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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE (1)
                (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE DATA)


                                                   Year ended December 31,
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                  1994       1995       1996
                                               --------------------------------
PRIMARY:
Weighted average common shares
  outstanding for the period.................  2,736,994   3,940,538  19,730,720
Weighted average shares from
  assumed conversion of preferred stock......         --  11,116,892          --
Common equivalent shares from
  restricted stock subject to repurchase.....     32,668     348,934     411,876
Common equivalent shares pursuant to
  Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83...........  1,128,822     844,246          --
Common equivalent shares assuming
  conversion of stock options and
  warrants under the treasury stock method...     76,930   1,100,610   1.624,904
                                              ----------  ----------  ----------
Shares used in computing per share amounts...  3,975,414  17,351,220  21,767,500
                                              ==========  ==========  ==========
Net income................................... $   (1,094) $    1,504 $     8,190
                                              ==========  ==========  ==========
Net income per share(2).....................  $    (0.28) $     0.09 $      0.38
                                              ==========  ========== ===========

  (1)  See Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
  (2)  Primary and fully diluted earnings per share are the same for all years
       presented
#### THOMAS J. WOOD v. THE UNITED STATES.

(107 U. S. R., on appeal from 15 C. Cls. R., 151.)

Under section 32 of the *Act of July*28, 1866, ch.'299 (14 Stat. L., 337), a colonel of cavalry in the Army was retired in June, 1868, with the rank andretired pay of a major-general, because that was the rank of the command held by him when he was wounded.

Under the *Act of March*3, 1875, ch. 178 (18 Stat. L., 512), his retired rank and pay were changed to those of a brigadier-general, that being the actual rank held by him when he was wounded.

Held by the Supreme Court:

The claimant’s being retired with the rank of a major-general did not confer on him the *office*of a major-general, and Congress had power to change his retired rank and pay, as was held by the Court of Claims.

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Blatohfobd,

who, after stating the case, says, among other things:

“The Court of Claims dismissed the petition on the merits. The view of that court was that under the statutes of the United States in reference to the Army the office of an officer of the Army and his rank are not necessarily identical; that the office has a rank attached to it, expressed by its title, when no other rank is conferred on the officer; that, the office remaining the same, the officer may have a different rank conferred on him, as a title of distinction, to fix his relative position with reference .to other officers as to privilege,'precedence, or command, or to determine his pay; that by section 1274 of the Kevised Statutes the pay of officers on the retired list of the Army is determined by the rank upon which they are retired; that by section *7623094 tbe officers of the Army on the" retired list are a part of the Army of the United States, and therefore no one can be upon that list who is not an officer appointed in the manner required by section 2 of article 2 of the Constitution; that an officer of any grade, on the active list, thus appointed, may be retired with a different rank from that which belongs to his office, when CongTess so provides; that this is not to appoint him to a new and different office, but is to transfer him to the retired list, and to change his rank, while he holds the same office; and that in connection with this change of rank his pay may be changed.

“ These views appear to us to be sound.

“The judgment of the Court of Claims is affirmed.”

Opinion by Mr. Justice Blatchfobd.
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:457
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:458
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:459
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:460
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:461
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:462
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:463
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:464
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:465
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:466
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:467
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:468
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:469
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:470
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:471
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:472
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:473
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:474
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:475
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:476
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:477
Case: 1:01-cv-03336 Document #: 50 Filed: 10/18/02 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:478
Order filed August 14, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00157

- CR

____________ ARTHUR CHRISTOPHER T ATUM , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 271613



### ORDER
Appellant is not represented by counsel. Appellant is appealing from the
denial of his motion for DNA testing. Appellant is not entitled to appointed counsel
unless reasonable grounds exist for the filing of the motion for post

- conviction DNA testing. See Ex parte Gutierrez , 337 S.W.3d 883, 891

– 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). The trial court has previously determined that appellant did not set out any fact or allegations to support a finding that DNA testing and appointment of an attorney are
reasonable . No brief has been filed. Rule 38.8 provides that “the appellate court mayconsider the appeal without briefs, as justice may require.” T ex. R. App. P. 38.8

(b)(4). A hearing has alrea dy been he ld as required under Rule 38.8. Because the trial court has already held one hearing to make the findings required under Rule 38.8, and we can find nothing in the rules or case law that requires this court to once again
send this matter back to t he trial court, we decline to do so.
Therefore, we ORDER appellant to file a brief in this appeal on or before September 12, 2018 . If appellant fails to file his brief as ordered, we will decide this appeal upon the record before the c ourt. See Lott v. S tate , 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (affirming conviction on record alone where appellant failed to file a pro se brief after being properly admonished); Coleman v. State , 774 S.W.2d 736, 738

– 39 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.) ( holding that former rule 74( l )(2) (now Rule 38.8(b)) permitted an appeal to be considered without briefs “as justice may require” when a pro se appellant has not complied with the rules of appellate procedure).

PER CURIAM
Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/08/03 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:369
Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/08/03 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:370
Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/08/03 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:371
Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/08/03 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:372
Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/08/03 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:373
Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/08/03 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:374
Case: 1:03-cv-04502 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/08/03 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:375
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

July 24, 2012

s0716

Order 

July 24, 2012

144644

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144644

COA: 307400

St. Joseph CC: 07-014472-FH;

ROBERT EUGENE MAST, 07-014473-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2012 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Grain Quality and Structure Research: Manhattan, KS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Units
                        Center for Grain and Animal Health Research: Manhattan, KS
                                    Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Unit
                                    Hard Winter Wheat Genetics Research Unit
                                    Stored Product Insect & Engineering Research UnitSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Manhattan, Kansas Center for Grain and Animal Health Research Grain Quality and Structure Research People





- Fadi Aramouni
- Neil Baker
- Kenyon Base
- Scott Bean
- Yoanhong Chen
- Jose Covarrubias
- Joaquin DeLeon
- Kevin Fay
- Maria Hazelbaker
- Melanie Kessler-Mathieu
- Laura Knapp
- Lu Guixiang
- Alicsa Mayer
- Kerri McConnell
- Ashton McGinn
- Amie Norton
- Shantha Peiris
- Mayra Perez-Fajardo
- Jaymi Peterson
- Sushma Prakash
- Abraham Rivera
- Bradford Seabourn
- Xiaorong (Shawn) Wu

Joaquin  De Leon    Biological Science Lab Technician


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Wilson Alexander AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50215

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 13, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*772Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bem-porad, Federal Public Defender, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Wilson Alexander Aguilar appeals the 12-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a). Aguilar argues that his sentence, an upward variance from the advisory sentencing guidelines range (one to seven months), was substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Aguilar has failed to demonstrate that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district court heard the mitigating arguments of counsel and Aguilar’s statement concerning his motive for returning to the United States. However, the district court found that the mitigating factors were outweighed by Aguilar’s two pri- or deportations, his use of an alias and false birth date, and his use of a fraudulent social security number. The district court stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, including the goals of deterrence and the protection of the public. *Id.*at 80, 128 S.Ct. 586.

“[T]he sentencing court is free to conclude that the applicable Guidelines range gives too much or too little weight to one or more factors, and may adjust the sentence accordingly under § 3553(a).” *United States v. Lopez-Velasquez,*526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir.2008) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Aguilar’s disagreement with the extent of the upward variance and with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in imposing his sentence or that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. *Id.*

Further, the 12-month sentence was only five months above the top of the sentencing guidelines range. This court has upheld variances considerably greater than the increase to Aguilar’s sentence, *see United States v. Brantley,*537 F.3d 347, 348-50 (5th Cir.2008); *United States v. Jones,*444 F.3d 430, 433, 441-42 (5th Cir.2006), and it has also rejected arguments that a sentence was substantively unreasonable because it constituted “some multiple of the upper end of the guidelines range.” *United States v. Key,*599 F.3d 469, 476 n. 1 (5th Cir.2010).

Aguilar has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 12-month sentence. The sentence is AFFIRMED.

*

 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 Matter of the Claim of Renee L. Samuels, Respondent. Esther Rubin, Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 794]—

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 30, 2010, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant worked in a dental office as a receptionist/ assistant for a little over four months. She performed a variety of duties, including answering the telephone, processing insurance forms, sterilizing equipment and performing light cleaning. The employer was dissatisfied with many aspects of claimant’s work and, upon observing that the floor in one of the treatment rooms was dirty, asked claimant to clean it. Claimant responded that she had already mopped it and added that she would not get down on her hands and knees to clean it because she had a bad back. The employer, in turn, terminated claimant’s employment and instructed her to turn over her keys. Claimant’s initial application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that she was terminated for misconduct, and this determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge following a hearing. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, however, reversed this decision, ruled that claimant did not engage in disqualifying misconduct and awarded her benefits. The employer now appeals.

Initially, whether a claimant has engaged in disqualifying misconduct is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its decision will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Lewis [County of Livingston*— Commissioner *of Labor],*92 AD3d 1052, 1052 [2012]; *Matter of Irons [TLC W., LLC*— Commissioner *of Labor],*79 AD3d 1511, 1512 [2010]). Notably, not all actions providing cause for discharge rise to the level of misconduct *(see Matter of Irons [TLC W., LLC*— Com*missioner of Labor],*79 AD3d at 1512). Here, the employer maintained that claimant was insubordinate by refusing to clean the floor after being instructed to do so and that she used *1567profane language in replying to the employer’s request. Claimant denied using profane language and stated that she would have mopped the floor again if the employer had asked her to do so. The conflicting version of the incident given by claimant and the employer presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Board, which was not bound by the findings of the Administrative Law Judge in this regard *(see Matter of Zaydman [Roman Roytberg, Inc., P.C.*— Commissioner *of Labor],*87 AD3d 1192, 1193 [2011]; *Matter of Jimenez [Knickerbocker Club,*Inc.— *Commissioner of Labor],*81 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2011]). Inasmuch as the Board could reasonably conclude that the employer terminated claimant because of dissatisfaction with her work performance, and not any misconduct, substantial evidence supports its decision and we decline to disturb it.

Peters, PJ., Spain, Kavanagh, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6667
CHARLES C. WILLETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DENNIS R. BIDWELL, Warden, in his official and individual capacity; MARIE GRAHAM, Director,Health Services, in her official and individual capacity; DOCTOR HOWARD, in her official and individual capacity; BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 3065-AMD) Submitted: September 16, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles C. Willett, Appellant Pro Se. Earle Bronson Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Willett v. Bidwell , No. CA-96-3065-AMD (D. Md. Apr. 9, 1997; Apr. 14, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Murray *et al. v.*City of Tifton.

Per Curiam.

The venue of a statutory proceeding under the Civil Code, § 445 et seq., to validate municipal bonds, is in the county in which the municipality is situated. *Ray*v. *City of Lavonia,*141 *Ga.*626 (81 S. E. 884). In such a proceeding, where the judge on presentation of the petition issued a rule nisi returnable in a different county than that of the venue, and, at the time and place appointed in the rule, passed another order to the effect that the hearing was “continued and transferred” to a designated time and place in the county of the venue, but there was no publication of any notice as required by law that the hearing would be had at such time and place, the judge was without jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing and render final judgment.

(a) It having been held by the court, in the case above cited, that in so far as the statute purported to authorize jurisdiction in a county other than that of the municipality it was unconstitutional, and the plaintiffs in error having raised the point of want of jurisdiction, it was not necessary for them, in support of the objection, again to specifically attack the act as unconstitutional,

*302April 13, 1915.

Validation of municipal bonds. Before Judge Thomas. Tift superior court. June 20, 1914.

*H. 8. Murray*and *Fulwood & Sheen,*for plaintiffs in error:

*Ridgdill & Mitchell, R. D. Smith,*and *J. A. Wilkes, solicitor-general,*contra.

(&) The court being without jurisdiction, it was erroneous to enter-final judgment validating the bonds.

*Judgment reversed,.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Cotton Ginning Research: Las Cruces, NM
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Las Cruces, New Mexico Cotton Ginning Research People & Locations







Pablo C Delgado
                        Cotton Ginning Research

                        




                        
                        Maintenance Worker
                        Phone: (575) 526-6381
                        
                        
                        Fax: (575) 525-1076(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Case 10-01059 Doc 3 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 12:27:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 10-01059 Doc 3 Filed 01/13/10 Entered 01/13/10 12:27:23 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2