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

                         EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONS
                      (In Thousands Except Per Share Data)

                                                  1996       1995        1994
                                                  ----       ----        ----
EARNING PER COMMON AND DILUTIVE
  COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE:
  Income before extraordinary item               $11,887    $28,990    $ 4,215
                                                 =======    =======    =======
  Net Income                                     $10,501    $28,990    $ 4,215
                                                 =======    =======    =======
  Shares:
  Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding                          18,523     17,751     17,599
  Weighted average number of additional
      shares issuable for common stock
      equivalents (a)                                977        260        120
                                                 -------    -------    -------
         Adjusted common shares                   19,500     18,011     17,719
                                                 =======    =======    =======

EARNINGS PER SHARE:
  Income before extraordinary item               $  0.61    $  1.61    $  0.24
                                                 =======    =======    =======
  Net Income                                     $  0.54    $  1.61    $  0.24
                                                 =======    =======    =======

EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE ASSUMING
  FULL DILUTION:
  Income before extraordinary item               $11,887    $28,990    $ 4,215
                                                 =======    =======    =======
  Net Income                                     $10,501    $28,990    $ 4,215
                                                 =======    =======    =======
  Shares:
  Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding                          18,523     17,751     17,599
  Additional shares issuable for all
      dilutive common stock equivalents (a)        1,053        340        120
                                                 -------    -------    -------
         Shares as adjusted for all dilutants     19,576     18,091     17,719
                                                 =======    =======    =======

EARNINGS PER SHARE:
  Income before extraordinary item               $  0.61    $  1.60    $  0.24
                                                 =======    =======    =======
  Net Income                                     $  0.54    $  1.60    $  0.24
                                                 =======    =======    =======


(a)   Shares  issuable were derived  using the  "Treasury  Stock Method" for all
      dilutive common stock equivalents.
# C_2017379EN.01000502.xml

| 10.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8663 — CNP Assurances/Macquarie/Predica/Pisto)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 379/05)

On 31 October 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8663. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8663. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
No. 09-9451.

#### Mark Raymond Ford, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1056, 130 S. Ct. 2360,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3069.

176 L. Ed. 2d 574,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 351 Fed. Appx. 342.
No. 09-9446.

#### Tsegai Haile, Petitioner v. Zula, LLC.

560 U.S. 907, 130 S. Ct. 3284,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1189,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4045.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, denied.
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 New England  Bancshares,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, David J. O'Connor,
President,  Chief Executive  Officer and chief financial 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 results of operations
            of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.




                                 /s/ David J. O'Connor
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 David J. O'Connor
                                 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
                                 August 5, 2005
No. 09-400.

#### Vincent E. Staub, Petitioner v. Proctor Hospital.

559 U.S. 1066, 130 S. Ct. 2089,

176 L. Ed. 2d 720,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3333.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted.

*721Same case below, 560 F.3d 647.
EXHIBIT
32





Certification of Periodic
Financial Report Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350








Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of Pinnacle Airlines Corp. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), the undersigned Philip H. Trenary, the President and Chief Executive
Officer, and Peter D. Hunt, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
hereby certify that this Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the registrant.








Signature
            Title
            Date/s/
      Philip H. Trenary
            President
      and Chief Executive Officer
            July
      3, 2008Philip
      H. Trenary/s/
      Peter D. Hunt
            Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer
            July
      3, 2008Peter
      D. Hunt
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5109 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to require Senate confirmation 

for each appointment to serve in the position of Assistant Secretary 

for Public Health Emergency Preparedness, Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2006 

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan (for himself and Mr. BURGESS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to require Senate 

confirmation for each appointment to serve in the position of Assistant Secretary for Public Health Emergency 

Preparedness, Department of Health and Human Services. 

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


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5109 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SENATE CONFIRMATION FOR APPOINTMENT 

2 TO SERVE AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 

3 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY PREPARED4 NESS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2811(a)(1) of the Public 

6 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300hh–11(a)(1)) is amend7 ed in the second sentence by inserting before the period 

8 the following: ‘‘, by and with the advice and consent of 

9 the Senate’’. 

10 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub11 section (a) applies with respect to each individual ap12 pointed under section 2811(a)(1) of the Public Health 

13 Service Act after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
No. 09-961.

#### Roy Den Hollander, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al.

559 U.S. 1069, 130 S. Ct. 2101,

176 L. Ed. 2d 724,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3376.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 354 Fed. Appx. 592.
Douglas ,J.

fixing punishment is unconstitutional or the sentence is so unreasonably disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience." Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996) (quoting CuIverson v. State, 95 Nev. 433, 435, 596 P.2d 220, 221-22(1979)); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion) (explaining that the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence; it forbids only an extreme sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the crime). The recommendation of the Division of Parole and Probation has no binding effect on the courts. Etcheuerry v. State, 107 Nev. 782, 786, 821 P.2d 350, 352 (1991).

At sentencing, the district court imposed a prison term of 24- 60 months, noting Johnson's lengthy criminal history and the fact that Johnson had been revoked from parole and probation numerous times. The sentence imposed is within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes, see NRS 193.130(2)(c); NRS 453.401(1)(a), and Johnson does not allege that those statutes are unconstitutional. We are not convinced that the sentence imposed is so grossly disproportionate to the crime as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Hardesty ,J.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A ea)

### cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Nguyen & Lay Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 3
(0) )947A
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    [Reserved]c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ John M. HughesName:
    John M. HughesTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
No. 09-851.

#### Bexar County, Texas, et al., Petitioners v. Earnest Lytle, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Heather Lytle, Deceased.

559 U.S. 1007, 130 S. Ct. 1896,

176 L. Ed. 2d 366,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2683.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 560 F.3d 404.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 on Form 10-Q of Meru Network, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter endedJune 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Brett White, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that: 

(1) The Report fullycomplies 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 ofoperations of the Company.
No. 09-1207.

#### Joseph P. Carson, Petitioner v. Merit Systems Protection Board.

560 U.S. 906, 130 S. Ct. 3313,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1187,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3977,

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 257 Fed. Appx. 268.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.1 FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC.
2002 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN The ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC. 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the
Plan) is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 1.2(u) of the Plan is amended and restated as follows:  "(u)   Offering Period shall have the following meaning:  (i)
    
    During the period commencing
on or after the date of adoption of the Plan and
ending on October 1, 2004, Offering Period
means each six-month period commencing on any
April 1 and October 1; provided, however, that,
on a one-time basis, the Offering Period
commencing October 1, 2004 shall end on April 30,
2005.(ii)
    
    After April 30, 2005,
Offering Period means each six-month period
commencing on any May 1 and November 1.  Options shall be granted on the Date of Grant and exercised
on the Date of Exercise, as provided in Section 3.1(a) and
3.2(a), respectively. 2. This First Amendment shall be effective as of August 15, 2004. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. hereby executes this
First Amendment to the Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase
Plan on this 12th day of October, 2004. ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC. BY:
    
    /s/ AIMEE S. WEISNER
Aimee S. Weisner
Corporate Vice President, General
  Counsel and Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           414,401
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       3,904
<MORTGAGE>                                      85,093
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 526,690
<CASH>                                          21,039
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          12,752
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,445,835
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                505,304
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              1,189
<POLICY-OTHER>                                      10
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     224,813
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,445,835
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              5,127
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  15
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   4,578
<BENEFITS>                                       7,413
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        892
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             1,137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (279)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       146
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (425)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (425)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0








</TABLE>
1

NUMBER 13-15-00088-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

TRINITY RINGELSTEIN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 148th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on the preparation of the reporter’s record which 

was originally due on March 2, 2015, but has not yet been filed. The reporter’s record in 

this cause was apparently prepared by four different court reporters: Sandra Chavez, 
2

Blanca Espericueta, Sara Rivera, and Velma Arellano. Court reporters Sandra Chavez 

and Blanca Espericueta have filed several requests for extension of time to file their 

portions of the record. This Court has previously granted Sandra Chavez’s third request, 

extending her deadline to file the record until August 20, 2015. Currently pending before 

the Court is Blanca Espericueta’s fourth extension request. According to Espericueta’s 

extension request, her portion of the record has not yet been paid in full. Reporters Sara 

Rivera and Velma Arellano have neither filed their portions of the record nor filed requests 

for extensions to do so. The documents currently before the Court do not reflect whether 

they have received payment for their portions of the reporter’s record or not.

The Court, having fully examined and considered the extensions previously 

granted in this cause and the status of the record, is of the opinion that, in the interest of 

justice, an order should be entered. The Court looks with disfavor upon the delay caused 

by the reporters’ failure to have heretofore filed the record in this matter. However, in 

the interests of justices, we GRANT Espericueta’s extension until August 20, 2015, and 

we ORDER all of the reporters to file their portions of the reporter’s record by August 20, 

2015. The Court will not look favorably upon any further or additional requests for 

extensions. If the reporter’s records have been paid for but not filed by August 20, 2015, 

the Court will act appropriately to avoid further delay and to preserve the parties’ rights. 

TEX. R. APP.P. 37.3 (a)(2). If the reporters have not received full payment for the records, 

they shall so notify the Court and the parties promptly. 

Where the clerk’s record has been filed but the reporter’s record has not been filed, 

the appellate court may—after first giving the appellant notice and a reasonable 
3

opportunity to cure—consider and decide those issues that do not require a reporter’s 

record for a decision when the appellant has not paid for the record and is not indigent. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). This order serves as notice to appellant regarding this 

defect and provides appellant with an opportunity to cure any failure to pay for the record. 

See id.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed 

the 14th day of July, 2015.