alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11 - Statements Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings

                         FLORIDA COMMUNITY BANKS, INC.

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

The following  tabulation presents the calculation of basic and diluted earnings
per common share for the three-month  and six-month  periods ended June 30, 2005
and 2004.  Average shares  outstanding  have been  retroactively  adjusted on an
equivalent  share  basis for the  effects of the stock  dividends  and splits as
discussed in the notes to the financial statements.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three Months                   Six Months
                                                  Ended June 30,                Ended June 30,
                                           ---------------------------   ---------------------------
                                               2005           2004           2005           2004
                                           ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------
<S>                                        <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Basic Earnings Per Share:
   Net income ..........................   $  4,738,497   $  3,266,186   $  8,781,335   $  6,051,566
                                           ============   ============   ============   ============

   Earnings on common shares ...........   $  4,738,497   $  3,266,186   $  8,781,335   $  6,051,566
                                           ============   ============   ============   ============

   Weighted average common shares
     outstanding - basic ...............      4.561,867      4,519,661      4,544,482      4,513,482
                                           ============   ============   ============   ============

   Basic earnings per common share .....   $       1.04   $       0.73   $       1.93   $       1.34
                                           ============   ============   ============   ============

Diluted Earnings Per Share:
   Net income ..........................   $  4,738,497   $  3,266,186   $  8,781,335   $  6,051,566
                                           ============   ============   ============   ============

   Weighted average common shares
     outstanding - diluted .............      4,623,411      4,566,092      4,617,175      4,558,771
                                           ============   ============   ============   ============

   Diluted earnings per common share ...   $       1.02   $       0.72   $       1.90   $       1.33
                                           ============   ============   ============   ============
</TABLE>


                                       29
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Juan J. Román, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Triple-S Management Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.        Date:      August 14, 2007 By:  /s/ Juan J. Román    Juan J. Román    *Vice President of Finance*
# Official Journal C 119A/20 M

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 119A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4820 May 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 119A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4820 May 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market |
| 2005/C 119A/1 | Vacancy notice for a president of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Alicante, Spain | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

2005/C 119A/1

Vacancy notice for a president of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Alicante, Spain

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### In the Matter of Rita K. Johnson, an Attorney, Resignor.

[773 NYS2d 725]

Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from the roll of attorneys *(see, Matter of Manown,*240 AD2d 83 [1998]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Brian J. Roney, certify that:     1. I have reviewed the quarterly for the period ended June 30, 2007 report on Form 10-Q ofNorth Pointe Holdings Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and procedures tobe 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) Intentionally omitted;     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Dated: August 10, 2007         /s/ Brian J. Roney   Brian J. Roney   Chief Financial Officer   
38
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40319

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHANNON THOMAS PITTS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-124-1

Before SMITH, GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shannon Thomas Pitts pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written agreement,

to one count of bank robbery and was sentenced to a 71-month term of

imprisonment and to a three-year term of supervised release. As part of the

agreement, Pitts broadly waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence,

reserving only the right to appeal any punishment imposed in excess of the

statutory maximum and the right to appeal based on a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel that affects the validity of the waiver or the plea itself. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 27, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-40319 Document: 00511614393 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2011
No. 11-40319

On appeal, Pitts contends that the district court erred in imposing a twolevel enhancement under U.S.S.G § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F). The Government argues that

the appeal is barred by the appeal waiver provision of the plea agreement.

A defendant may waive his right to appeal if the waiver is made knowingly

and voluntarily. United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). 

To determine whether an appeal of a sentence is barred by an appeal waiver

provision in a plea agreement, this court conducts a two-step inquiry: (1)

whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary and (2) whether the waiver

applies to the circumstances at hand, based on the plain language of the

agreement. United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005).

A defendant’s waiver is knowing and voluntary if he indicates that he has

read and understood the plea agreement, which contains an “explicit,

unambiguous waiver of appeal.” McKinney, 406 F.3d at 746. District courts

must ascertain that defendants understand provisions in plea agreements

waiving the right to appeal. FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(N).

The record reflects that the magistrate judge explained the appeal waiver

provision to Pitts at the change of plea hearing. Pitts indicated that he had read

the plea agreement and that he understood the waiver of appellate rights. In

view of the foregoing, Pitts’s appeal is barred by the waiver provision of the plea

agreement. See Bond, 414 F.3d at 544.

AFFIRMED. 

2

Case: 11-40319 Document: 00511614393 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2011
Certification pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael C. Markwell, Principal Financial Officer of Karma Media, Inc., certify that:

1.

This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant;

2.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Karma Media, Inc.;

3.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report ("Evaluation Date"); and

c)

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

1.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors [or persons performing the equivalent function]:

a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

1.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:

May 15, 2004

By:

/s/ Michael C. Markwell

Michael C. Markwell, Principal Financial Officer
Ricky Pittman SMITH, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

ED 106512

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: June 11, 2019

Kristina S. Olsen, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.

Eric Schmitt, Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before: Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Ricky Pittman Smith, III appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 53 (Friday, March 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11934-11935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6074]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2085-014--California; 67-113; 120-020]

Southern California Edison; Notice of Availability of the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Big Creek Projects

March 13, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the applications for relicensing four 
Southern California Edison (SCE) projects, which are part of the Big 
Creek System: Mammoth Pool Project (FERC No. 2085); Big Creek Nos. 2A, 
8 and Eastwood (FERC No. 67); Big Creek Nos. 1 and 2 (FERC No. 2175);

[[Page 11935]]

and Big Creek No. 3 (FERC No. 120), located in Fresno and Madera 
Counties, California, and has prepared a final Environmental Impact 
Statement (final EIS) for the projects.
    SCE's existing 865-megawatt Big Creek System includes the 
integrated operation of nine major powerhouses, six major reservoirs, 
numerous small diversions, various conveyance facilities, and 
electrical transmission lines, authorized under seven Commission 
licenses. The four projects evaluated in the draft EIS occupy about 
6,870 acres of federal land administered by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Forest Service, in the Sierra National Forest.
    In the final EIS, staff evaluates the applicant's proposal and 
alternatives for relicensing the projects. The final EIS documents the 
views of governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, 
affected Indian tribes, the public, the license applicant, and 
Commission staff.
    Copies of the final EIS are available for review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The final EIS also may be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.gov under the eLibrary link. Enter the 
docket number (P-067, P-2175, P-2085, or P-120) to access the document. 
For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at 
[email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 
(202) 502-8659.
    CD versions of the final EIS have been mailed to everyone on the 
mailing list for the projects. Copies of the CD, as well as a limited 
number of paper copies, are available from the Public Reference Room 
identified above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and 
issuances related to these or other pending projects. For assistance, 
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact James Fargo at (202) 502-6095 or 
at [email protected].

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-6074 Filed 3-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE
```
EX-10.3






Exhibit 10.3




Text of Amended Articles of Incorporation





Fourth: That the total number of common stock authorized that may be issued by the
Corporation is one billion five hundred million (1,500,000,000) shares with a par value of
one tenth of one cent ($0.001) per share and ten million (10,000,000) shares of preferred
stock with a par value of one tenth of one cent ($0.001) per share and no other class of
stock shall be authorized. Said shares may be issued by the corporation from time to time
for such considerations as may be fixed by the Board of Directors.
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. 08-40024

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRADY SHARROD HARRIS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:02-CR-35-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brady Sharrod Harris, federal prisoner # 09604-078, appeals the district

court’s denial of his “Writ Quo Warranto.” He argued in the writ application

that the Federal Bureau of Prisons had abused its power in failing to give him

credit on his sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base for the

time that he served on another state sentence because the sentencing court had

ordered that his federal sentence run concurrently with the state sentence.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 19, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40024

2

On appeal, Harris argues only that the district court erred in not giving

him credit for the time that he served in state custody because the federal

judgment of conviction stated that he was “in the custody of the United States

Marshal[],” and thus he should have remained in federal custody after his

federal conviction, rather than being returned to state custody. Because Harris

is raising this theory for relief for the first time on appeal, this court need not

consider it. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.

1999). Furthermore, because Harris no longer argues that he should have been

given sentencing credit for the time that he served on his state sentence because

the district court ordered that his state and federal sentences run concurrently,

he has abandoned the only issue on appeal by failing to brief it. See Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas
NO. 01

- 1 3

- 0 0 632

- CR
ISRAEL CASTILLO , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 of Harris County.

(Tr. Ct. No. 1863072 ). The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on July 2, 2013 . After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the opinion o f this Court that the record reveals error in the trial court’s judgment

. Accordingly, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below f or observance. Judgment rendered April 16 , 2015

.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justice s Brown and Lloyd

. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Radack.