018

Maritza Mastrapa, in proper person.

Bill Ullman and Rosenny Burgos, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*993Affirmed. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a) ("After service of the initial brief ... the court may summarily affirm the order to be reviewed if the court finds that no preliminary basis for reversal has been demonstrated.").
Veronica HARDY as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Anthony John Hardy, Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Jennifer Shanta King, and Coralee McCants, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-2297

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

Patrick G Gilligan and Christopher A. Anderson, of Gilligan, Gooding, Franjola & Batsel, P.A., Ocala, for Appellant.

Jeffrey E. Bigman and Brooke Gaffney, of Smith, Stout, Bigman & Brock, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellee, Progressive American Ins. Co.

No Appearance for other Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus L. LEMMONS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10589 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

January 19, 2017

*674Arthur Lee Bentley, Germaine Seider, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, TAMPA, FL, Emmett Jackson Boggs, U.S. Attorney’s Office, ORLANDO, FL, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Stephen John Langs, Federal Public Defender’s Office, ORLANDO, FL, Marcus Lorene Lemmons, USP Coleman Il-In-mate Legal Mail, COLEMAN, FL, for Defendant - Appellant

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Angela B. Wright, appointed counsel for Marcus L. Lemmons in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the'appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Lem-mons’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### James DURHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Dee ANDERSON, Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-11825 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 25, 2017

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Durham appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Durham alleged that the defendant was liable for injuries he received when he was beaten with a mop handle by another jail inmate.

As a threshold matter, this court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional in a civil case. *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

Durham’s notice of appeal, which we consider filed no earlier than the date he signed it on December 18, 2016, is untimely from the district court’s judgment, which was entered on November 7, 2016. *See*FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (a party must file a notice of appeal in a civil case within 30 days of the order or judgment). There is no basis to construe his notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5). Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. *See Bowles,*551 U.S. at 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360. His motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.

*

 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.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of W Holding Company, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge on the date
hereof:

         (a)      the Form 10-K of the Company for the Year Ended December 31,
                  2003, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
                  Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (b)      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
SEC or its staff upon request.

                                         /s/ Frank C. Stipes, Esq.
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
                                        Officer and President
                                        March 12, 2004
Douglas A. LIVELY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3817

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.01

I, Steven W.  Robertson,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of The Keller
Manufacturing Company, Inc., certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2002, (the  Report)  fully complies with
the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of
1934, and (ii) the information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of The
Keller Manufacturing Company, Inc. as of the dates and for the periods set forth
therein.

| | /s/  Steven W. Robertson
Steven W. Robertson
Vice President-Finance, Treasurer and
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 28, 2003
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Kimberly S. Patmore, the Chief
Financial Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of her knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 15, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Kimberly S. Patmore
|                   |  |  |  | Kimberly S. Patmore    
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer