alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit (11)

                   COMPUTATIONS OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                      RUSSELL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Year Ended
                                           --------------------------------------------
                                           December 30      December 31       January 1
                                               1995             1994             1994
                                           -----------      -----------      ----------
<S>                                        <C>              <C>              <C>
Primary:
  Average shares outstanding                39,097,574       39,949,604       40,847,222
  Net effect of dilutive stock
  options--based on the treasury 
  stock method using
  average market price                         208,981          278,146          374,950
                                           -----------      -----------      -----------

                           TOTALS           39,306,555       40,227,750       41,222,172
                                           ===========      ===========      ===========

Net income applicable to
  common shareholders                      $54,117,229      $78,826,012      $49,079,599
                                           ===========      ===========      ===========

Per share amount                           $      1.38      $      1.96      $      1.19
                                           ===========      ===========      ===========

Fully diluted:
  Average shares outstanding                39,097,574       39,949,604       40,847,222
  Net effect of dilutive stock
    options--based on the treasury 
    stock method using the year-end 
    market price, if higher than 
    average market price                       208,981          300,833          374,950
                                           -----------      -----------      -----------

                           TOTALS           39,306,555       40,250,437       41,222,172
                                           ===========      ===========      ===========

Net income applicable to
  common shareholders                      $54,117,229      $78,826,012      $49,079,599
                                           ===========      ===========      ===========

Per share amount                           $      1.38      $      1.96      $      1.19
                                           ===========      ===========      ===========
</TABLE>





                                     IV-12
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10392

Conference Calendar

 

BRYAN MCMILLEN; JAMES MCMILLEN;

LINDA MCMILLEN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

DENNIS CLAY; DENNIS MEYERS;

TINA JACKSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CV-14-A

- - - - - - - - - -

December 9, 1997

Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bryan McMillen and his parents, James and Linda McMillen,

appeal the dismissal of their civil rights suit which alleged

that seventeen-year old Bryan was illegally arrested for a murder

and subjected to excessive force, unconstitutional jail

conditions, unfair investigative conduct, inadequate medical

treatment, false and malicious prosecution, and false

imprisonment. We have reviewed the record and the parties’
No. 97-10392

-2-

briefs and AFFIRM for the reasons set forth by the district

court. McMillen v. Clay, No. 4:97-CV-14-A (N.D. Tex., Mar. 11,

1997).

AFFIRMED.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 9, 2009

1215 

# Order

January 9, 2009

137441

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137441 COA: 278831 Saginaw CC: 06-028190-FC JUAN VICTOR RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 21, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

H ATHAWAY 

### , J., not participating.
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
AIR QUALITY MANAGEM ENT D I STRICT November 14, 2014
John Ungvarsky Office ofAir Planning (AI R-2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Docket No: EPA-R09-0AR-2014-0178 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 Larry Greene AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

Re: Comment on Approval and Promulgation of the Implementation Plans; State of California; Sacramento Metro Area; Attainment Plan for 1997 8
-Hour Ozone Standard Dear Mr. Ungvarsky, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed approval ofthe state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the state of California to provide for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone ambient air quality standard for the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area

. In the Sacramento Ozone Plan (2013 Revision), the region identified a small buffer of additional emission reductions as part of the attainment demonstration for 2018. This buffer totaled 1.0 tons per day (tpd) NOx and 3.0 tpd VOC reductions from proposed but unadapted regional and local measures. The buffer was intended for use, if necessary, in demonstrating general conformity for future federal projects. EPA did not include the reductions from the unadapted state and local contr ol measures in its proposed attainment demonstration

. As a result, the proposed attainment demonstration shows a general conformity buffer ofonly 0.1 tpd NOx. The most recent transportation conformity analysis completed by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), which is the metropolitan planning organization for ou r region, uses motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that were found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes by EPA (79 FR 46436) and that are proposed for approval in this rule. These budgets incorporate a safety margin of 3.0 tpd NOx that was not used for demonstrating conformity for 2018 and remains surplus to the proposed attainment demonstration. To ensure that the region can continue to meet air quality requirements for improved transportation and econom ic development, SACOG and the District request that EPA reallocate a nominal amount- 0

.9 tons per day
- from the 2018 MVEB NOx safety margin to the general conformity NOx buffer in their final plan approval. This would leave a transportation buffer of 2.1 tpd and a general conformity buffer of 1.0 tpd NOx.EPA's proposal to approve the Sacramento Ozone Plan marks a milestone in the combined efforts of local businesses, the regional air districts, the MPO, and state and federal agencies in providing clean healthy air for our citizens. Thank you for your consideration of our comment. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 874-4802, or Charles Anderson at (916) 874-4831, ifyou need more information regarding our comment. Sincerely,

# ~~ Larry Greene Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer Sacramento Area Council of Governments

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor • Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 916/874-4800 • 916/874-4899 fax www.airquality.org 2
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41472

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILSON ALBERTO MONJARAS-NAVARRETE, also

known as Jose Wilson Montalvo-Navarrete,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CR-410-ALL

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

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Wilson Alberto

Monjaras-Navarrete raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 24, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20783 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RICARDO SANCHEZ-CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-856-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ricardo Sanchez-Cortez (Sanchez) appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sanchez contends that the district court should have suppressed the evidence of his prior administrative deportation because he was deprived of due process during his administrative deportation proceeding. However, Sanchez concedes that he raises the issue only to preserve it for Supreme CourtNo. 02-20783 -2- review, as his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte , 186 F.3d 651, 656-60 (5th Cir. 1999). Sanchez also contends that, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it does not require a prior felony conviction to be proved as an element of the offense. Sanchez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90, 496; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly  Report of TrackPower,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB,  for the period ending August 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Edward M. Tracy,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  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 result of operations
            of the Company.


                                                    /s/ Edward M. Tracy
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Edward M. Tracy
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

                                                    October 20, 2006
#### State v. Pickerill

105,463

04/08/13

Denied.

Unpublished
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL HUPP, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

TERRANCE R. HUBBS; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 16-55266 

D.C. No. 5:14-cv-02560-VAP-SP 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Paul Hupp appeals pro se from district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth Amendment and state law claims. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s 

dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 16-55266 

12(b)(6). Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hupp’s Fourth Amendment claim 

arising out of defendant Hubbs’ alleged license plate check because Hubbs’ act of 

running a license plate check to access Hupp’s home address did not constitute a 

search under the Fourth Amendment and thus did not require probable cause. See 

United States v. Diaz-Castaneda, 494 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2007) (a police 

officer does not conduct a search under the Fourth Amendment when he sees a 

license plate in plain view and uses it to access non-private information about the 

car and its owner). 

We reject as without merit Hupp’s various contentions about the district 

court’s bias, its assignment of cases to particular judges, and its failure to provide 

an opportunity for oral argument. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         5,280,584
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,811,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                   62,000
<INVENTORY>                                    1,936,015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9,628,260
<PP&E>                                         7,062,772
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,869,877
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,995,659
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,640,878
<BONDS>                                        500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          268,198
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,995,659
<SALES>                                        8,933,629
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,933,629
<CGS>                                          5,554,492
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,554,492
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,599,411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             55,772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,071,132
<INCOME-TAX>                                   379,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   692,132
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .59
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Capital Solutions 1, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of
2002

                            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 Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Capital
Solutions 1, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended February 28, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Christopher Astrom, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Capital Solutions 1, Inc., 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 the Company.

Dated: August 14, 2006

                                      /s/ CHRISTOPHER ASTROM
                                      -----------------------
                                      Christopher Astrom
                                      Chief Executive Officer

                                      /s/ CHRISTOPHER ASTROM
                                      -----------------------
                                      Christopher Astrom
                                      Chief Financial Officer
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        March 21,      2008 |   |  /s/Stephen M.      Oksas   |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   | Stephen      M. Oksas                           |   |
|                                 |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer      |   |
|                                 |   |                                            |   |

|        March 21,      2008 |   |  /s/John L.      Garlanger                                               |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   | John      L. Garlanger                                                                       |   |
|                                 |   | Executive      Vice President and           Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                 |   |                                                                                         |   |
H. Res. 148 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 26, 2019. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS: Mr. Brown of Maryland. 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES: Mr. Tonko. 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS: Mrs. Craig. 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS: Mr. Levin of California (to rank immediately after Mr. Lamb). 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 104,570

#### In the Matter of Jeffrey M. Johns, *Respondent.*

(304 P.3d 677)

On December 23, 2010, this court suspended the respondent, Jeffrey M. Johns, from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of 2 years. See *In re Johns,*291 Kan. 638, 243 P.3d 1101 (2010). Before reinstatement, the respondent was required to pay the costs of the disciplinary action, present a professional evaluation, and comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2012 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 397), as amended December 1, 2012, and comply with Supreme Court Rule 219 (2012 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 398), as amended December 1, 2012.

On January 25, 2013, the respondent filed a petition with this court for reinstatement to the practice of law in Kansas. The petition was referred to the Disciplinary Administrator for consideration by the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219. The Disciplinary Administrator affirmed that the respondent met all requirements set forth by the court.

The court, after carefully considering the record, accepts the findings and recommendations that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Kansas.

It Is Therefore Ordered that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Kansas conditioned upon his compliance with the annual continuing legal education requirements and upon his payment of all fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission. When the respondent has complied with the annual continuing legal education requirements and has paid the fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission, the Clerk is directed to enter respondent’s name upon the roster of attorneys engaged in the practice of law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that this order of reinstatement of Jeffrey M. Johns shall be published in the official Kansas Reports, *708and the costs of the reinstatement proceedings are assessed to the respondent.

Dated this 24th day of June, 2013.