alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                           Pro Forma Computation of Earnings Per Share
 

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           For the Year Ended  For the Year Ended
                                                           December 31, 1996   December 31, 1995
                                                           ------------------  ------------------
<S>                                                        <C>                 <C>
 
Net Income (in 000's)....................................         $   106,748         $    94,929
                                                                  -----------         -----------
 
Pro forma weighted average number of shares outstanding..          91,430,000          90,000,000
                                                                  -----------         -----------
Pro forma earnings per share.............................                1.17                1.05
                                                                  ===========         ===========
 
</TABLE>
HASSELL v. BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 172A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 15, 2007.

Gary Scarzafava, Assistant Attorney General, for Board of Education.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of May 2007 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (Hassell) shall have up to and including the 21st day of May 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 15th day of May 2007."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6077

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERT DELON REED, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-383; CA-01-2684-4-12) Submitted: October 18, 2004 Decided: October 27, 2004 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Delon Reed, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Albert Delon Reed, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reed has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 4357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. JHAMAR ORATAVIO DAWSON, a/k/a Smoke, a/k/a Marty , Defendant

– Appellant

.

No
. 23

- 4358

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. JHAMAR ORATAVIO DAWSON, a/k/a Smoke , Defendant

– Appellant

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:22

- cr - 00354

- WO

- 1 ; 1:23

- cr - 00030

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : May 20, 2024 Decided: June 18, 2024 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4357 Doc: 35 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 Before AGEE, RICHARDSON and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Thomas Kieran Maher, AMOS TYNDALL PLLC, Carrboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appelle e.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4357 Doc: 35 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: Jhamar Oratavio Dawson appeals from the district court’s imposition of a n above

Guidelines sentence of sixty months for two counts of being a felon in possession of a
firearm. We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United
States , 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). In so doing, we ensure the district court did not commit any procedural error, such as selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts or failing to adequately explain the sentence imposed. Id. at 51. If the district court did not commit a procedural error, then we assess the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. United
States v. Nance , 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a procedurally or substantively unreasonable sentence. Accordingly, we affirm Dawson’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented by the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional proc ess. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-4357 Doc: 35 Filed: 06/18/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 468/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 468/2013 of 21 May 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 468/2013                     

# of 21 May 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 May 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of Dril-Quip, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Larry E. Reimert, Co-Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|                                                             
|/s/ Larry E. Reimert                                         
|Larry E. Reimert Co-Chief Executive
Officer February 28, 2008
Accordingly, we temporarily suspend Lobello from the practice

of law and refer this matter to the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board for the initiation of formal disciplinary proceedings in which the sole issue to be determined is the extent of discipline to be imposed. 

### See SCR 111(7), (8). It is so ORDERED.

Saitta J.

cc: Phillip J. Pattee, Assistant Bar Counsel Jeffrey R. Albregts, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada John Lusk, Esq. Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court

2
IN RE C.J.G.S.

No. COA07-586.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 20, 2007.

Certification Date December 10, 2007.

Appeal from Richmond (03J77, 03J78).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Mickey Joe HAYES.

No. 323P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill, for Hayes.

Kathryne E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, Phil Berger, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 644 S.E.2d 655.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of July 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."
STATE v. ROBINSON.

No. COA06-824.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Guilford (04CRS72391, 04CRS72392).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3367 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise the timeframe 

for recognition of certain designations in certifying rural health clinics 

under the Medicare program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2008 

Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. TESTER, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mr. COCHRAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise 

the timeframe for recognition of certain designations in 

certifying rural health clinics under the Medicare program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REVISION OF THE TIMEFRAME FOR THE REC4 OGNITION OF CERTAIN DESIGNATIONS IN 

5 CERTIFYING RURAL HEALTH CLINICS UNDER 

6 THE MEDICARE PROGRAM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The second sentence of section 

8 1861(aa)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3367 IS

1 1395x(aa)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘3-year period’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘4-year period’’ in the matter in clause (i) pre3 ceding subclause (I). 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

5 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact6 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
NO. 12-13-00328-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DAWALUS M. HAMPTON, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Dawalus M. Hampton, attempts to appeal from an order denying his motion for

free documents and trial records. As a general rule, an appeal in a criminal case may be taken only 

from a judgment of conviction. See Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. 

App.1961). However, there are certain narrow exceptions. See Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 

589 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1998, no pet.) (listing exceptions). The order Appellant complains of is not a 

judgment of conviction nor does it fall within any exception to the general rule. Therefore, we have 

no jurisdiction over the appeal.

On November 6, 2013, this court notified Appellant that the information received in this 

appeal does not include a final judgment or other appealable order and therefore does not show the 

jurisdiction of this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2. Appellant was further notified that the appeal 

would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before November 9, 2013, to show 

the jurisdiction of this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3. This deadline has now passed, and 

Appellant has neither shown the jurisdiction of this court nor otherwise responded to its November 

6, 2013 notice. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.3(a).

Opinion delivered December 12, 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 12, 2013

NO. 12-13-00328-CR

DAWALUS M. HAMPTON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0608-12)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the 

appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision 

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
STATE v. Edward Lee MEDLEY.

No. 348P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of October 2007 by Defendant to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandamus:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of October 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,008
<SECURITIES>                                   529,735
<RECEIVABLES>                                  350,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,403
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               944,404
<PP&E>                                       1,381,264
<DEPRECIATION>                                 737,488
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,926,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          400,810
<BONDS>                                        317,873
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,311
<OTHER-SE>                                     952,432
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,926,817
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,306,387
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,763,017
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,493
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                371,454
<INCOME-TAX>                                   139,513
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            231,941
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   231,941
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.78
        

</TABLE>
CARLIE BOWLING v. MARGARET R. PARDEE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.

No. 588P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Glen C. Shultz, for Bowling.

Wade E. Ballard, David H. Tyner, Spartanburg, for Hospital.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 635 S.E.2d 624.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiff on the 20th day of November 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendant, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of November 2006 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3343 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3343

   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a 
   disclosure requirement under the Medicare program for physicians 
                    referring for imaging services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 26, 2008

 Mr. Grassley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a 
   disclosure requirement under the Medicare program for physicians 
                    referring for imaging services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Imaging Disclosure Sunshine 
Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM FOR 
              PHYSICIANS REFERRING FOR IMAGING SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1877(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395nn(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
sentence: ``Such requirements shall, with respect to magnetic resonance 
imaging, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and any 
other designated health services specified under subsection (h)(6)(D) 
that the Secretary determines appropriate, include a requirement that 
the referring physician inform the individual in writing at the time of 
the referral that the individual may obtain the services for which the 
individual is being referred from a person other than a person 
described in subparagraph (A)(i) and provide such individual with a 
written list of suppliers (as defined in section 1861(d)) who furnish 
such services in the area in which such individual resides.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to services furnished on or after January 1, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT


TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008, (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




March 19,
2009










/s/ H. Dean Cubley
              H. Dean Cubley
              Chief
      Executive Officer