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

OWOSSO CORPORATION
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

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

                                                                            2002                2001              2000
BASIC:

<S>                                                                          <C>               <C>                        <C>
Net income (loss) available for common shareholders                         $ 3,849,000       $(17,607,000)      $ (14,793,000)
                                                                      ------------------  ------------------------------------

Weighted average number of
          common shares outstanding                                           5,824,000          5,866,000           5,844,000
                                                                      ------------------  ------------------------------------

Basic income (loss) per common share                                        $      0.66       $      (3.00)      $       (2.53)
                                                                      ------------------  ------------------------------------


DILUTED:

Net income (loss) available for common shareholders                         $ 3,849,000       $(17,607,000)      $ (14,793,000)
                                                                      ------------------  ------------------------------------

Weighted average number of
          common shares outstanding                                           5,824,000          5,866,000           5,844,000

Dilutive effect of stock options                                                      -                  -                   -
                                                                      ------------------  ------------------------------------

Weighted average number of shares outstanding                                 5,824,000          5,866,000           5,844,000
                                                                      ------------------  ------------------------------------

Diluted income (loss) per common share                                      $      0.66            $ (3.00)            $ (2.53)
                                                                      ------------------  ------------------------------------


</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4067 

To provide for the extension of the enforcement instruction on supervision 

requirements for outpatient therapeutic services in critical access and 

small rural hospitals through 2014. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 18, 2014 

Ms. JENKINS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for the extension of the enforcement instruction 

on supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic 

services in critical access and small rural hospitals 

through 2014. 

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4067 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ENFORCEMENT INSTRUCTION 

2 ON SUPERVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR OUT3 PATIENT THERAPEUTIC SERVICES IN CRIT4 ICAL ACCESS AND SMALL RURAL HOSPITALS 

5 THROUGH 2014. 

6 The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 

7 continue to apply through calendar year 2014 the enforce8 ment instruction described in the notice of the Centers for 

9 Medicare & Medicaid Services entitled ‘‘Enforcement In10 struction on Supervision Requirements for Outpatient 

11 Therapeutic Services in Critical Access and Small Rural 

12 Hospitals for CY 2013’’, dated November 1, 2012 (pro13 viding for an exception to the restatement and clarification 

14 under the final rulemaking changes to the Medicare hos15 pital outpatient prospective payment system and calendar 

16 year 2009 payment rates (published in the Federal Reg17 ister on November 18, 2008, 73 Fed. Reg. 68702 through 

18 68704) with respect to requirements for direct supervision 

19 by physicians for therapeutic hospital outpatient services). 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SANCHEZ v. COBBLESTONE HOA OF CLAYTON, INC.

374A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 13, 2016

*249J. Matthew Waters, Attorney at Law, Hope Derby Carmichael, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Cobblestone HOA of Clayton, Inc.

Tatita Sanchez, For Sanchez, Tatita M.

Robert A. Spence, Jr., Attorney at Law, Smithfield.

Dennis Draughon.

Robert Sain.

Vincent Franks, Jr.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of October 2016 by Defendant to Consolidate Appeals:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of October 2016."
# C_2008116EN.01002003.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 March 2008 — Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission

(Case T-467/07 R)

(Application for interim relief - Directive 91/414/EEC - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - No urgency)

(2008/C 116/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Du Pont de Nemours (France) SAS (Puteaux, France); Du Pont Portugal — Serviços, Sociedada Unipessoal, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal); Du Pont Ibérica, SL (Barcelona, Spain); E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. USA (Wilmington, Delaware, United States); Du Pont de Nemours Italiana Srl (Milan, Italy); Du Pont De Nemours (Nederland) BV (Dordrecht, Netherlands); Du Pont de Nemours (Deutschland) GmbH (Bad Homburg von der Höhe, Germany); DuPont Poland sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland); DuPont Romania Srl (Bucharest, Romania); DuPont International Operations SARL (Le Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland); Du Pont de Nemours International SA (Le Grand-Saconnex); DuPont Solutions (France) SAS (Puteaux); Du Pont Agro Hellas AE (Khalandri, Greece) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck and I. Antypas, lawyers)

Applicants:

da

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/628/EC of 19 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of methomyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 255, p. 40), until delivery of the judgment in the main proceedings

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             507,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      555,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0 <F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         93,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,212,000
<PP&E>                                           4,800,000 <F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,691,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              784,000
<BONDS>                                          1,335,000 <F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            57,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,515,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,691,000
<SALES>                                          1,960,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,910,000
<CGS>                                            2,136,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,274,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 160,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,716,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,716,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,716,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.50)
<FN>
<F1>  Notes and accounts receivable - trade are reported net of
allowances for doubtful accounts in the Balance Sheet.

<F2>  Property, plant, and equipment are reported ent of accumulated
depreciation in the Balance Sheet.

<F3>  Excludes current portion.
</FN>



</TABLE>
J-S33038-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v.

FRANK J. BOSLET, JR. 

 Appellant No. 3153 EDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order Dated October 8, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County 

Criminal Division at No: CP-45-CR-0002748-2010 

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON, and STABILE, JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED AUGUST 25, 2014 

Appellant, Frank J. Boslet, Jr., appeals from the October 8, 2013 order 

dismissing his petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9541-46 (“PCRA”). We affirm. 

Appellant was convicted of DUI–high rate of alcohol,1

 after a May 25, 

2011 bench trial. On June 28, 2011, the trial court imposed a sentence of 

thirty days to six months of incarceration. The trial court deferred the 

sentence pending the outcome of Appellant’s direct appeal. This Court 

affirmed the judgment of sentence on June 21, 2012. The Supreme Court 

denied allowance of appeal on December 26, 2012. On April 11, 2013, the 

trial court issued an order dissolving an outstanding bench warrant and 

____________________________________________ 

1

 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(b). 
J-S33038-14

- 2 - 

directing Appellant to begin serving his sentence. The trial court paroled 

Appellant on May 16, 2013 and his sentence expired on October 9, 2013, 

one day after the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s timely first PCRA 

petition.2

 

Persons no longer serving a sentence are ineligible for PCRA relief. 42 

Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i). This is so even where the petitioner files a PCRA 

petition while still serving a sentence. Commonwealth v. Hart, 911 A.2d 

939, 942 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“As soon as his sentence is completed, the 

petitioner becomes ineligible for relief, regardless of whether he was serving 

his sentence when he filed the petition.”). As Appellant is no longer eligible 

for relief, we affirm the PCRA court’s order.3 

Order affirmed. 

____________________________________________ 

2

 Appellant styled the petition as one for PCRA relief or, in the alternative, a 

writ of coram nobis. Appellant’s brief does not contain any argument 

pertaining to the latter. 

3

 Appellant cites Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754, 764 (Pa. 2013), 

for the proposition that Article V, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution 

guarantees the right to have a Common Pleas court decision reviewed by an 

appellate court. While this is a correct statement of the law, nothing in 

Article V, § 9 cabins this Court’s authority to affirm or reverse a Common 

Pleas Court order in accordance with applicable law. We have afforded 

Appellant the review to which he is entitled, and concluded he is ineligible for 

relief under the PCRA. 
J-S33038-14

- 3 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/25/2014
STATE of North Carolina, v. James Edward JOYNER.

No. COA15-442.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
In the MATTER OF the Foreclosure of Real Property of a Deed of Trust Executed by Holly B. RANKIN and Darrin L. Rankin (Present Record Owner(s): Mozijah Bailey and Wendy Carolina Lopez) and (Darrin L. Rankin, as to a Life Estate only) in the original amount of $307,920.00 Dated October 4, 2006, recorded in Book 21173, Page 276, Mecklenburg County Registry

Substitute Trustee Services, Inc., Substitute Trustee

No. COA16-771

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 16, 2017

The Law Office of Erin E. Rozzelle, PLLC, by Erin Rozzelle, for Appellant Bruce Adams.

Hutchens Law Firm, Charlotte, by Jeffrey A. Bunda, for Petitioner-Appellee.

DILLON, Judge.

The superior court entered an order permitting the foreclosure of certain real property ("Property"). The Property owner ("Owner") appeals the order allowing the foreclosure to proceed on the sole ground that Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("Trustee") failed to present sufficient evidence that it was the holder of the debt which secured the Property. We affirm the superior court.

*Analysis*

The Owner's sole argument on appeal is that the superior court erred in finding that the Trustee was the holder of the note ("Note") which was secured by the Property. We disagree.

At the foreclosure hearing before the superior court, the Trustee produced a photocopy of the original Note along with an affidavit of an officer of the authorized servicer of the mortgage indicating that the Trustee has been the holder of the Note since before the time the foreclosure proceeding was initiated. *See**In re Adams* , 204 N.C. App. 318, 323, 693 S.E.2d 705, 709-10 (2010) (photocopies of the note can be admitted to prove holder status); *In re Brown* , 156 N.C. App. 477, 486-87, 577 S.E.2d 398, 404-05 (2003) (affidavits from loan servicer are admissible in *de novo* foreclosure hearing in superior court). The Note was indorsed in blank. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-3-205(b) (2013) states that "[w]hen indorsed in blank, an instrument becomes payable to bearer[.]" A separate assignment of the deed of trust securing the Note is not required because the transfer of the Note constitutes a valid transfer of the deed of trust. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47-17.2 (2013).

We have reviewed the Owner's contentions on appeal that Bank of America, and not the Trustee, was the holder of the Note. We hold that these contentions lack merit to rebut the evidence offered by the Trustee. The evidence cited by the Owner shows, at best, that Bank of America may have been involved in servicing the mortgage in the past. But the evidence does not contradict the Trustee's evidence that it has been in possession of the Note since the initiation of the foreclosure and that the Note was indorsed in blank.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Judges ELMORE and ZACHARY concur.
#### A.L.M., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D02-2593.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 5, 2003.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Andrea D. England, (Ft.Lauderdale), Assistant Attorney General for appellee.

Before JORGENSON, COPE and WELLS, JJ.

WELLS, J.

A.L.M., the respondent below, a juvenile, appeals his adjudication of delinquency for aggravated battery for intentionally striking the victim with a three-foot long broomstick, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence that respondent intended to, and did, use the broomstick to cause death or great bodily harm. We disagree and affirm.

The victim testified that respondent chased him, hit him with his fists, pushed him, and then threw him to the ground. Thereupon, respondent proceeded to hit the victim twice with a three-foot long broomstick. As a result of the beating, the victim was dazed and had various bumps and substantial bruising on his head and body. Pictures of the victim’s injuries, which were introduced into evidence, demonstrated that the victim had numerous injuries across his head, arms and back. Likewise, the police detective assigned to investigate the beating testified as to the extreme severity of victim’s injuries, including significant injuries to the victim’s head where he had been hit with the broomstick.

In a companion case involving a co-respondent who participated in the attack upon the victim, this court held that the broomstick used in this attack qualified as a deadly weapon under section 784.045(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2002). *See E.M.M. v. State,*836 So.2d 1125, (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). There also was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that respondent intentionally used the broomstick to inflict great bodily harm *434upon the victim. *See Mitchell v. State,*698 So.2d 555, 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), *review granted,*701 So.2d 868 (Fla.1997), *approved,*703 So.2d 1062 (Fla.1997) (finding an aggravated battery conviction was supported when the defendant used a BB gun as a bludgeon to strike his wife, causing two gashes on her head); *Taylor v. State,*672 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(finding that a surprise attack with a crowbar, which was wielded with enough force to split open the victim’s head, was competent substantial evidence of the use of a deadly weapon).

Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.
Exhibit 13.1



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 report of CDG Investments Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the financial year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





January 4, 2008



/s/ Robert Ingram

By:  Robert Ingram

President/Chief Executive Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Kenterries Lamont JOHNSON, Defendant.

No. COA16-193

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

NO ERROR.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Donna Lehmann, asTreasurer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of BH/RE, L.L.C. (the “Company”),certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(A)  the accompanying Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(B)  the information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Dated: September1, 2006

 
|        | /s/ Donna  Lehmann                                       |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Donna Lehmann                                            |
|   | Treasurer  (Principal Financial and Accounting  Officer) |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4268 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4268

 To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to United States 
            Route 78 in Mississippi, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2014

Mr. Nunnelee (for himself, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Harper, and 
 Mr. Palazzo) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to United States 
            Route 78 in Mississippi, 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. UNITED STATES ROUTE 78 IN MISSISSIPPI.

    Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(j) United States Route 78 in Mississippi.--If any segment of 
United States Route 78 in Mississippi from mile marker 0 to mile marker 
113 is designated as part of the Interstate System, no limit 
established under this section may apply to that segment with respect 
to the operation of any vehicle that could have legally operated on 
that segment before such designation.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                               EXHIBIT 23.1

         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No.'s 333-26743, 333-61467, 333-74490 and 333-118861) of
Cenveo, Inc. of our reports dated February 28, 2007, except for the fourth
paragraph of Note 3 as to which the date is June 26, 2007, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Cenveo, Inc., Cenveo, Inc.
management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of Cenveo, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for
the year ended December 31, 2006.

                                                /S/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                          ---------------------------------

Stamford, Connecticut
June 26, 2007
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1107

_____________________________

CLARENCE PERKINS JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus—Original Jurisdiction.

June 28, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Munn v. Fla. 

Parole Comm’n, 807 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

RAY, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Clarence Perkins Jr., pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau 

Chief, Tallahassee, for Respondent.