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



                      DI INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                   COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER COMMON STOCK SHARE
              (in thousands except per common stock share amounts)
                                  (Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                                          Three months ended                  Nine Months Ended
                                                             September 30,                      September 30,
                                                      ----------------------------         -----------------------
                                                        1995                1994              1995          1994
                                                      -------              ------          --------        -------
<S>                                                   <C>                  <C>             <C>             <C> 
Weighted average shares of
  common stock outstanding................             38,669              38,584            38,669         38,585
 
Stock options (treasury
  stock method)...........................                 --(a)               --(a)             --(a)          --(a)
                                                       -------             -------           -------        -------
Weighted average shares of common
  stock outstanding for fully
  diluted earnings per share calculation..              38,669              38,584            38,669         38,585
                                                       =======             =======           =======        =======
 
Net loss..................................             $(1,350)            $  (823)          $(5,245)       $(3,037)
                                                       =======             =======           =======        =======
Loss per share of common stock
  from continuing operations..............               (.03)               (.02)              (.12)          (.08)
 
Loss per share of common stock
  from discontinued operation.............                 --                  --               (.02)            --
                                                      -------             -------            -------        -------
 
Loss per share of common stock............            $  (.03)            $  (.02)           $  (.14)       $  (.08)
                                                      =======             =======            =======        =======
</TABLE>

Note:  Reference is made to Note 2 to Consolidated Financial Statements
regarding computation of per common stock share amounts.

     (a)  Stock options are not included since inclusion would be antidilutive
for the three and  nine months ended September 30, 1995 and 1994, respectively.

                                      17
#### Craig Devon MURPHY, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

No. 17-5133.

Jan. 8, 2018.

Former decision, 138 S.Ct. 214.

Petition for rehearing denied.
### Fw: Call to discuss SOx NAAQS Michael Stewart to: Tricia Crabtree 05/24/2010 11:05 AM

Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D. Environmental Protection Specialist Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (919) 541-7524 stewart.michael@epa.gov ----- Forwarded by Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/24/2010 11:05 AM -----



### RE: Call to discuss SOx NAAQS

Lydia Wegman to: Laity, James A. 05/24/2010 10:59 AM

Cc: Bridgid Curry, Charlotte Bertrand, "Mancini, Dominic J.", Karen Martin, "Schwab, Margo", Michael Stewart

Thanks Jim.

"Laity, James A." 05/24/2010 10:57:23 AM Thanks Lydia, waiting to hear back from Margo o...

From: "Laity, James A." <James

_ A.

_ Laity@omb.eop.gov> To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Bridgid Curry/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic

_ J.

_ Mancini@omb.eop.gov>, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Schwab, Margo" <Margo

_ Schwab@omb.eop.gov> Date: 05/24/2010 10:57 AM Subject: RE: Call to discuss SOx NAAQS



### Thanks Lydia, waiting to hear back from Margo on her schedule. The tight time schedule on this major rule is frustrating for us as well. We are all doing the best we can. ‐‐ j im

From: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 10:55 A M To: Laity, James A. Cc: Curry.Bridgid@epamail.epa.gov; Bertrand. Charlotte@epamail.epa.gov; Mancini, Dominic J.; Martin.Karen@epamail.epa.gov; Stewart.Michael@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Re: Call to discuss SOx NAAQS

To state the obvious, it is frustrating to receive these comments ten days before the rule needs to be signed and then to find we can't discuss them with you until tomorrow. We will be raising the issues to our management today and it would have been helpful to have some understanding of the rationale for your positions. Be that as it may, I can be available tomorrow between 9:30-10:30 tomorrow morning. Please let me know if you and Margo can be available at that time. Thanks.

From: "Laity, James A." <James

_ A

.

_ Laity@omb.eop.gov>To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic

_ J.

_ Mancini@omb.eop.gov>, Bridgid Curry/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/24/2010 10:14 A M Subject

: Call to discuss SOx NAAQS

Lydia, Just remembered that Margo is out of the office today. Will set up a call for tomorrow am. What is your availability? ‐‐ j im

From: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto : Wegman

. Lydia @ epamail

. epa

. gov ] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 9:45 A M To: Laity, James A. Cc: Bertrand.Charlotte@epamail.epa.gov Subject: I just picked up your message from Friday about the SO2 package

Hi Jim,

I didn't check my voicemail on Friday or over the weekend, so did not get your message until now. Can you please call me at the office? Needless to say, I would like to hear what your "major ask" is on the SO2 package. My number is 919-541-5505. I can't find your office number and didn't get an answer on your cell, so I'll wait to hear from you. Thanks.

Lydia
#### M. D. Hill v. B. J. Padgett, *et ux.*

153 So. 911.

Opinion Filed April 13, 1934.

*W. B. Cone*and *Cone & Chapman,*for Appellant;

*B. J. Padgett*and *Ida May Padgett, in pro. per.,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

— This case is' before us on appeal from an order dismissing the bill of complaint.

*520The decree cannot be reversed without holding that there is no substantial evidence found in the record to support the same. The record does not warrant our so holding. Neither can we say that the findings of the Chancellor were clearly erroneous.

The chancellor, upon considering conflicting evidence, exercised his judicial right to determine the weight and probative force to be accorded all and all parts of the evidence presented to him and rendered his decree in favor of the defendants. It should be affirmed. So ordered.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
1 COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

Alamo Defenders Descendants

Association and Lee White

,

Appellant

,

v.

Texas Historical Commission; Mark Wolfe, as Executive Director of The Texas Historical Commission, in his Official Capacity only; The Texas General Land Office; George P. Bush, Commissioner of

The General Land Office of The State of Texas in his Official Capacity only; Alamo Trust, Inc.; Douglass McDonald, CE O of The Alamo Trust in his Official Capacity only; and The City of San Antonio

,

Appellees

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 172

- C V

Appeal from the

126 th District Court

of Travis C ounty, Texas

(TC# D

- 1

- GN

- 19

- 007845 )

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed on August 7, 2020 , and upon further review, it appears that

the Orders on pages 3909 through 3914 have the incorrect year and the first page for each order

are i l legible

.

Therefore, the Court ORDERS that the Honorable Maya Guerra Gamble

, Presiding Judge

for the 1 26 th District Court of Travis County, Texas, enter a c orrected order to include the correct

year the order w as signed and make the first page legible. The corrected order shall be filed with2

the District Clerk of Travis County, Texas, and the District Clerk shall prepare a supplemental

clerk’s r ecord which will include the corrected order and file it with this Court on or before

September 2, 2020

.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 13 th day of August , 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               8
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       35
<ALLOWANCES>                                         8
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   167
<PP&E>                                              44
<DEPRECIATION>                                      21
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              121
<BONDS>                                            129
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                          36
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       336
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   357
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    43
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     1
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      8
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  5
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         5
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24


</TABLE>
Submitted November 15;

portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed, otherwise affirmed December 14, 2016

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*ADRIANNE NICOLE MILES-LANGSTON, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Washington County Circuit Court

C141791CR, D131643M; A159203 (Control), A159025

385 P3d 98

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Laura E. Coffin, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael S. Shin, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

*914PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of first-degree theft (Count 1) and second-degree theft (Count 2), and the court imposed 24 months’ imprisonment on Count 1 and a concurrent sentence of six months in jail on Count 2. The court also imposed $634 in court-appointed attorney fees, $300 in fines, and $485 in restitution. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of defendant’s past thefts, and, at sentencing, by imposing court-appointed attorney fees when the record is silent regarding defendant’s ability to pay them.

We reject defendant’s assignment of evidentiary error without published discussion. However, with regard to the imposition of court-appointed attorney fees, the state concedes that the trial court plainly erred and that we should exercise our discretion to correct that error. We agree with the state’s concession and, for reasons similar to those expressed in *State v. Hunt,*271 Or App 347, 352-53, 350 P3d 521 (2015), exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay attorney fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.
<PAGE>

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT
     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

         Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): May 16, 2003

                                 US UNWIRED INC.

             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

          Louisiana                      000-22003               72-1457316
(State or other jurisdiction     (Commission File Number)     (I.R.S. Employer
      of incorporation)                                      Identification No.)

          901 Lakeshore Drive
        Lake Charles, Louisiana                                      70601
(Address of principal executive offices)                           (Zip Code)

                                 (337) 436-9000
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

                                 Not applicable.
          (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

<PAGE>

 Item 7.  Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits

         (c)  Exhibits

          Exhibit No.      Description
          -----------      -----------

         99.1              Transcript of Conference Call of US Unwired Inc.
                           held on May 16, 2003

         99.2              Information Concerning Non-GAAP Financial Measures

Item 9. Regulation FD Disclosure (provided under Item 12)

     On May 16, 2003, the Registrant held a conference call to discuss its first
quarter 2003 earnings. The transcript of the conference call is filed herewith
as exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference. The information in the
transcript is to be considered "filed" for purposes of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and incorporated by reference into the registration statements filed
by the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933.

     The Registrant is also filing as Exhibit 99.2, which is incorporated herein
by reference, information concerning certain non-GAAP financial measures that
were discussed during the conference call.

<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                      US UNWIRED INC.
                                      (Registrant)

Date:  May 20, 2003           By:     /s/ Jerry E. Vaughn
                                      --------------------------------------
                                      Jerry E. Vaughn
                                      Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>

                                INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Exhibit No.      Description
-----------      -----------
99.1             Transcript of Conference Call of US Unwired Inc. held on
                 May 16, 2003

99.2             Information Concerning Non-GAAP Financial Measures
# C_2023261EN.01000303.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/3

---

Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Ireland) — Z.K., M.S. v The Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-248/22, (1) The Minister for Justice and Equality)

(2023/C 261/07)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 20.6.2022.

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.3
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
  We consent to the use in this Registration Statement of Group Maintenance
America Corp. on Form S-4 of our report on the financial statements of
Masters, Inc. dated July 24, 1997 appearing in the Prospectus, which is part
of this Registration Statement.
 
  We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such
Prospectus.
 
Deloitte & Touche LLP
 
Washington, D.C.
December 10, 1997
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David L. Hauser, Group
Executive and Chief Financial Officer of Duke Energy Indiana, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 Duke Energy Indiana.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 13, 2009



/s/    DAVID L.
HAUSERDavid L. Hauser Group Executive
and Chief Financial Officer
#### Wilma M. PENNINGTON-THURMAN, Wilma Marie Pennington, Inc, Standing In, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barry S. SCHERMER; United States of America, Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of the United States; Bank of America, N.A., CEO Brian T. Moynihan; David A. Sosne, Bankruptcy Trustee; Summers Compton Wells; Brian J. LaFlamme, Attorney for Trustee; Ira Bergman & Bergman, Schraier & Co. and Brown Smith Wallace; Federal Housing Finance Agency, CEO David M. Moffett; Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, CEO Donald H. Layton; Martin Leigh, P.C.; Adam A. Field; Matthew M. Peters; Caitlin Stayduhar; Amy T. Ryan; Thompson Coburn, LLP, Chairman Tom Minogue; Allen D. Allred; Christopher M. Hohn; Seth A. Albin; Bryan Cave, LLP, Managing Partner Robert L. Newmark; Bryan C. Walsh; Rhiana Luaders; Amy E. Breihan; State of Missouri, Attorney General Josh Hawley; David L. Dowd; Timothy J. Boyer; Robert H. Dierker; Angela T. Quigless; Philip M. Hess; Gary M. Gaertner; Millsap & Singer, P.C.; Anne M. Zimmermann; Charles S. Pulliam, III, Defendants-Appellees.

*520No. 17-2041

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 14, 2018

Filed: March 1, 2018

Wilma M. Pennington-Thurman, Pro Se

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Wilma Pennington-Thurman appeals the district court’s128 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal of her pro se civil case. Upon careful de novo review, *see Moore v. Sims,*200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we agree with the district court that Pennington-Thurman failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### JIE MIAO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71323

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted February 9, 2018 Pasadena, California

Filed February 27, 2018

Steve Xiao Ming Luan, Law Offices of Steve Luan, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner

Jeremy M. Bylund, Trial Attorney, Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial Attorney, Katharine Clark, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, for Respondent

Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,* District Judge.

*

**The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Jie Miao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdic*710tion under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny the petition.

1. The BIA’s determination that Miao did not suffer past persecution was supported by substantial evidence. The treatment received by Miao during her detention after being arrested at a house church, while perhaps harsh, does not rise to the level of persecution. *See Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a petitioner who was detained for multiple days, hit with a rod ten times, and forced to sign a letter admitting he had “done wrong” and to report weekly to the police had not been persecuted). Miao also claims that she lost her job, but provided no evidence of its importance to her economic wellbeing. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “mere economic disadvantage alone” does not constitute persecution (quoting *Gormley v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2004))).

2. Substantial evidence also supported the BIA’s determination that Miao did not carry her burden of establishing a well-founded fear of future persecution. The 2009 State Department Report for China states that the “freedom to participate in religious activities continued to increase in many areas,” although notes that the Chinese “government continued to strictly control religious practice and repress religious activity outside government-sanctioned organizations and registered places of worship,” and that house churches continue to face increased interference “in periods preceding sensitive anniversaries.” But, the incidents involving churches detailed in the Report only involved harassment of church leaders, not congregants like Miao.

DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6186]


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


COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, March 24, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-6186 Filed 3-7-97; 11:03 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M