alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                             UTILICORP UNITED INC.                  Exhibit 11
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (in millions, except per share amounts)
                                   (unaudited)
   
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three Months Ended    Six Months Ended
                                                                        June 30,            June 30,
                                                                    1995      1994        1995    1994
                                                                  -------------------   ----------------
Line No.
--------
<S>                                                               <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>
     Earnings Available for Common Shares:
(a)  Earnings available for common shares as reported               6.72      6.61        38.38   43.99
(b)  Elimination of interest on convertible subordinated
     debenture, net of tax                                          0.10      0.14         0.22    0.29
(c)  Elimination of dividends on cumulative
     convertible preference stock                                      -      0.29            -       -
                                                                  -------------------   ----------------

(d)  Fully Diluted Earnings Available                               6.82      7.04        38.60   44.28
                                                                  -------------------   ----------------
                                                                  -------------------   ----------------

     Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding:
(e)  Primary weighted average shares outstanding
     as reported                                                    45.05     44.38       44.93   43.33
(f)  Assumed conversion of convertible subordinated
     debenture                                                       0.50         -        0.50    0.57
(g)  Assumed conversion of cumulative convertible
     preference shares                                                  -         -           -       -
                                                                  -------------------   ----------------

(h)  Fully Diluted Weighted Average Shares
     Outstanding                                                    45.55     44.38       45.43   43.90
                                                                  -------------------   ----------------
                                                                  -------------------   ----------------

     Earnings Per Common Share:
       Primary (a/e)                                                $ .15     $ .15       $ .85   $1.02
     Fully Diluted (d/h)                                              .15       .15         .85    1.01

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                          10,822
<SECURITIES>                                     5,668
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (243)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,248
<PP&E>                                          11,710
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,600)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,231
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            72
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,172
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,807
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,771
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,012)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,201 
<INCOME-TAX>                                       480 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                721
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       721 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        


</TABLE>
#### GE Oil & Gas, Inc., Respondent, v Turbine Generation Services, L.L.C., et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[56 NYS3d 521

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered August 3, 2016, in plaintiff’s favor as against defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered *587July 20, 2016, May 27, 2016, May 18, 2016, March 30, 2016, and March 7, 2016, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The record demonstrates conclusively defendants’ nonpayment of a note and guaranty *(see Citibank v Plapinger,*66 NY2d 90, 92 [1985]; *Grand Pac. Fin. Corp. v 97-111 HALE, LLC,*90 AD3d 534, 535 [1st Dept 2011]). It is undisputed that defendant Turbine Generation Services, L.L.C. did not repay the note at the extended maturity date and that defendant Moreno absolutely and unconditionally guaranteed payment. Although the motion court initially granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability only, on the grounds that the claims arising from the term sheet and the loan documents to which it was appended were “inherently] interconnected[]” (*see e.g. River Bank Am. v Daniel Equities Corp.,*205 AD2d 476, 476 [1st Dept 1994]), the court correctly found that defendants violated the mandatory forum selection clause in the loan documents when they filed an action in Louisiana state court based on an alleged oral agreement to form a joint venture, the result of which action could have undermined the New York judgment and rendered the subject note and guaranty unenforceable. On these grounds, and in light of defendants’ multiple violations of its orders, the motion court appropriately enjoined defendants from litigating in Louisiana *(see Indosuez Intl. Fin. v National Reserve Bank,*304 AD2d 429 [1st Dept 2003]), and found them to be in contempt *(see Matter of McCormick v Axelrod,*59 NY2d 574, 583 [1983]).

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.
# Susquehanna’s Child Development Center celebrates military children

/ Published April 30, 2019
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
The Defense Distribution Center, Susquehanna Child and Youth Program hosted a special Month of the Military Child performance and parade April 3 on the New Cumberland installation.

Kicking off the month-long celebration, the children sang a patriotic song and recited the Pledge of Allegiance in front of the Child Development Center. The performance was accompanied by a special presentation from the DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, color guard.

Following the performance, children and parents walked the pre-determined parade route around the CDC. Military and civilian personnel on the installation were invited to accompany the children to cheer and show support for military children around the globe.

Almost 1.9 million children in the United States have a military parent, and April is designated as the Month of the Military Child, highlighting the important role military children play in the armed forces community. The Month of the Military Child is an opportunity to recognize military children and youth for their heroism, character, courage, sacrifices and continued resilience.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           BD


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             27,730,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                       3,593,000
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                         0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                 2,645,000
<PP&E>                                                838,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     38,624,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                                0
<PAYABLES>                                                  0
<REPOS-SOLD>                                                0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                         0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                     11,000
<LONG-TERM>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                              229,000
<OTHER-SE>                                         32,686,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       38,624,000
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                     219,000
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                  372,000
<COMMISSIONS>                                      12,652,000
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                         469,000
<FEE-REVENUE>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      6,000
<COMPENSATION>                                      3,249,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     5,517,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                        3,206,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                               .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             .14



</TABLE>
Exhibit 12.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Eugenio Clariond Reyes, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 20-F/A of Grupo Imsa, S.A. de C.V.



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



Date: October 6, 2004



By:

/s/ Eugenio Clariond ReyesName: Eugenio Clariond Reyes Title: Chief Executive Officer
2017-0117.

#### State v. Wade.

Jefferson App. No. 14 JB 0036, 2016-Ohio-8546.
Exhibit
32.01




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Gerald
Corcoran, Chief Executive Officer of R.J. O’Brien Fund Management, LLC
(“RJOFM”), Managing Owner of RJO Global Trust (the “Trust”), certify that (i)
the attached annual report on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
(ii) the information contained in the attached annual report on Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Trust.




By:
            /s/
      Gerald
      F. CorcoranGerald
      F. CorcoranChief
      Executive OfficerR.J.
      O’Brien Fund Management, LLCMarch
      31, 2010
S£1 

# = m 'z l31V1TED S°fATES ENVDRONMEiJ'fAtn PRO°iECT3QN AGENCY
p ~ WASHINGTQN, D.C. 20460
a e

o =

~~ 2T ' 9 L PROIEGS` .

OFFICE OP AIR AND RADIATION

David Moody, Ph.D., Manager Carlsbad Field Office Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad. NM 88221

Dear Dr. Moody:

I'his is in response to your February 13, 2008, request for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence on the Department of Energy's (DOE) draft recertitication letter of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP), transuranic (TRU) waste characterization program at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) for contact-handled (CH), debris and solid waste. Your request is in accordance with the Carlsbad Field Offiee (CBFO) procedures that are intended to ensure that DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site certifications correlate appropriately with EPA approvals for waste characterization activities at DOE TRIJ waste generator sites.

DOE's draft recertification of the AMWTP is based on a series of CBFO audits, conducted in August 2007, which covered characterization activities for CFI debris waste (S5000) and solid waste (S3000). EPA issued a baseline approval of the waste characterization prob am implemented at the AMW7'P on October 3, 2006 (See A-98-49, II-A4-66 in the EPA Air pocket).

EPA concurs that the waste characterization equipment, proeedures and waste streams encompassed in DOE's draft recertification letter comport with all of EPA's existing approvals for contact-handled TRU waste (debris and solids) at AMWTP.

Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the revised draft certification letter for AMWTP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Rajani Jogtekar at (202) 343-9462.

Sincerely.

Juan Reyes, Director Radiation Protection Division

InternetAtltlress(URl) o http:/Iwww.epa.gov Recyc3etl/Recyclabls ® Printed with Vegetabie Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycletl Papercc: Electronic Distribution

Vernon Daub, CBFO Courtland Fesmire, CBFO Ava Holland, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO Martin Navarrete, CBFO Dennis Miehls, CBFO Jerry Wells, INI. Allison Pringle, CTAC Wayne Ledford, CTAC Steve 'Z,appe, NMED Brian Littleton_ EPA Nick Ceto, EPA Region X
Rel: June 7, 2024

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

SC-2023-0963 Matthew Sherman Phillips v. St. Clair County; St. Clair County Sheriff Billy Murray; St. Clair County Chief Clerk Cyndi Stefaniak; St. Clair Circuit Clerk of Court Kathryn Burke; Town of Ragland; Town of Ragland Mayor Richard Burt; and Town of Ragland Clerk Penny Owen. (Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court: CV-23-49). COOK, Justice. AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P. Parker, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1698

To reduce the paperwork burden on certain rural regulated financial

institutions, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 19 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

Mr. WALLOP (for himself, Mr. BOREN, and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To reduce the paperwork burden on certain rural regulated

financial institutions, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Community

5 Bank Paperwork Relief Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. SELF CERTIFICATION.

7 The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (12

8 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end

9 the following new section:
2

•S 1698 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 809. SELF CERTIFICATION FOR INSTITUTIONS IN

2 RURAL TOWNS.

3 ‘‘A regulated financial institution shall be exempt

4 from the evaluation and examination requirements of this

5 title if such institution—

6 ‘‘(1) is located in a town, political subdivision,

7 or other unit of general local government that—

8 ‘‘(A) has a population of not more than

9 20,000 residents, according to the most recent

10 available census data; and

11 ‘‘(B) is not located in a metropolitan sta12 tistical area of the United States Department of

13 Commerce, Bureau of the Census;

14 ‘‘(2) has a net loans and leases to deposits ratio

15 of not less than 70 percent of the average institu16 tional ratio of financial institutions of similar size in

17 the same State, as defined by the appropriate Fed18 eral financial supervisory agency; and

19 ‘‘(3) certifies that it is effectively meeting the

20 credit needs of its entire community, including low21 and moderate-income neighborhoods, as determined

22 in regulations published by each appropriate Federal

23 financial supervisory agency.’’.
3

•S 1698 IS

1 SEC. 3. INCREASED INCENTIVES TO LENDING TO LOW- AND

2 MODERATE-INCOME COMMUNITIES.

3 Section 804 of the Community Reinvestment Act of

4 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2903) is amended by adding at the end

5 the following new subsection:

6 ‘‘(c) CERTAIN RURAL INSTITUTIONS.—In evaluating

7 a regulated financial institution, the appropriate Federal

8 financial supervisory agency shall give appropriate consid9 eration and weight to the institution’s investments in and

10 loans to joint ventures or other entities or projects that

11 provide benefits to distressed communities located within

12 or outside of the service area of the institution (as such

13 terms are defined by the appropriate Federal financial su14 pervisory agency) if such institution—

15 ‘‘(1) is located in a town, political subdivision,

16 or other unit of general local government that is not

17 located in a metropolitan statistical area of the

18 United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of

19 the Census; and

20 ‘‘(2) does not meet the requirements of section

21 809.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 12.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Marcelo Canales Clariond, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 20-F/A of Grupo Imsa, S.A. de C.V.



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



Date: October 6, 2004



By:

/s/ Marcelo Canales ClariondName:

Marcelo Canales ClariondTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Michelle M., Respondent, v David S., Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 513]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Marva A. Burnett, Ref.), entered on or about June 22, 2016, which, upon findings of aggravated circumstances and that respondent husband had committed the family offenses of assault in the second degree, harassment in the second degree, menacing in the second degree, and strangulation in the second degree, granted petitioner wife a five-year order of protection against respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*545Petitioner proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence that respondent had committed the aforementioned family offenses against her *(see*Family Ct Act § 832; *Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P.,*61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]). Petitioner’s testimony is supported by an audio recording of one incident, and Family Court’s determination, including its credibility findings, is entitled to “great deference” *(Matter of Everett C.,*61 AD3d at 489).

Respondent improperly argues for the first time on appeal that Family Court never considered the medication he was taking at the time of his testimony, and there is no evidence to support his argument.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,133
<SECURITIES>                                    19,025
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,677
<ALLOWANCES>                                       844
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,486
<PP&E>                                           2,970
<DEPRECIATION>                                     696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,389
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,449
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,943
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,422
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,901
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   853
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,191
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,552
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,638
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,638
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.65


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 24, 2014

s0616

Order 

Clerk

June 24, 2014

148827

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148827

COA: 319401

Oakland CC: 2012-240157-FH

EARL DEWAYNE DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 14, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.