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

----

|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act;      and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

|   | (2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | November      4, 2009 |
|--------|-----------------------|

|   | /s/ Gerald P.      Quindlen |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | Gerald      P. Quindlen |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | Chief      Executive Officer |
|--------|------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Erik K.      Bardman |
|--------|--------------------------|

|   | Erik      K. Bardman |
|--------|----------------------|

|   | Senior      Vice President of Finance and      Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0001353 23-JAN-2019 08:26 AM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

RESPONDET

v.

NICHOLAS ANTHONY ROBERTS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 241 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of August, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1507 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1507

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 to 
                  make certain technical corrections.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

    (a) Implementation of Electronic Commerce Capability.--(1) Section 
2302c(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
``of section 2303(a) of this title'' after ``paragraphs (1), (5) and 
(6)''.
    (2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect as if 
included in the amendment to section 2302c of title 10, United States 
Code, made by section 850(f)(3)(A) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 to which the amendment made by 
paragraph (1) relates.
    (b) Commemoration of 50th Anniversary of Korean Conflict.--(1) 
Section 1083(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1998 is amended by striking out ``$100,000'' and inserting in lieu 
thereof ``$1,000,000''.
    (2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect as if 
included in the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1998 to which such amendment relates.

            Passed the Senate November 9, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1507

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 to 
                  make certain technical corrections.
```
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
 Range Management Research: Las Cruces, NM
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Comprehensive Publications
                    Research SummarySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Las Cruces, New Mexico Range Management Research People & Locations







Nicole A Daniels

(Nicki)
                        Range Management Research

                        




                        
                        Program Support Assistant (Office Automation)
                        Phone: (575) 646-4842
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 11

                             WOLVERINE TUBE, INC.
                      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                   (In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Years ended December 31,
                                               --------------------------------
                                                 1996        1995        1994
                                               -------      -------     -------
<S>                                            <C>          <C>         <C>  
Net income applicable to common shares         $39,303      $31,956     $24,765
                                               =======      =======     =======
Weighted average common shares outstanding      13,772       13,605      13,087

Common equivalent shares outstanding               424          513         556
                                               -------      -------     -------
Weighted average common and common 
equivalent shares outstanding(1)                14,196       14,118      13,643
                                               =======      =======     =======
Net income per common share                    $  2.77      $  2.26     $  1.82
                                               =======      =======     =======

</TABLE>

------------------
(1)   Represents shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options calculated
      based upon the treasury stock method using the average market price. As
      fully diluted shares outstanding are the same as primary shares
      outstanding for all periods presented, net income per common share on a
      fully-diluted basis is not separately presented.
#### Bioresearch Ithaca, Inc., Appellant, v Ironics, Inc., et al., Respondents.

4n an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and of trade secrets and other proprietary data, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Levitt, J.), dated September 4, 1985, which granted that branch of the defendants’ motion, made pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) and 511, which was to change the venue of this action from Suffolk County to Tompkins County.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Under all the circumstances of this case, venue is more properly placed in Tompkins County. Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Bastian, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00557

- CV

William E. Criddle v. Dalm Enterprises, LLC

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2019

- CCV

- 61483

- 5

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consi dered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant, although he is exempt from payment due to his inability to pay c osts. We further order this decision certified below for observance. September 10, 2020
Kathryn Tassinari, OSB # 80115 

Robert A. Baron, OSB # 89020 

HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P .C. 

474 Willamette Street 

Eugene, OR 97401 

(541) 686-1969 

kathrynt50@comcast.net 

Of Attorneys for the Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JAIME MACKEY, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER, 

Social Security Administration 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

~~~~~~D~e£~e~n~da~n~t~·~~~) 

Case No. 6: 13-cv-00698-PK 

ORDERFORPAYMENTOFATTORNEY 

FEES PURSUANT TO BAJA & COSTS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C § 1920 

Based upon the Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $5 ,041.68 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(BAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and costs of $350.00, for the filing fee, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1920. 

Payment of this award shall be paid via check made payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's 

attorneys at Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C., 474 Willamette Street, Eugene, Oregon 

97401. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, the award shall be made payable to Plaintiff's attorney if the 

commissioner confirms that Plaintiff owes no debt to the government through the federal 

treasury offset program. There are no expenses to be 

Dated this J~ day of October 2014. 

PRESENTED BY: 

sf Kathryn Tassinari 

Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C. 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

U.S. Dtstfl6t Judge/Magistrate 

Case 6:13-cv-00698-PK Document 24 Filed 10/07/14 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6297

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARK ALEXIS, a/k/a Al,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CR-93-64, CA-98-1407-2)

Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Alexis, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Alexis, Nos. CR-93-64; CA-98-1407-2

(E.D. Va. Jan. 6, 1999). 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.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shareiff Davis, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 770] —

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered June 3, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 220.60 [3]; 470.05 [2]; *People v Toxey,*86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; *People v Claudio,*64 NY2d 858 [1985]; *People v Ortiz,*89 AD3d 1113 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 927 [2012]; *People v Young,*88 AD3d 918 [2011]). Furthermore, the “rare case” exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant’s allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea *(People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; *see People v Ortiz,*89 AD3d at 1113; *People v Young,*88 AD3d at 918). In any event, the facts admitted by the defendant during his plea allocution were sufficient to support his plea of guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 265.00 [15]; § 265.02 [1]; § 265.03 [3]; *People v*
      *1033
      *Seeber,*4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]; *People v Cavines,*70 NY2d 882, 883 [1987]).

By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited appellate review of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that did not directly involve the plea-agreement process *(see People v Petgen,*55 NY2d 529, 535 n 3 [1982]; *People v Collier,*71 AD3d 909, 910 [2010]; *People v Turner,*40 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2007]; *People v Silent,*37 AD3d 625 [2007]). Further, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel arising from his counsel’s failure to challenge the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution, since any such challenge had little or no chance of success *(see People v Ingram,*80 AD3d 713, 714 [2011]; *People v Terrell,*78 AD3d 865 [2010]; *People v Goddard,*72 AD3d 839, 840 [2010]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1393 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1393

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the permanent 
        extension of the incentives for alcohol used as a fuel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 6, 1997

  Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Conrad) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the permanent 
        extension of the incentives for alcohol used as a fuel.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF INCENTIVES FOR ALCOHOL USED AS A 
              FUEL.

    (a) Fuel Tax Rate Reductions.--
            (1) Section 4041(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
        is amended by striking subparagraph (C).
            (2) Section 4041(k) of such Code is amended by striking 
        paragraph (3).
            (3) Section 4081(c) of such Code is amended by striking 
        paragraph (8).
            (4) Section 4091(c) of such Code is amended by striking 
        paragraph (5).
    (b) Refunds.--Section 6427(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by striking paragraph (4).
    (c) Income Tax Credit.--Section 40(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) In general.--This section shall not apply to any sale 
        or use for any period during which the rates of tax under 
        section 4081(a)(2)(A) are 4.3 cents per gallon.''
    (d) Conforming Amendments to Tariff Schedule.--
            (1) The effective period column of the heading 9901.00.50 
        of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 
        U.S.C. 3007) is amended to read as follows: ``The rate for 
        articles described in this heading shall not apply during any 
        period during which the rates of tax under section 
        4081(a)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are 4.3 
        cents per gallon.''
          (2) The effective period column of the heading 9901.00.52 of 
        such Schedule is amended to read as follows: ``The rate for 
        articles described in this heading shall not apply during any 
        period during which the rates of tax under section 
        4081(a)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are 4.3 
        cents per gallon.''
    (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Johnson *v.*Vassar.

July 13, 1915.

Trover. Before Judge Bell. Fulton superior court. June *2i,*1914.

*Goher & Jackson,*for plaintiff in error. *John W. Cox,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

From the bill of exceptions in the present case the following appears: Upon a demurrer filed to a petition in a bail-trover action the court entered the following judgment: “This demurrer coming on to be heard, and after argument, the same is sustained on each and every ground, with twenty (20) days leave given plaintiff to amend his petition. This January 22, 1914. [Signed] W. D. Ellis, Judge of Superior Court, Atlanta Circuit.” The plaintiff, in compliance with this judg- . ment, filed in the clerk’s office a paper purporting to be an amendment to the petition, on the back of which appeared the following entry: “Piled in office this 10th day of February, 1914. W. W. Clark, Deputy Clerk.” On the 20th day of June, 1914, the defendant made a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition, “for that no amendment was had and allowed in compliance with the order” of January 22; and at the hearing of this motion, on June 24, the court passed the following judgment: “This motion coming on to be heard, after argument of counsel, same is denied. George L. Bell, Judge of the Superior Court, Atlanta Circuit.” To this judgment the defendant excepted. *Eeld,*that this was error. A proposed amendment can not properly be so filed as to become a part of the record, until it has been allowed. Merely having it filed will not suffice. It is not a sufficient compliance with an order allowing a party twenty days to amend his pleading, to file a proposed amendment without any allowance thereof. *Richards*v. *Shields,*138 *Ga.*583 (75 S. E. 602), and citations.

*(a)*In *Olds Motor Works*v. *Olds Oakland Co.,*140 *Ga.*400 (78 S. E. 902), no motion to dismiss, like that in the present case, was involved.

*(h)*If notice to the adverse party of the proposed amendment, and opportunity on his part to object, has not been had before it is presented and allowed to be filed, the rights of the parties might perhaps be preserved by an order allowing an amendment to be filed subject to objection or to demurrer. *Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Case No. 03-C-3904 

v. ) 

 ) Judge Gettleman 

KEVIN TRUDEAU, et al., ) 

 Defendants. ) 

____________________________________) 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL INSTANTER 

Jenner & Block LLP (“Jenner & Block”), including Jenner & Block partners David J. 

Bradford, Daniel Jay Hurtado, and David Eric Jimenez-Ekman, respectfully moves to 

immediately withdraw as counsel of record for Defendant Kevin Trudeau pursuant to 

LR83.51.16. The basis of this motion is unrelated to the basis for Jenner & Block’s pending 

Agreed Motion to Withdraw pursuant to LR83.51.16(b)(1)(F). In support of this Motion, Jenner 

& Block states as follows: 

1. As of August 21, 2008, it came to Jenner & Block’s attention that there is an 

irreconcilable conflict between Mr. Trudeau and another existing client of the firm. In addition, 

Jenner & Block has determined (unrelated to any financial obligations) that it no longer believes 

that it is possible to represent Mr. Trudeau consistent with this Court’s rules. 

2. In accordance with LR83.51.16(d), Jenner & Block has notified Mr. Trudeau in 

advance of the filing of this Motion. Counsel is advised that Mr. Trudeau currently intends to 

proceed pro se in this matter. Mr. Trudeau has been advised that motions are noticed before the 

Court for the morning of September 2, 2008, and counsel expect that Mr. Trudeau will appear on 

his own behalf at that time. 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 172 Filed: 08/22/08 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:2953
WHEREFORE, Jenner & Block respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion to 

Withdraw as Counsel Instanter. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 JENNER & BLOCK LLP 

 

By:__s/ David J. Bradford_________

 One of Mr. Trudeau’s Attorneys 

David J. Bradford 

Daniel J. Hurtado 

David Jimenez-Ekman 

JENNER & BLOCK LLP 

330 North Wabash Avenue 

Chicago, Illinois 60611 

312-923-2975

2

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 172 Filed: 08/22/08 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2954
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served on Plaintiff’s 

counsel of record, listed below, by operation of the Court’s ECF/CM system on August 22, 2008. 

David A. O’Toole 

Federal Trade Commission 

55 W. Monroe St., Suite 1825 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Laureen Kapin 

Elizabeth Tucci 

Sandhya Prabhu 

Federal Trade Commission 

601 New Jersey Ave., N.W. , Suite 2215 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

 s/Daniel J. Hurtado 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 172 Filed: 08/22/08 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:2955
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CONNIE RAY PALMER, 

 Appellant,

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00222-CV

Appeal from the

112th District Court

of Pecos County, Texas 

(TC# P-12345-112-CV)

O R D E R

Because this is a civil suit and Appellant has not shown he is entitled to appointment of 

counsel, his request for appointment of counsel is denied.

Appellant’s request for an extension of time to file a brief is granted to May 9, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.