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

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per
share:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three months ended September 30,    Nine months ended September 30,
                                                             2000             1999             2000             1999
                                                          ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------
<S>                                                       <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>

Numerator:
Net (loss)                                                (1,345,506)      (1,103,824)      (4,584,150)      (3,547,878)
Dividends on Series A preferred stock                         (2,618)          (5,703)         (14,024)         (17,109)
Dividends on Series B preferred stock                        (52,787)            --           (157,213)            --
                                                          ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------

Numerator for basic and diluted earnings (loss) per
share-income (loss) available to common shareholders      (1,400,911)      (1,109,527)      (4,755,387)      (3,564,987)
                                                          ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------

Denominator:
Denominator for basic earnings (loss) per share-
weighted average shares outstanding                        7,760,508        6,720,628        7,331,423        6,723,649
Effect of dilutive securities
Warrants                                                        --               --               --               --
                                                          ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------

Dilutive potential common shares Denominator
for diluted earnings (loss) per share adjusted
weighted-average shares and assumed conversion             7,760,508        6,720,628        7,331,423        6,723,649
                                                          ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------

Basic earnings (loss) per share                                (0.18)           (0.17)           (0.65)           (0.53)
                                                          ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------

Diluted earnings (loss) per share                              (0.18)           (0.17)           (0.65)           (0.53)
                                                          ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------
</TABLE>
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 1 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 2 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 3 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 4 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 5 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 6 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 7 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 8 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 9 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 10 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 11 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 12 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 13 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 14 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 15 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 16 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 17 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 18 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 19 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 20 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 21 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 22 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 23 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 24 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 25 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 26 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 27 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 28 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 29 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 30 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 31 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 32 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 33 of 34
Case 1:01-cv-06321 Document 1 Filed 08/15/2001 Page 34 of 34
Fiscal 2009 Executive Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Costco Wholesale Corporation 
 Executive Bonus Plan 
 For fiscal year 2009, executive officers (other than Jim Sinegal and Jeff Brotman) are, depending upon the individual, eligible for a bonus award of up to approximately
$100,000. The final bonus amount is determined by Jim Sinegal, subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee. 
 Eligibility for up to 50% of the
bonus amount is determined by whether the Company has met its pre-tax income goal for the year, as indicated in the Company’s internal budget. 
 The
remaining 50% is determined by goals relevant to the executive officer’s area of responsibility: 
 For those whose responsibilities are operational,
the goals relate to sales, controllable expenses, shrink, and pre-tax profit in their areas of responsibility. 
 For those whose responsibilities are
primarily buying, the goals relate to sales, gross margin, shrink, and inventory turns in their areas of responsibility. 
 For those whose responsibilities
combine operational and buying functions, the goals relate to a combination of those described in the prior two paragraphs. 
 For those whose
responsibilities are staff functions, the goals relate to a combination of Company-wide operational and buying goals, in addition to qualitative factors relevant to their areas of responsibilities. 
 To be eligible for the annual bonus, the individual must still be employed by the Company at the time bonus checks are issued (November).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Land O'Lakes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 13, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Daniel Knutson, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

                                       By  /s/ Daniel Knutson
                                           --------------------------------
                                       Daniel Knutson
                                       Senior Vice President
                                       and Chief Financial Officer

                                       59
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1354 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1354

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 12, 1997

                 Referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for the designation 
     of common carriers not subject to the jurisdiction of a State 
          commission as eligible telecommunications carriers.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.

    Section 214(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 214(e)) 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(2) or (3)'' in paragraph (1) and 
        inserting ``(2), (3), or (6)'';
            (2) by striking ``interstate services,'' in paragraph (3) 
        and inserting ``interstate services or an area served by a 
        common carrier to which paragraph (6) applies,'';
            (3) by inserting ``(or the Commission in the case of a 
        common carrier designated under paragraph (6))'' in paragraph 
        (4) after ``State commission'' each place such term appears;
            (4) by inserting ``(or the Commission under paragraph 
        (6))'' in paragraph (5) after ``State commission''; and
            (5) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
            ``(6) Common carriers not subject to state commission 
        jurisdiction.--In the case of a common carrier providing 
        telephone exchange service and exchange access that is not 
        subject to the jurisdiction of a State commission, the 
        Commission shall upon request designate such a common carrier 
        that meets the requirements of paragraph (1) as an eligible 
        telecommunications carrier for a service area designated by the 
        Commission consistent with applicable federal and State law. 
        Upon request and consistent with the public interest, 
        convenience and necessity, the Commission may, with respect to 
        an area served by a rural telephone company, and shall, in the 
        case of all other areas, designate more than one common carrier 
        as an eligible telecommunications carrier for a service area 
        designated under this paragraph, so long as each additional 
        requesting carrier meets the requirements of paragraph (1). 
        Before designating an additional eligible telecommunications 
        carrier for an area served by a rural telephone company, the 
        Commission shall find that the designation is in the public 
        interest.''.

            Passed the Senate November 9, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### Ance Karamoy WENAS et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-71776.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 19, 2011.

Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners.

Imran Raza Zaidi, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*143Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Anee Karamoy Wenas and her family, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners have established extraordinary circumstances to excuse their untimely asylum application. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); *Toj-Culpatan v. Holder,*612 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harassment Wenas and her family experienced, and the beating of her son, did not rise to the level of persecution. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.2003). The record also does not compel the conclusion that petitioners have a clear probability of future persecution. *See Fakhry v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1057, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2008).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not that they will be tortured if returned to Indonesia. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 24, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51064 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROY LESTER MITCHELL, JR., also known as Roy Lester Mitchell, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-02-CR-42-1

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Roy Lester Mitchell, Jr., appeals the sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The sentence imposed will be upheld unless it was imposed in violation of the law or as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines; in reviewing the sentence, the district court’s fact findings are reviewed for clear error and its legalNo. 02-51064 -2- conclusions are reviewed de novo . United States v. Armstead , 114 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1997). Mitchell argues that the district court erred in assessing a four-point sentencing increase, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), because there was no proof that the gun was possessed in connection with any drug-trafficking crime, particularly because no crack cocaine was found in his home at the time the search warrant was executed. He urges that the record shows that he had the gun to protect his family following an armed robbery of his home. Contrary to Mitchell’s assertions, the record establishes that he was dealing drugs out of his home, as evidenced by the fact that several controlled purchases of crack cocaine were made there, that drug paraphernalia and proceeds were found there, and that Mitchell, despite specifically denying that he dealt in crack cocaine, admitted to possessing drug money and to buying and selling drugs at the street values reflected in the ledgers he kept. That no crack cocaine was actually found at the time of the search is irrelevant. See Armstead , 114 F.3d at 511. Because the gun was kept at Mitchell’s residence and could have been used to facilitate his drug trafficking, the four-point enhancement was appropriate. See id. at 507, 512. Mitchell next asserts that the district court improperly denied his request for a § 5K2.12 downward departure based on the fact that he possessed the gun under duress. He does not contendNo. 02-51064 -3- that the district court’s denial was based on a mistaken belief that it lacked the authority to grant the departure. Consequently, t his issue is not reviewable by this court. See United States v. Yanez-Huerta , 207 F.3d 746, 748 (5th Cir. 2000). Mitchell has not demonstrated any error in the sentence he received. The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10943

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Christian Lamar Porter, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CR-49-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Christian Lamar Porter pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 

924(a)(2). Relying on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 

567 U.S. 519 (2012), he argues for the first time on appeal that § 922(g)(1) 

exceeds the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and is 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 26, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10943 Document: 00516835235 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2023
No. 22-10943

2

thus unconstitutional. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for 

summary affirmance and an alternative request for an extension of time to file 

its brief.

Porter correctly concedes that his arguments challenging the 

constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed. See United States v. Alcantar, 

733 F.3d 143, 145–46 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 

513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 

1999). He raises the arguments to preserve them for further review.

Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., 

Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s motion 

for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an 

extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district 

court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-10943 Document: 00516835235 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2023
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00033

- CR

Christina L. McQuade

v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No

. 2 of McLennan County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 20150060 CR2

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consider ed this cause on
appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. September 29 , 2016
#### Rawlings *v.*Cohen.

Lumpkin, J.

1. A deed desci'ibed the land .conveyed as follows: “all that tract or parcel of land lying, being, and situated in the State and County aforesaid, and in the 136th Dist. G. M., and containing two hundred and fifty-nine (259) acres, more or less, and bounded as follows: North by lands of J. W. Slade, G. D. Warthen, and W. L. Knight; East by lands of William Rawlings; South by lands of Wm. Rawlings, and West by lands of W. E. Jordan. The above-described land being the same conveyed by deed to me by R. L. Smith, the 10th November, 1894, and recorded in Clerk’s office, Washington County, Nov. 10th, 1894, in Book ‘M’ folio 509.” *Held,*that this was a conveyance by the tract, and not by the acre; and unless the deed should be reformed, there could be no recovery by the vendor from the vendee, because the tract actually contained 345 acres, in the absence of actual fraud on the part of the vendee. *Kendall*v. *Wells,*126 *Ga.*343 (55 S. E. 41).

2. While the petition alleged that, as a part of the contract of sale of land, it was agreed between the vendor and vendee that the land should be surveyed and measured, and if there should be less than two hundred and fifty-nine acres, the vendor was to pay back to the vendee such proportionate part of the purchase-money paid as would represent such shortage in the acreage, and that if there should be more than the stated number of acres the purchaser should pay to the vendor the sum of $18 per acre for such excess, yet it was not alleged that such agreement was left out of the deed by accident or mistake, but only the provision that the sale was by the acre and not by the tract; and a reformation was sought on that basis. It was accordingly error to charge as follows: “I charge you that the burden is on the plaintiff in this case to show you by a preponderance of the evidence, the facts and circumstances of the case, that the contract was one by the acre and not by the tract; and he must also show, by the preponderance of the evidence, facts and circumstances, that the deed which hé made to the defendant does not speak the real and true contract as between these parties; and he must also show that under the contract the land was to be surveyed and measured so as to ascertain the exact number of acres; and he must also show to you that the contract was by the acre at $18 per acre, and an agreement to survey and measure the land was intended by both the plaintiff and the defendant to be written and inserted in the deed, and *727that by oversight, accident, and mistake the contract relative to the surveying and measuring by the acre was left out of the deed.”

July 17, 1915.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Walker. Washington superior court. June *4,*1914.

*Hines & Jordan, J. J. Hams,*and *Hardwick <& Wright,*for plaintiff in error. *Evans & Evans,*contra.

3. While some of the rulings set out in the other grounds of the motion for a new trial may not have been entirely accurate, they would not require a new trial. *Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except*

Evans, P. J.

I dissent from the ruling made in the second headnote, and from the judgment.
----

----

| (1) | The                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 of operations of                  the                  Registrant. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                  JANUARY 13, 2006 | /s/                  WILLIAM H.                  CAMPBELL                                     |
|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                     | William                  H. Campbell                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                                     | Chief                  Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |

----