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


                       MOBILE GAS SERVICE CORPORATION
                      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               THREE MONTHS           TWELVE MONTHS
                                             ENDED DECEMBER 31,     ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                               1996      1995        1996      1995
                                               ----      ----        ----      ----
<S>                                         <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>     
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE, AS SHOWN ON
     CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

Earnings applicable to common stock         $  2,038   $  1,804   $  8,865   $  5,092

Average common shares outstanding              3,225      3,213      3,219      3,210

Incremental shares resulting from assumed
     exercise of stock options                    16                    12

Average common shares, as adjusted             3,241      3,213      3,231      3,210

Primary earnings per share (1)              $   0.63   $   0.56   $   2.74   $   1.59


FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

Earnings applicable to common stock         $  2,038   $  1,804   $  8,865   $  5,092

Average common shares outstanding              3,225      3,213      3,219      3,210

Incremental shares resulting from assumed
     exercise of stock options                    29                    16

Average common shares, as adjusted             3,254      3,213      3,235      3,210

Fully diluted earnings per share (2)        $   0.63   $   0.56   $   2.74   $   1.59
</TABLE>


(1)  Pursuant to footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of APB Opinion No. 15, the Company
     is not required to include common stock equivalents resulting from stock
     options when the effect is less 3%. The Company has chosen to reflect the
     effect of such options within the computation of its earnings per share.

(2)  This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K Item 601
     (b)(11) although not required to be shown in the Consolidated Statements
     of Income pursuant to footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of APB Opinion No. 15
     because it results in dilution of less than 3%.
#### Marra v Affordable Inflatables & Party Rentals, Inc.

2d Dept: 140 AD3d 731 (Action No. 4)

denied
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16076]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Title I, Part C--
Education of Migratory Children

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of funding level for FY 1998 consortium incentive grants 
available under Part C of Title of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1995.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
reserves $1,800,000 for FY 1998 consortium incentive grant awards 
authorized under section 1308(d) of Title I of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965. (The 1998 Appropriations Act for the 
Department (Pub. L. 105-78) overrides the $1,500,000 ceiling in the 
authorizing statute). State educational agencies operating Migrant 
Education Programs (MEPs) are the only eligible entities for this grant 
program. Criteria for awarding consortium incentive grants were 
published in the Federal Register on April 8, 1996 (61 FR 15670).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James English, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence 
Avenue, SW, Portals Building, Room 4100, Washington, D.C. 20202-6135. 
Telephone: 202-260-1394. Individuals who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay System 
(FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 
through Friday.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternate form (e.g. Braille, large print, or computer diskette) on 
request of the contact person listed in the preceding paragraph.

Electronic Access to This Document

    Anyone may view this document, as well as all other Department of 
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or 
portable document format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at either of the 
following sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.htnl

    To use the pdf your must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with 
Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you 
have questions about using the pdf, call the U.S. Government Printing 
Office toll free at 1-888-293-6493.
    Anyone may also view this documents in text copy only on an 
electronic bulletin board of the Department. Telephone: (202) 219-1511 
or toll free, 1-800-222-4922. The documents are located under Option 
G--Files/Announcements, Bulletins and Press Releases.

    Note: The official version of a document is the document 
published in the Federal Register.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.144, Migrant 
Education Coordination Program)

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6398(d).

    Dated: June 10, 1998.
Gerald N. Tirozzi,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 98-16076 Filed 6-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
No. 09-1503.

#### The Cadle Company, et al., Petitioners v. Kerry R. Hicks.

562 U.S. 837, 131 S. Ct. 160,

178 L. Ed. 2d 40,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5864.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 355 Fed. Appx. 186.
# C_2013260EN.01002603.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/26

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 24 June 2013 — Karen Millen Fashions Ltd v Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd

(Case C-345/13)

2013/C 260/47

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Karen Millen Fashions Ltd

Applicant:

Defendant: Dunnes Stores, Dunnes Stores (Limerick) Ltd

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In consideration of the individual character of a design which is claimed to be entitled to be protected as an unregistered Community design for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12th December, 2001 on Community designs (1), is the overall impression it produces on the informed user, within the meaning of Article 6 of that Regulation, to be considered by reference to whether it differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by






  (a) | any individual design which has previously been made available to the public, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

In consideration of the individual character of a design which is claimed to be entitled to be protected as an unregistered Community design for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12th December, 2001 on Community designs (1), is the overall impression it produces on the informed user, within the meaning of Article 6 of that Regulation, to be considered by reference to whether it differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by

1

(a)

any individual design which has previously been made available to the public, or

| (b) | any combination of known design features from more than one such earlier design? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

any combination of known design features from more than one such earlier design?

| 2. | Is a Community design court obliged to treat an unregistered Community design as valid for the purposes of Article 85(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12th December, 2001 on Community designs where the right holder merely indicates what constitutes the individual character of the design or is the right holder obliged to prove that the design has individual character in accordance with Article 6 of that Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a Community design court obliged to treat an unregistered Community design as valid for the purposes of Article 85(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12th December, 2001 on Community designs where the right holder merely indicates what constitutes the individual character of the design or is the right holder obliged to prove that the design has individual character in accordance with Article 6 of that Regulation?

---

(1)  OJ L 3, p. 1

1

---
# DLA Troop Support creates Survivor Daily Rations for FEMA

/ Published May 4, 2023
PHILADELPHIA, 
Feeding disaster survivors is one of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s core response capabilities and is one of the first initiatives requested at the onset of most disasters.

Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support has long procured meal options for U.S. armed forces. Through its whole-of-government program, DLA envisioned the Survivor Daily Ration to meet FEMA’s unique needs for a complete daily ration package.  

SDRs currently include 10 unique meal packages configured with a full day’s worth of food for an adult in a single package. The minimum shelf life is three years at 80 degrees Fahrenheit.  

The rations don’t require a heating element, which reduces environmental waste and eliminates the need for food preparation in emergency situations.  

The packaging, feeding capacity and cost of SDRs are projected to save $66.5 million—every three years—as FEMA increases its stock to 27 million meals. 

SDRs also require less storage space since each unit replaces two individual meals. This allows FEMA to use 183,000 square feet less of warehouse space to store 27 million meals.  

Tiendung Nguyen, individual rations branch chief for DLA Troop Support’s subsistence supply chain, has worked closely with the three DLA contractors to meet FEMA’s requirements.  

“We want to make sure that we are providing the best for Americans in need,” Nguyen said. “We have relationships with vendors of which we know have the capacity to mass produce high-quality products."  

DLA Troop Support’s longstanding procurement capabilities allowed a quick turnaround from FEMA's request to create a unique feeding solution in August 2022 to DLA awarding a contract in December and FEMA receiving its first orders in April 2023.   

Vendors currently producing mass meal solutions for DLA such as meals, ready to eat, already produce millions of meals for the warfighter annually, thus the footprint of supporting FEMA does not strain the production capabilities for the vendors.  

“The number of SDRs is a drop in the bucket compared to the MREs the vendors make every year,” said Harry Streibich, operational rations chief for DLA Troop Support’s subsistence supply chain. “Our MRE contractors will have no problem fitting the SDRs into their production schedule when required.” 

DLA Distribution is slated to ship SDRs after production to the locations indicated by FEMA.

“FEMA does not have to be worried about doing the logistics contracting or supplying of these meals,” said Dorothy O’Connell, whole of government business development division chief with DLA Troop Support. “They’ve turned it over to us so that when a disaster does strike, they can just go out there and respond.”

FEMA is one of more than 40 of DLA’s federal partners.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              9
<MULTIPLIER>           1000
       
<S>                                     <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                  5,493
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                  10,092
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                        50,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                        0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>             22,493
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                  54,369
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                    53,898
<LOANS>                                 139,682
<ALLOWANCE>                               1,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          286,959
<DEPOSITS>                              229,701
<SHORT-TERM>                            86
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     399
<LONG-TERM>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             521
<OTHER-SE>                              53,898
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          286,959
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         8,263
<INTEREST-INVEST>                       3,141
<INTEREST-OTHER>                        2,401
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        13,805
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                      6,839
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      6,900
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   6,905
<LOAN-LOSSES>                           222
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                      0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         4,538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         2,278
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>              2,278
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            1,318
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.02)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                          3.58
<LOANS-NON>                             1,486
<LOANS-PAST>                            0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                        0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                         0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                        984
<CHARGE-OFFS>                           72
<RECOVERIES>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                       1,134
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                    1,134
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                     0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                 0
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-5088.

#### Thomas Clinton, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 903, 131 S. Ct. 239,

178 L. Ed. 2d 159,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6335.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 09-11359.

#### Steven Smith, Petitioner v. Margaret Bradshaw, Warden.

562 U.S. 876, 131 S. Ct. 185,

178 L. Ed. 2d 111,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6483.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 591 F.3d 517.
Exhibit 23

                   [Letterhead of KPMG Peat Marwick LLP]


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

     Suite 1200
     150 West Jefferson
     Detroit, MI 48226-4429




The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Douglas & Lomason Company:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
33-36359) on the Form S-8 of Douglas & Lomason Company of our report dated
January 29, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Douglas &
Lomason Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the
related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1995,
and the related schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1995,
annual report on Form 10-K of Douglas & Lomason Company. Our report refers to
the changes in accounting for income taxes and postretirement benefits other
than pensions in 1993.



                                                  /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP




Detroit, Michigan
March 27, 1996



     Member Firm of
     Klynvald Peat Marwick Goerdeler
No. 09-11214.

#### David C. Burgess, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 867, 131 S. Ct. 161,

178 L. Ed. 2d 96,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6520.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.

Same case below, 991 A.2d 34.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


April 15, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408


Ladies and Gentlemen:


This letter is written pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of
Regulation S-X.

Metawave Communications Corporation has received a representation letter from
Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") stating that the audit of the consolidated
balance sheets of Metawave Communications Corporation and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended, was
subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit, availability of national
office consultation, and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of
Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the audit.


Very truly yours,


/s/ Larry R. Scheer


Larry R. Scheer
Vice President, Finance
No. 10-6206.

#### Shawn Young, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 971, 131 S. Ct. 484,

178 L. Ed. 2d 306,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8004.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 119.
NO. 06-15-00079-CV

 

IN THE 

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS 

TEXARKANA, TEXAS 

 

JAVIER JAIMES 

APPELLANT 

V.

ZENAW MERSHA 

APPELLEE 

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, HON. TODD T. WONG, PRESIDING 

 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

______________________________________________________________ 

TO THE HONORABLE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS: 

Please take notice that Clark Richards with the law firm of Richards 

Rodriguez & Skeith, LLP has agreed to represent Javier Jaimes in this appeal 

through the Third Court of Appeals in Austin Pro Bono Program. Clark Richards’ 

information is as follows: 

ACCEPTED

06-15-00079-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

12/22/2015 9:49:40 AM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/22/2015 9:49:40 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
2

Clark Richards

State Bar No. 90001613

crichards@rrsfirm.com

Richards Rodriguez & Skeith, LLP

816 Congress Ave., Suite 1200

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel (512) 476-0005

Fax (512) 476-1513

Appellant asks the Court to instruct the clerk to change the records to reflect 

that Clark Richards is counsel for Appellant in this case on appeal. 

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________

Clark Richards

State Bar No. 90001613

crichards@rrsfirm.com

Richards Rodriguez & Skeith, LLP

816 Congress Ave., Suite 1200

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel (512) 476-0005

Fax (512) 476-1513

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing document has been delivered to the 

following counsel of record on this 22nd day of December 2015 by fax and e-mail:

David Sadegh

The Law Office of David J. Sadegh

10203 Birchridge Drive, Suite 210

Humble, Texas 77338

Fax 832-644-6236

djsadegh@sadeghlaw.com

_________________________________

CLARK RICHARDS
No. 10-5962.

#### Rutilio Acosta-Mendoza, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 942, 131 S. Ct. 362,

178 L. Ed. 2d 234,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7133.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 450.
No. 09-11558.

#### John Dennis Chapman, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 887, 131 S. Ct. 220,

178 L. Ed. 2d 132,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7002.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

*133Same case below, 356 Fed. Appx. 361.
# C_2013352EN.01000401.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Bamberg (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Mohammad Ferooz Qurbani

(Case C-481/13)

2013/C 352/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Bamberg

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Mohammad Ferooz Qurbani

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the personal ground for the suspension of penalties in Article 31 of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (‘GC’) also include, beyond its wording, forgery of documents, which took place on presentation of a forged passport to a police officer on the occasion of entry by air into the Federal Republic of Germany, when the forged passport is not in fact necessary to apply for asylum in that State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the personal ground for the suspension of penalties in Article 31 of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (‘GC’) also include, beyond its wording, forgery of documents, which took place on presentation of a forged passport to a police officer on the occasion of entry by air into the Federal Republic of Germany, when the forged passport is not in fact necessary to apply for asylum in that State?

| 2. | Does the use of human traffickers preclude reliance on Article 31 GC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the use of human traffickers preclude reliance on Article 31 GC?

| 3. | Is the factual requirement in Article 31 GC, of coming ‘directly’ from a territory where the life or freedom of the person concerned was threatened, to be interpreted as meaning that that element is also satisfied if the person concerned first entered another Member State (here: Greece) from where he continued to another Member State (here: the Federal Republic of Germany) in which he seeks asylum? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the factual requirement in Article 31 GC, of coming ‘directly’ from a territory where the life or freedom of the person concerned was threatened, to be interpreted as meaning that that element is also satisfied if the person concerned first entered another Member State (here: Greece) from where he continued to another Member State (here: the Federal Republic of Germany) in which he seeks asylum?

---
Exhibit 32.2











THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY


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 The Monarch Cement Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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.






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













Dated:  May 10 , 2011




/s/ Debra P. Roe


Debra P. Roe, CPA


Chief Financial Officer and


Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
No. 10-5013.

#### John W. Brooks, Petitioner v. Lubbock County Hospital District, dba UMC Health System.

562 U.S. 899, 131 S. Ct. 228,

178 L. Ed. 2d 151,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6314,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 434.
No. 09-11391.

#### Rafael Rodriguez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 877, 131 S. Ct. 190,

178 L. Ed. 2d 114,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6807.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 608.