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

EXHIBIT 11.1

                           VARI-LITE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND 1997
                        (In thousands except per share data)

<TABLE>
                                                              1996         1997
                                                          ----------    ---------- 
<S>                                                       <C>           <C>
Income before extraordinary loss . . . . . . . . . . . .  $      926    $    1,258

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $      926    $      521

Weighted average shares outstanding. . . . . . . . . . .   5,822,676     7,452,177

Dilutive effect of stock warrants after application 
  of treasury stock method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      19,473        15,015

Shares used in calculating diluted income per share. . .   5,842,149     7,467,192

Basic income per share before extraordinary loss . . . .  $     0.16    $     0.17

Diluted income per share before extraordinary loss . . .  $     0.16    $     0.17

Basic income per share after extraordinary loss. . . . .  $     0.16    $     0.07

Diluted income per share after extraordinary loss. . . .  $     0.16    $     0.07
</TABLE>



                                      15
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

** United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41507

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus 

RICARDO OMAR GOMEZ-VALLES, also known as Ricardo

Gomez-Valles, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-485

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

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ricardo Omar

Gomez-Valles (Gomez) preserves for further review his contention

that his sentence is unreasonable because this court’s postBooker** rulings have effectively reinstated the mandatory

Sentencing Guideline regime condemned in Booker. Gomez concedes

that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mares, 402

F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005), and its progeny, which have outlined
No. 06-41507

-2-

this court’s methodology for reviewing sentences for

reasonableness. Gomez also raises arguments that are foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           950
<OTHER-SE>                                   (100,950)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  129,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (129,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (129,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.287)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.287)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CONNIE L. LUTTRELL, 6:14-CV-01426-PK

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner, Social Security

Administration,

 Defendant.

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and

Recommendation (#17) on November 4, 2015, in which he recommends

the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's

application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed

timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter

is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

 - 1 ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01426-PK Document 21 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 2
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make

a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's

report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

This Court has reviewed the record de novo including

Plaintiff's Objections. The Court concludes Plaintiff's

Objections do not provide a basis to modify the Magistrate

Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and

Recommendation (#17). Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the

Commissioner's decision and DISMISSES this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 28th day of December, 2015.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

 - 2 ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01426-PK Document 21 Filed 12/28/15 Page 2 of 2
Cite as 2015 Ark. 6



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-14-585 JAMES TREE AND CRANE SERVICE, INC., AND ROGER WILLIAMS APPELLANTS V.
TERRI FOUGHT APPELLEE Opinion Delivered January 15, 2015 PETITION FOR JUDICIAL RELIEF
PETITION GRANTED; SHOWCAUSE ORDER ISSUED.

PER CURIAM Appellants James Tree and Crane Service, Inc., and Roger Williams have filed a petition for judicial relief seeking a further extension of time to file the record. As per their request, this court previously, on July 31, 2014, issued a writ of certiorari for the court reporter to complete the record within ten days. After granting an additional twenty-day extension of time to lodge the record, on October 9, 2014, we granted a final sixty-day extension of the writ for the record to be completed and filed with this court on December 8, 2014. On December 5, 2014, appellants filed the present petition stating that the court reporter, Sheila Russell, had advised them that the record would not be completed by the December 8, 2014 deadline. Appellants seek additional time for the court reporter to prepare the record. We find that the court reporter’s failure to comply with the writ of certiorari is good cause to grant the petition, and we extend the time for filing the record to Wednesday,Cite as 2015 Ark. 6

January 28, 2015. In addition, we order Sheila Russell to appear before this court on Thursday, January 29, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for her failure to comply with the writ of certiorari, as previously ordered. SHEILA RUSSELL IS FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT HER FAILURE TO APPEAR ON JANUARY 29, 2015, COULD RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF A BENCH WARRANT FOR HER ARREST WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY TO ARRANGE FOR HER DELIVERY TO THIS COURT SO A SHOW-CAUSE HEARING CAN BE CONDUCTED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE. Petition granted; show-cause order issued. Watts, Donovan & Tilley, P.A. , by: Jim Tilleyand Michael McCarty Harrison , for appellants. No response.

2
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the foregoing Report on Form 10-KSB pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.



Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-KSB fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78) and that the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway Financial Corporation
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                                                                    
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: March 30, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    PAUL C. HUDSON
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                      
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Paul C. Hudson President and Chief Executive Officer Broadway Financial Corporation





|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: March 30, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    ALVIN D. KANG
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                     
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Alvin D. Kang Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 American Commerce Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A2 for the period ended May 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank D. Puissegur, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director 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, to my knowledge:




(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.





Date: April 25, 2013

/s/ Frank D. PuissegurFrank D. PuissegurChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 22, 2016

No. 04-16-00328-CV

IN RE COMMITMENT OF REYES MARES,

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-15567

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant has filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief and for clarification 

regarding typographical errors in the reporter’s record. Counsel for appellant states that while 

reviewing the reporter’s record, he “realized a typographical error . . . appears from Volume 4, 

Page 58 through 174, appearing oftentimes on every page of the record in those pages.” 

According to appellant, the “error appears to replace the word ‘what’ each time with the word 

‘Doctor Arambula,’ who is the State’s expert in this case.” Counsel for appellant states that he 

and counsel for the Special Prosecution Unit agree that the typographical error exists, is frequent 

throughout the pages, and causes confusion reading the transcription. 

We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER court reporter Mary Sasala to file an 

amended reporter’s record correcting the typographical error on or before October 3, 2016. 

Appellant’s brief will be due thirty days after the amended reporter’s record is filed.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of September, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Joseph Eddy Bivens, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00264

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 27802 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justi ce Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We n ote that the appellant, Joseph Eddy Bivens, has adequately indicated his inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 24, 202 0 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-11083

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Michael Guy Stanbery, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-7-2

Before Graves, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Michael Guy Stanbery has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Stanbery has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-11083 Document: 00515901827 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2021
No. 19-11083

2

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 19-11083 Document: 00515901827 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2021
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: February 2, 2017 523240 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of 

DALLAS DICKSON, 

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: November 29, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Dallas Dickson, New York City, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City

(Bessie Bazile of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal

Board, filed May 17, 2016, which ruled that claimant was

disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits

because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Decision affirmed. No opinion.

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ.,

concur.
-2- 523240 

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### In the Matter of Tyieyanna L. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Twanya McK., Appellant; Coalition for Hispanic Family Services, Respondent.

[941 NYS2d 498]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jody Adams, J.), entered on or about March 8, 2011, which denied respondent mother’s motion to vacate orders of disposition, same court and Judge, entered on or about July 14, 2010, upon her default, which, upon findings of permanent neglect, terminated her parental rights to the subject children and committed the custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default and a meritorious defense to the petition *(see*CFLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Matter of Calvin S.,*47 AD3d 491 [2008]; *Matter of Jones,*128 AD2d 403 [1987]). She submitted an affidavit explaining that she had a severe toothache on the day of the hearing and a letter from her dentist stating that she was in his office on that day and was referred to an oral surgeon. However, she failed to notify her counsel, the court, or the agency in advance that she would not appear at the hearings, although her condition did not prevent her from doing so *(see Matter of Amirah Nicole A. [Tamika R.],*73 AD3d 428 [2010], *lv dismissed*15 NY3d 766 [2010]; *Matter of Ciara Lee C. [Lourdes R.],*67 AD3d 437 [2009], *lv dismissed*14 NY3d 756 [2010]).

*495There is no evidence that respondent completed the programs called for in her plan within the relevant one-year period so as to demonstrate a meritorious defense to the allegations of permanent neglect *(see Matter of Gloria Marie S.,*55 AD3d 320, 321 [2008], *lv dismissed*11 NY3d 909 [2009]). Her incarceration during that period did not excuse her from the requirement that she realistically plan for her children’s future *(see Matter of Jayson M.,*177 AD2d 396 [1991]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Acosta, Freedman and Richter, JJ.
<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 Quarterly Report of Waypoint Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James H. Moss,
Senior Executive Vice President 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, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.



/s/ James H. Moss
-----------------
James H. Moss,
Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


November 14, 2003





                                       41
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 American Commerce Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A2 for the period ended November 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank D. Puissegur, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director 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, to my knowledge:




(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.






Date: April 25, 2013
By:
/s/ Frank D. PuissegurFrank D. PuissegurChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1439

To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 7, 1997

Mr. HELMS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 2001, the duty on a chemical.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new item:

‘‘ 9902.32.54 Benzenesulfonic acid,

2-methyl-5-nitro

(CAS No. 121–03–9)

(provided for in subheading

2904.90.20.00) ........ Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2000 ’’.
2

•S 1439 IS

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re3 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

4 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

5 enactment of this Act.

Æ
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00272-CR

Fabian Martinez Paredes

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR-0963-18-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 28, 2022