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

                        PennFed Financial Services, Inc.

              Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

                For the Years Ended June 30, 2001, 2000 and 1999

                (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                         For the Year Ended June 30,
                                                                          -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                              2001                 2000                 1999
                                                                          -----------          -----------          -----------
<S>                                                                       <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Net income ..........................................................     $    12,513          $    12,870          $    11,457
                                                                          ===========          ===========          ===========

Number of shares outstanding:
  Weighted average shares issued ....................................      11,900,000           11,899,842           11,899,349
  Less:  Weighted average shares held in treasury ...................       3,891,390            3,261,279            2,896,595
  Less:  Average shares held by the ESOP ............................         952,000              952,000              952,000
  Plus:  ESOP shares released or committed to be
              released during the fiscal year .......................         552,611              451,541              357,421
                                                                          -----------          -----------          -----------
  Average basic shares ..............................................       7,609,221            8,138,104            8,408,175
  Plus:  Average common stock equivalents ...........................         489,382              444,409              470,316
                                                                          -----------          -----------          -----------

  Average diluted shares ............................................       8,098,603            8,582,513            8,878,491
                                                                          ===========          ===========          ===========

Earnings per common share:
         Basic ......................................................     $      1.64          $      1.58          $      1.36
                                                                          ===========          ===========          ===========
         Diluted ....................................................     $      1.55          $      1.50          $      1.29
                                                                          ===========          ===========          ===========
</TABLE>
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE *** 
 CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED
FOR THE REDACTED PORTIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, WHICH ARE DENOTED BY ***. A COMPLETE COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THE REDACTED PORTIONS, HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. 

THIS AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE *** (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into effective as of March 11, 2013, by and
among TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEMS OF ALABAMA, an instrumentality of the State of Alabama, and EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA, an instrumentality of the State of Alabama (collectively, the “Landlord”), NAVISTAR,
INC., a Delaware corporation (“Tenant”), and FreightCar Alabama, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Subtenant”). Landlord, Tenant, and Subtenant are sometimes referred to herein collectively as the
“Parties” and individually as a “Party.” 
 Recitals 

A. Landlord entered into that certain Industrial Facility Lease (the “Lease”), dated as of September 29, 2011, with
Tenant, whereby Landlord leased to Tenant the Leased Premises (as defined in the Lease). Capitalized terms used herein, but not defined herein, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Lease. 

B. A short form or memorandum of the Lease has been recorded in the land records of Colbert County, Alabama on October 25, 2011 in
Book 2011, Page 22555. 
 C. Pursuant to that certain Sublease (the “Sublease”), dated as of February 19,
2013, Tenant has subleased to Subtenant a portion of the Facility referred to as the “Subleased Premises,” and granted to Subtenant the exclusive use of certain areas of the Leased Premises referred to therein as the “Exclusive Use
Areas,” all as more particularly described in the Sublease. A true and complete copy of the Sublease has been delivered to Landlord. 
 D. Subtenant requires the *** pursuant to Article XXI of the Lease. 

Agreement 
 For and in consideration of the respective covenants and agreements of the Parties herein set forth, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of all of which are hereby
acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties do hereby agree as follows: 







 ARTICLE 1 
 AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE 
 Section 1.1 Amendment. Tenant and
Subtenant hereby agree that Sections 4.3(b) and 4.3(c) of the Sublease shall be deleted in their entirety from the Sublease and Landlord hereby consents to such amendment of the Sublease. 

ARTICLE 2 

*** 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the Parties as of the date first stated above. 
  

							
	Landlord:	 	Teachers’ Retirement Systems Of Alabama
				
		 	By:	  	 	  	
		 	Name:	  	 	  	
		 	Title:	  	 	  	
		
		 	Employees’ Retirement System Of Alabama
				
		 	By:	  	 	  	
		 	Name:	  	 	  	
		 	Title:	  	 	  	
			
	Tenant:	 	Navistar, Inc.	  	
				
		 	By:	  	 	  	
		 	Name:	  	 	  	
		 	Title:	  	 	  	
			
	Subtenant:	 	FreightCar Alabama, LLC	  	
				
		 	By:	  	 	  	
		 	Name:	  	 	  	
		 	Title:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10343

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL ALEJANDRO DURAN-MUNEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-88-1

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Manuel Alejandro Duran-Munez (Duran) appeals the 70-month sentence

imposed following his guilty plea for illegal reentry after removal in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. Duran argues that the district court erred when it enhanced his

offense level pursuant to § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for unlawfully remaining in the

United States after a crime of violence conviction.1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 26, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 § 2L1.2(b)(1) provides that “If the defendant previously was deported, or unlawfully

1

remained in the United States after—(A) a conviction for a felony that is . . . (ii) a crime of

Case: 11-10343 Document: 00511934900 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2012
No. 11-10343

Duran contends that the 16-level enhancement should not apply because

there was no removal order issued “after” his crime of violence conviction and

the prior removal order was not reinstated until after his arrest for illegal

reentry. 

In our intervening decision in United States v. Nevares-Bustamante, 669

F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2012), as the parties forthrightly acknowledged, we held “that

a defendant alleged to have unlawfully remained in the United States following

a qualifying conviction under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) is subject to the

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) enhancement only when a removal order is issued or reinstated

after that conviction.” Id. at 213. The government acknowledges that its position

that § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) does not require a new or reinstated removal order to issue

after the qualifying conviction was rejected by this courtin Nevares-Bustamante. 

The government also acknowledges that Duran’s removal order was reinstated

after his arrest and, as a result, he had not “remained” in the United States after

the issuance of the reinstated order.

In light of Nevares-Bustamante, and the government’s concessions, we

VACATE Duran’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing.

violence” the offense level shall “increase by 16 levels if the conviction receives criminal history

points under Chapter Four.” In turn, the application notes to § 2L1.2 explain that “[a]

defendant shall be considered to have unlawfully remained in the United States if the

defendant remained in the United States following a removal order issued after a conviction,

regardless of whether the removal order was in response to the conviction.” U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2

cmt. n. 1(A)(iii). The Supreme Court has held that application notes are authoritative. Stinson

v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993).

2

Case: 11-10343 Document: 00511934900 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2012
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4225 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4225

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty for 
 knowingly selling advertising that offers certain commercial sex acts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2014

 Mrs. Wagner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty for 
 knowingly selling advertising that offers certain commercial sex acts.

    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 ``Stop Advertising Victims of 
Exploitation Act of 2014'' or the ``SAVE Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. ADVERTISING THAT OFFERS CERTAIN COMMERCIAL SEX ACTS.

``Sec. 1591A. Advertising that offers certain commercial sex acts
    ``(a) Offense.--Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign 
commerce, knowingly benefits financially from, receives anything of 
value from, or distributes advertising that offers a commercial sex act 
in a manner prohibited under section 1591, shall be fined under this 
title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
    ``(b) Definitions.--In this section, the terms have the meanings 
given those terms in section 1591.''.

SEC. 3. EXTRA-TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

    Section 1596 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``or 1591'' and inserting ``1591, or 1591A''.

SEC. 4. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

    The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 77 of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
section 1591 the following:

``1591A. Advertising that offers certain commercial sex acts.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lucinda G. MILLER; Elaine King-Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10190.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 12, 2003.

Bradley W. Howard, Grant A. Bannen, Brown & Fortunato, Amarillo, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Amy Warr, David Earl Jenkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, TX, for Defendants Appellant.

Kevin K Russell, Jessica Dunsay Silver, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Washington, DC, for Intervenor.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS, CLEMENT and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc. No decision has yet been made with respect to oral argument. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
# C_2008313EN.01002901.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/29

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 October 2008 — Cassegrain v OHIM (Shape of a bag)

(Case T-73/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark - Shape of a bag - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 313/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean Cassegrain SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Coursin and T. van Innis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 December 2005 (Case R 687/2005-2) concerning the registration of the figurative sign Shape of a bag as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jean Cassegrain SAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jean Cassegrain SAS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection withthe periodic report of Westaff, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended July 9, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Patricia M. Newman, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solelyfor purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,that:

 

(1)                                  the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

(2)                                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates andfor the periods indicated.

 

 

Date: August 23, 2005

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Patricia M. Newman                |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Patricia M. Newman                    |   |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906  has beenprovided to Westaff, Inc. and will be retained by Westaff, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
STATE v. Derrick D. BOGER

158P06-16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2017

Derrick D. Boger, for Boger, Derrick D.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of October 2017 by Defendant for Civil Complaint in Tort Action:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."
EXHIBIT 32.1



Section 906 Certification



The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2005 pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.



Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a), or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Sensus Metering Systems (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus Metering Systems Inc.



|         |  |                                                                           |  |          |  |                                                                          
|-------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|         |  | /s/    Daniel W. Harness                                                  |  |          |  | /s/    Peter Mainz                                                       
|Name:    |  | Daniel W. Harness                                                         |  | Name:    |  | Peter Mainz                                                              
|Title:   |  | Chief Executive Officer and President                                     |  | Title:   |  | Chief Financial Officer                                                  
|Company: |  | Sensus Metering Systems (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus Metering Systems Inc. |  | Company: |  | Sensus Metering Systems (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus Metering Systems Inc.
|Date:    |  | August 2, 2005                                                            |  | Date:    |  | August 2, 2005
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 Quarterly Report of WCA Waste Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Tom J. Fatjo, Jr., 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, that:
  (1)
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and
  (2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
  By:
                /s/ Tom
      J. Fatjo, Jr.Tom
      J. Fatjo, Jr.Chief
      Executive OfficerAugust
      7, 2008
  The
foregoing certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the
registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
STATE of North Carolina v. Zebroan ARTIS

No. COA17-478

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

NO ERROR.
# C_2022266EN.01002901.xml

| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/29

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 13 May 2022 — Conserve Italia and Conserves France v Commission

(Case T-59/22 R)

(Interim relief - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for preserved vegetables - Decision imposing a fine - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 266/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Conserve Italia — Consorzio Italiano fra cooperative agricole Soc. coop. agr. (San Lazzaro di Savena, Italy) and Conserves France (Tarascon, France) (represented by: L. Di Via, M. Petite, L. Tresoldi and E. Belli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Baches Opi, F. Jimeno Fernández and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2021) 8259 final of 19 November 2021 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 1

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-07-450-CR

HOMER C. CARR, JR. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

After pleading true to having violated two conditions of his community

supervision as alleged in the State’s Motion to Revoke Community Supervision,

appellant Homer C. Carr, Jr. claims the evidence is factually insufficient to

support the trial court’s revocation of his community supervision. We affirm.
Allbright v. State, 13 S.W.3d 817, 818 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, 2

pet. ref’d).

Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); 3

Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).

Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 4

1980); Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1980).

Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). 5

2

In June 2005, as part of an open plea, appellant was placed on ten years’

community supervision for the offense of intoxication assault. Two conditions

of appellant’s community supervision were that he commit no new offense and

that he not leave Tarrant County without the permission of the trial court or his

community supervision officer. In November 2007, appellant pleaded true to

having violated these conditions. The trial court revoked appellant’s community

supervision and sentenced him to nine years’ confinement.

On appeal, appellant claims the evidence is factually insufficient to

support his revocation. Factual sufficiency review, however, does not apply

to revocation proceedings. Orders revoking community supervision are 2

reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Under this standard, proof by 3

a preponderance of the evidence of any one of the alleged violations of

community supervision is sufficient to support a revocation order. A plea of 4

true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the trial court’s revocation order.5
3

Appellant pleaded true to two of the allegations in the State’s Petition to

Revoke Probated Sentence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in

revoking appellant’s community supervision based on this plea. We, therefore,

overrule appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; GARDNER and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 2, 2008
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-084-CV

DENAR, LLC A/K/A DENARE, LLC 					      APPELLANTS

AND GUILLERMO PERALES	

	V.

DENNY'S, INC.	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered the “Agreed Motion To Vacate Judgment And Dismiss With Prejudice.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted.  Accordingly, without regard to the merits, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case with prejudice.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B), 43.2(e).

	Costs shall be taxed against the appellant, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED:  August 17, 2006