alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11

                         DSI TOYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Three Months Ended October 31,   Nine Months Ended October 31,
                                              -------------------------        -------------------------
                                                 1997          1996               1997          1996
                                              -----------    ----------        -----------    ----------
<S>                                           <C>            <C>               <C>            <C>       
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:                                                   
Income (loss) before extraordinary item ..    $(4,029,206)   $2,061,688        $(2,831,507)   $2,384,713
                                              ===========    ==========        ===========    ==========
Net income (loss) ........................    $(4,029,206)   $2,061,688        $(3,312,261)   $2,384,713
                                              ===========    ==========        ===========    ==========
Weighted average common shares                                                
  outstanding during the period ..........      6,000,000     3,500,000          5,033,814     3,500,000
Common equivalent shares .................           --         258,169               --         157,294
                                              -----------    ----------        -----------    ----------
Weighted average shares outstanding ......      6,000,000     3,758,169          5,033,814     3,657,294
                                              ===========    ==========        ===========    ==========
Earnings (loss) per common share before                                       
  extraordinary item .....................    $     (0.67)   $     0.55        $     (0.56)   $     0.65
                                              ===========    ==========        ===========    ==========
Earnings (loss) per common share .........    $     (0.67)   $     0.55        $     (0.66)   $     0.65
                                              ===========    ==========        ===========    ==========
</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SUSAN L. ROMEO,

Appellant,

v.

PINE CREEK TOWNHOMES ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-forprofit corporation; PGA VILLAGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, 

INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation; JANE GRIM, an individual;

and LINDA KESSLER, an individual,

Appellees.

No. 4D22-1863

[March 23, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case No.

562021CA001743AXXX.

Brian K. Korte of Korte & Assocs., LLC, Singer Island, for appellant.

Ashley N. Landrum and Josef M. Fiala of Vernis & Bowling of Palm 

Beach, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellees Pine Creek Townhomes 

Association, Inc., Jane Grim and Linda Kessler.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DONALD C. SMITH

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION

Defendant.

Case No. 6:14-cv-01606-MA

JUDGMENT

MARSH, Judge

Based on the Record, and the Opinion and Order filed herewith, the decision of the ALJ is

reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative

proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 30th day of NOVEMBER, 2015. 

 /s/ Malcolm F. Marsh 

Malcolm F. Marsh

United States District Judge

1 - JUDGMENT

Case 6:14-cv-01606-MA Document 24 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 1
Amendment to the Employment Agreement dated as of November 10, 2008




 Exhibit 10.11 
 AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND
RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 10th day of November, 2008 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Spectrum Brands, Inc. (“the “Company”) and David R. Lumley (the
“Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive previously entered into that certain Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement dated January 16, 2007 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend certain
provisions of the Agreement in recognition of the Executive’s past services to the Company, new responsibilities and the importance to the future success of the Company of the Executive’s continued services; and 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements contained herein (promises that include benefits to which the Executive
would not otherwise be entitled), and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Capitalized Terms not defined herein shall have the meanings given those terms in the Agreement. 
 2. As of November 1, 2008, Executive’s Base Salary shall be Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) per annum. 
 3. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect, and the execution of this Amendment shall not affect the rights of the Company or the Executive under the terms of the Agreement as in effect
immediately prior to the Effective Date with respect to events occurring before the Effective Date. 
 [Signature Page Follows]

  

 1 









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.

  

			
	SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC
	
	             /s/    Kent
J. Hussey

	By:	 	    Kent J. Hussey, Chief Executive Officer


  

	
	EXECUTIVE:
	
	             /s/    David R. Lumley


	Name: David R. Lumley


  

 2
731 A.2d 1271

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent, v. J. H., Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 21, 1999.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 21st day of June, 1999, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following issue:

> Whether the Pennsylvania State Police, when faced with a motion to compel compliance with an order directing the expungement of an individual’s criminal record, may challenge the propriety of the original expungement order under the Criminal History Record Information Act, 18 Pa. C.S. §§ 9101-9181?
#### Ana R., Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 765]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated February 1, 2011, as denied that branch of her motion which was to compel the defendant to produce records of inspection and repairs related to a fire that took place in the stairwell of the defendant’s building, and granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to preclude the plaintiff from asserting, as a theory of liability, that the condition of the stairwell and nearby area was a contributing factor to her injuries.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In a notice of claim dated November 4, 2004, the plaintiff alleged that on August 31, 2004, she was sexually assaulted near the 10th floor elevator of the defendant’s building by several perpetrators “who gained entrance into said building as the result of a lack of security and supervision through the front entrance of said building which was unlocked and unsecured at the time.” The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of the sexual assault.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to compel the defendant to produce records of inspection and repairs related to a fire that took place in the stairwell of the defendant’s building, and properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to preclude the plaintiff from asserting, as a theory of liability, *982that the condition of the stairwell and nearby area was a contributing factor to her injuries. “[A] party may not add a new theory of liability which was not included in the notice of claim” *(Semprini v Village of Southampton,*48 AD3d 543, 544 [2008]; *see Gabriel v City of New York,*89 AD3d 982, 983 [2011]; *O’Connor v Huntington U.F.S.D,*87 AD3d 571 [2011]). Here, neither the plaintiffs notice of claim nor the plaintiffs General Municipal Law § 50-h examination testimony put the defendant on notice of the plaintiffs allegation that the condition of the building’s stairwell and nearby area, which resulted from a fire that took place in that stairwell, contributed to her injuries *(see Manns v New York City Tr. Auth.,*50 AD3d 860, 861 [2008]; *Monmasterio v New York City Hous. Auth.,*39 AD3d 354, 355-356 [2007]; *White v New York City Hous. Auth.,*288 AD2d 150 [2001]). Angiolillo, J.P., Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Enrique Reid, Appellant, v C & S Realty Management, LLC, et al., Respondents.

[941 NYS2d 509]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated February 10, 2011, which denied his motion, among other things, to vacate a stipulation of settlement entered into on June 18, 2010.

Ordered the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside . . . Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” *(Hallock v State of New York,*64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984] [citations omitted]; *see Moshe v Town of Ramapo,*54 AD3d 1030, 1030-1031 [2008]; *Trakansook v Kerry,*45 AD3d 673 [2007]). Here, the Supreme Court correctly found that none of the plaintiffs allegations were sufficient to warrant vacating the subject stipulation of settlement entered into on June 18, 2010 *(see Pimpinello v Swift & Co.,*253 NY 159, 162-163 [1930]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff s *733motion, among other things, to vacate the stipulation of settlement. Rivera, J.E, Chambers, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-00233-CV

JAY H. COHEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE JHC TRUSTS I AND 

II, Appellant

V.

NEWBISS PROPERTY, LP, Appellee

Appeal from the 234th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2010-20973A).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on February 

8, 2013. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible 

error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellant, Jay H. Cohen, Individually and as Trustee of 

the JHC Trusts I and II, pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered February, 26, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddle. Opinion 

delivered by Chief Justice Radack.y
#### Whitley *v.*The State.

*Murder.*

(Decided Feb. 3, 1910.

Rehearing denied Feb. 26, 1910.)

52 South. 203.)

*Indictments and Information; Endorsements.*— An indictment is not valid which is not endorsed “a true bill” and signed by the foreman of the grand jury as required- by section 7300, Code 1907.

Appeal from Winston Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. J. Ray.

*43Eliza Whitley was convicted of mnrder and she appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Curtis & Blanton, and M. L. Leith, for appellant.

Counsel discuss the merits of the case as raised by the charges and the evidence, but do not discuss the points decided.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, Thomas W. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, and W. C. Davis, Solicitor, for the State..

Counsel discuss the case as presented by the appellant with citation of authority, and on motion for rehearing insists that the indictment was properly endorsed, and that the clerk was guilty of a clerical error in failing to so show in the transcript. They, therefore, ask for a rehearing, the setting aside of the submission, and a certiorari to bring up a corrected record.

EVANS, J.

The transcript of the- record in this case shows no valid indictment. There is no indorsement on the indictment, as required by section 7800 of the Code of 1907, to wit, “A true bill,” signed by the foreman of the grand jury. Until an indictment is so indorsed, there is no valid *indictment.*—Mose *v. State,*35 Ala. 425, *426; Winston v. State,*52 Ala. 520.

No valid indictment having been shown, it is useless to consider the other rulings of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

Dowdell, C. J., and Anderson and Sayre, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason M. Stubbs, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[945 NYS2d 895]

Appeal from a resentence of the Monroe County Court (Elma A. Bellini, J.), rendered October 31, 2006. Defendant was resentenced upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Monroe County Court for the filing of a predicate felony offender statement and resentencing.

Same memorandum as in *People v Stubbs*(96 AD3d 1448 [2012] ). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Carni and Lindley, JJ.
Case: 1:03-cv-07888 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/03 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cv-07888 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/03 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
Case: 1:03-cv-07888 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/03 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
Case: 1:03-cv-07888 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/03 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
Case: 1:03-cv-07888 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/03 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
Case: 1:03-cv-07888 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/03 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
Case: 1:03-cv-07888 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/03 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
Case: 1:03-cv-07888 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/06/03 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21

                            TUSCARORA INCORPORATED

                             List of Subsidiaries
                             --------------------

     The following is a complete list of the subsidiaries of the Company:

            Name of                                    Jurisdiction of
           Subsidiary                                   Incorporation
---------------------------------------                ---------------

Alpine Packaging, Inc.(1)                                  Colorado

Tuscarora International, Inc.(1)                           Delaware

  Tuscarora, S.A. de C.V.(2)                               Mexico

  Tuscarora Tijuana, S.A. de C.V.(2)                       Mexico

Tuscarora Investment Corporation(1)                        Delaware

Tuscarora Limited(1)                                       England
 Tuscarora (Scotland) Limited(3)                           England
  Arrowtip Mouldings Limited(3)                            England
    Arrowtip Limited(4)                                    England
    Anglian Expanded Products Limited(4)                   England



--------------------------
(1)  100% owned by Tuscarora Incorporation.
(2)  4,999 shares are owned by Tuscarora International, Inc. and 1 share is
     owned by Tuscarora Incorporated.
(3)  100% owned by Tuscarora Limited.
(4)  100% owned by Arrowtip Mouldings Limited
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1676 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1676

 To amend section 507 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Land Management 
  Act of 1996 to provide additional funding for the preservation and 
restoration of historic buildings and structures at historically black 
           colleges and universities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 1998

 Ms. Moseley-Braun introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
     and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 507 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Land Management 
  Act of 1996 to provide additional funding for the preservation and 
restoration of historic buildings and structures at historically black 
           colleges and universities, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AT 
              HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

    Section 507 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Land Management Act of 
1996 (16 U.S.C. 470a note; 110 Stat. 4156) is amended by striking 
subsection (d) and inserting the following:
    ``(d) Funding.--
            ``(1) Authorization of additional appropriations to the 
        historic preservation fund.--In addition to other funds covered 
        into the Historic Preservation Fund under section 108 of the 
        National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) or under 
        any other law, there is authorized to be appropriated to the 
        Historic Preservation Fund $377,500,000 for fiscal years 
        beginning after fiscal year 1998.
            ``(2) Availability to carry out this section.--For fiscal 
        years beginning after fiscal year 1998, $377,500,000 shall be 
        made available pursuant to section 108 of the National Historic 
        Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) to carry out this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHRISTOPHER BARTLETT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01084-HZ 

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY 

FEES PER 28 USC 2412( d) 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant 

to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, an attorney fee in the amount of 

$ 4, 197.38 is awarded to Plaintiff. It is ordered that the attorney fee will be paid to 

Plaintiff's attorney, dependent upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies 

for offset against the awarded fees, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as 

discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). If Plaintiff has no such debt, then 

the check shall be made payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's mailing 

address at: 1336 E. Burnside St., Suite 130, Portland OR 97132. If Plaintiff has such 

debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt shall be made 

payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's mailing address stated above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this J. l day of September, 2015. 

Case 3:14-cv-01084-HZ Document 22 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statements of financial condition and the consolidated statements
of operation of Unified Holdings, Inc. filed as a part of the Company's
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such report.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         603,689
<SECURITIES>                                   662,056
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,282,657
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,041
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,840,376
<PP&E>                                       1,397,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                 990,461
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,632,983
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,657,069
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        10,728
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           17,069
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,632,983
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,871,418
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,278,554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,392,154
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,232
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                151,937
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            135,937
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   135,937
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
Ex. 6

Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6
Ex. 6




Ex. 6
Ex. 6



Ex. 7
Ex. 7




Ex. 7
Ex. 7
Ex. 7
Ex. 7
Ex. 7

Ex. 7
Ex. 7
Ex. 7
Ex. 7
Ex. 7
Ex. 7
Ex. 7




Ex. 8
Ex. 9
Ex. 9
Ex. 10
Ex. 10
Ex. 10
Ex. 10
Court hears opening statements in Taylor murder tria! I Local I. .. http://www .kmtr.com/news/Iocal/25583642l.html ?tab= gallery ... 

Court hears opening statements in Taylor murder trial 

1 of2 

Previous 1 of 8 Photos Next Read the story (/news/local 

I 255836421.html) 

hears opening statements in Taylor murder 

8/24/15, I :07 PM 

Ex. 10

Case 6:14-cv-00907-MC Document 47-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 63 of 72
Court hears opening statements in Taylor murder trial I Local I. .. http://www.kmtr.com/news/local/255836421.html?tab=gallery ... 

Court hears opening statements in Taylor murder trial 

,m (http://twitter.com/sharel 

1 of2 

Previous 4 of 8 Photos Next Read the story (/news/local 

/255836421.html) 

Court hears opening statements in Taylor murder 

trial 

8/24/15, 1:07PM 

Ex. 10

Case 6:14-cv-00907-MC Document 47-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 64 of 72
Ex. 11

Case 6:14-cv-00907-MC Document 47-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 65 of 72
Ex. 11

Case 6:14-cv-00907-MC Document 47-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 66 of 72
Ex. 11

Case 6:14-cv-00907-MC Document 47-1 Filed 08/31/15 Page 67 of 72
Ex. 14
Ex. 14
Ex. 14
Ex. 14
Ex. 15