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


<PAGE>



Exhibit No. 11  Statement re: Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                         Year                  Year
                                                         Ended                 Ended
                                                   December 31, 1996    December 31, 1995
                                                   -----------------    ------------------

<S>                                                     <C>                  <C>       
Net income ........................................     $3,479,000           $3,871,000
Weighted average common shares outstanding ........      4,066,615            4,600,775
Common stock equivalents due to dilutive
  effect of stock options .........................        101,221              65,299
Total weighted average common shares and
  equivalents outstanding .........................      4,167,836           4,666,074
Primary earnings per share ........................     $     0.83          $     0.83
Total weighted average common shares
  and equivalents outstanding .....................      4,167,836           4,666,074
Additional dilutive shares using the higher of the
  end of period market value or average market
  value for the period when utilizing the treasury
  stock method regarding stock options ............         11,788              11,341
Total outstanding shares for fully diluted earnings
  per share computation ...........................      4,179,624           4,677,415
Fully diluted earnings per share ..................     $     0.83          $     0.83

</TABLE>
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

24 April 2009

Case T-492/07 P

**Carlos Sanchez Ferriz and Others**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2005 promotion year – Non-inclusion on the list of promoted officials – Multiplication rates for guidance purposes – Articles 6 and 10 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations – Legal interest in raising a plea)

**Appeal:**brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2007 in Case F-115/06
*Sanchez Ferriz and Others* v *Commission* [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking annulment of that order.

**Held:**The appeal is dismissed. Mr Carlos Sanchez Ferriz and the nine other Commission officials whose names appear in the annex
to the order are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in the present proceedings.

**Summary**

1.      *Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against a refusal of promotion*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)*

2.      *Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Decision adopting the list of promoted officials
– Implied decisions not to promote officials other than the appellant – Not included*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)*

1.      In order to prove his interest in obtaining annulment of the implied decision not to promote him in the contested promotion
exercise, on the ground that the promotion rate allegedly applicable in the grade concerned was not observed, it is for an
official to show that, taking account of his personal situation and, in particular, the total number of promotion points he
had accumulated, it is not impossible that he might have reached the promotion threshold if the abovementioned promotion rate
had been applied.

(see para. 34)

See: T‐436/04 *Sanchez Ferriz* v *Commission* [2006] ECR-SC I‐A‐2‐277 and II‐A‐2‐1439, paras 33 to 37 and 39; T-415/04 *Tebaldi and Others* v *Commission* [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, paras 29 to 32

2.      While it is true that the effects of the appointing authority’s decision adopting the list of officials promoted in a promotion
exercise do not cease when that exercise is concluded, in so far as an official may find himself in competition, in subsequent
promotion exercises, with a number of officials who might already have been promoted in that promotion exercise if the appointing
authority had applied a higher promotion rate, the fact remains that the implied decisions not to promote those other officials
under that promotion exercise cannot be regarded as acts adversely affecting that official.

(see para. 38)

See: T‐311/04 *Buendía Sierra* v *Commission* [2006] ECR II‐4137, para. 349
In the MATTER OF: L.C.

No. COA17-589

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 21, 2017

REVERSED. REMANDED.
Bill MESSER d/b/a Messer'S Excavating, Plaintiff, v. Roy POLLACK and wife, Adrienne Pollack, Defendants.

No. COA15-1351.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
STATE v. TERRIL COURTNEY BATTLE

464PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Mr. Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, Assistant Appellate Defender, For Battle, Terril Courtney.

Ms. Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Mr. Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for the State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of December 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
# CA2007188EN.01000101.xml

| 11.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 188/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 188/1

---

NOTICE TO THE READERS

NOTICE TO THE READERS

Image

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Joshua Ryan WILSON

No. 466A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed December 22, 2017

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Marie Hartwell Evitt, Assistant Attorney General, and Derrick C. Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.

Leslie Rawls, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.1



Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Embratel Participações S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers
knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December
31, 2004 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



Date: June 29, 2005



/s/ Carlos Henrique
MoreiraName:

Carlos Henrique MoreiraTitle:

Chief Executive Officer




Date: June 29, 2005



/s/ Isaac
BerensztejnName:

Isaac BerensztejnTitle:

Chief Financial Officer & Investor Relations Officer
IN RE: CLAYTON

296P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 18, 2017

Matthew S. Roberson, Attorney at Law, Asheville, William J. Whalen, Attorney at Law, for Clayton, Jackie B. (aka Jacqueline B. Clayton).

Baxter Chad Ewing, Attorney at Law, for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of September 2017 by Respondent for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of September 2017."
Susan VAUGHAN, Plaintiff, v. Jennifer VAUGHAN and Kathlyn Romm/Currituck DSS, Defendants.

For the Adoption of: E.J.V.

No. COA17-365

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 7, 2017

DISMISSED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DOD. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Southeastern Resources Management LLC, GCS Research LLC, and Sabeus, Inc. revocable, nonassignable, partially co-exclusive licenses in the Government-owned inventions described in Navy Case Number 96517: U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 11/056,630, entitled Natural Fiber Span Reflectometer Providing A Virtual Signal Sensing Array Capability, filed on February 7, 2005; Navy Case Number 96518: U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 11/056,629, entitled Natural Fiber Span Reflectometer Providing A Virtual Phase Signal Sensing Array Capability, filed on February 7, 2005; Navy Case Number 96519: U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 11/056,631, entitled Natural Fiber Span Reflectometer Providing A Virtual Differential Signal Sensing Array Capability, filed on February 7, 2005; and Navy Case Number 96650: U.S. Patent App. Ser. No. 11/056,632, entitled Natural Fiber Span Reflectometer Providing A Spread Spectrum Virtual Sensing Array Capability, filed on February 7, 2005. 

# DATES:

Anyone wishing to object to the grant of these licenses has fifteen (15) days from the date of this notice to file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any. 

# ADDRESSES:

Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, 1176 Howell St, Bldg 990, Code 105, Newport, RI 02841. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Dr. Theresa A. Baus, Technology Transfer Manager, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, 1176 Howell St, Bldg 990, Code 105, Newport, RI 02841, telephone 401-832-8728, E-Mail:                         *bausta@npt.nuwc.navy.mil.*

(Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.) 

Dated: September 15, 2005. 

I.C. Le Moyne, Jr., 

Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05-18904 Filed 9-21-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtis Rutledge, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 573]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered October 13, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and third degrees, and, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 years, 3V2 to 7 years and 21/s to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim would require a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 for the purpose of determining whether the alleged error was part of a deliberate strategy *(see, People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 708). Were we to review this claim on the present record, we would find that defendant received meaningful representation *(see, People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714). Counsel’s references during summation to prior incidents between defendant and the complainant appear to have been designed to sow confusion about the complainant’s credibility at a stage of trial where the People would be denied the opportunity to elicit clarifying details. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
GARY RICHARDS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 2745

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed November 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

.

Gary Richard s , pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, Assistant Attorney

General, Tal lahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
NUMBER 13-08-00266-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

DALE WALKER AND FLORENCE WALKER, Appellants,

v.

K-3 RESOURCES, L.P., A/K/A AND D/B/A K-3

BMI, A/K/A AND D/B/A K-3 SERVICES, 

A/K/A AND D/B/A BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT;

MANAGEMENT BY KE3, L.P. K-3 RESOURCES, 

INC.; SERVICES BY KE, L.L.C.; KARLIS 

ERCUMS, III; AND JOHNNY LEE KING, JR., Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 105th District Court 

of Kleberg County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
2

Appellants, Dale Walker and Florence Walker, perfected an appeal from a judgment

entered by the 105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas, in cause number 06-550-D.

Appellants have filed an agreed motion to dismiss appeal on grounds that the parties have

reached an agreement to settle and compromise their differences. Appellants request that

this Court dismiss the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants’ agreed motion

to dismiss appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellants’ agreed motion to dismiss appeal is granted, and the appeal is

hereby DISMISSED. The parties have agreed, as part of the settlement, to bear their own

costs incurred in this appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellants' request, no

motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 23rd day of October, 2008.
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LIN TV Corp. for the three monthsended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), the undersigned, Gary R. Chapman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Vincent L.Sadusky, Chief Financial Officer of the Company each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: May 10, 2006 /s/ Gary R. Chapman   Gary R. Chapman   Chief Executive Officer      Dated: May 10, 2006 /s/ Vincent L. Sadusky   Vincent L. Sadusky   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
* 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.

1

“‘Federal appellate courts do not have jurisdiction over orders or judgments that do

not dispose of the litigation in the district court.’ See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292. Such orders

include, but are not limited to, orders dismissing fewer than all of the claims or parties in the

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30494

Summary Calendar

Danny Kirk

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

Universal Underwriters of Texas Insurance Company

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

2:06-CV-1528

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On April 2, 2008, in Kirk v. Universal Underwriters of Texas Insurance

Company, No. 08-30273, a panel of this court rejected appellant’s attempt to

appeal the lower court’s grant of summary judgment as to appellee, explaining

that it lacked jurisdiction.1 The substance of its opinion applies with full force

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 23, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30494

litigation, except where the district court has certified the order for appeal under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 54(b). See Thompson v. Betts, 754 F.2d 1243, 1245 (5th Cir. 1985) (an order dismissing

fewer than all of the parties is not appealable absent Rule 54(b) certification). The district

court has not so certified the judgment in the instant appeal. Accordingly, the appeal must be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” Slip. op. at 1-2.

2

to this attempt at an appeal. Accordingly, this appeal must be and is

DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 11

                        PennFed Financial Services, Inc.

              Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

                For the Years Ended June 30, 2004, 2003 and 2002

                (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                     For the years ended June 30,
                                                                           ------------------------------------------------
                                                                               2004              2003               2002
                                                                           -----------        -----------       -----------
<S>                                                                        <C>                <C>               <C>
Net income ....................................................            $    12,058        $    13,734       $    14,583
                                                                           ===========        ===========       ===========

Number of shares outstanding:
 Weighted average shares issued ...............................             11,900,000         11,900,000        11,900,000
 Less: Weighted average shares held in treasury ...............              5,077,115          4,764,775         4,383,643
 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 ....................                903,513            778,008           661,256
                                                                           -----------        -----------       -----------
 Average basic shares .........................................              6,774,398          6,961,233         7,225,613
 Plus: Average common stock equivalents .......................                450,187            524,548           542,809
                                                                           -----------        -----------       -----------
 Average diluted shares .......................................              7,224,585          7,485,781         7,768,422
                                                                           ===========        ===========       ===========

Earnings per common share:
  Basic .......................................................            $      1.78        $      1.97       $      2.02
                                                                           ===========        ===========       ===========
  Diluted .....................................................            $      1.67        $      1.83       $      1.88
                                                                           ===========        ===========       ===========
</TABLE>
ABRONS FAMILY PRACTICE & URGENT CARE, PA, et al. v. NC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, et al.

427A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 7, 2017

Camden R. Webb, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth Connolly Stone, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Abrons Family Practice And Urgent Care, PA, et al.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Assistant Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Charles F. Marshall, III, Attorney at Law, Bryan Starrett, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Bryant C. Boren, Jr., Attorney at Law, Ryan L. Bangert, Attorney at Law, for Computer Sciences Corporation.

Mark S. Thomas, Attorney at Law.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of April 2017 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of April 2017."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 26th day of May 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
ex10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 



AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE







UNI-PIXEL, INC. 2011 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN







The undersigned hereby certifies that (1) he is the duly elected, qualified and acting Secretary of Uni-Pixel, Inc. (the “Company”) and (2) effective February 13, 2013, in accordance with Section 13 of that certain Uni-Pixel, Inc. 2011 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Board of Directors of the Company, amended the Plan by deleting the first sentence of sub-section 3.01 of Section 3 which states:







3.01.           Fixed Share Limit.  Subject to the provisions of Section 10, below, the maximum aggregate number of Shares which may be issued pursuant to all Awards (including Incentive Stock Options) is One Million Three Hundred Thousand (1,300,000) Shares.







and by replacing it with the following:







3.01.           Fixed Share Limit.  Subject to the provisions of Section 10, below, the maximum aggregate number of Shares which may be issued pursuant to all Awards (including Incentive Stock Options) is Two Million One Hundred Thousand (2,100,000) Shares.







In all other respects, the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain the same.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed his name as of the date first above written.



	  
	 	/s/ Jeffrey W. Tomz	 
	  	Jeffrey W. Tomz, Secretary