alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11  
  
        INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES  
  
            Computation of Earnings (loss) per Common Share  
                               (unaudited)  
                 (in thousands, except per share amounts)  
  
  
  
  
                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED  
                                                  May 31,    May 31,  
                                                    1997       1996  
--------------------------------------------------------------------  
Average shares of common stock outstanding        18,016     17,969  
Common stock equivalents                             289         33  
------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Total common stock and equivalents  
 assuming full dilution                           18,305     18,002  
===================================================================  
Net earnings (loss) applicable to common stock    $2,000     $ (433)  
===================================================================  
Earnings (loss) per   
  share of common stock:  
    Primary                                       $  .11     $ (.02)  
    Fully diluted                                 $  .11     $ (.02)  
===================================================================  
Primary earnings (loss) per share has been computed by dividing net   
earnings (loss) by the weighted average number of shares of common stock   
outstanding during the period.  Common stock options and other common   
stock equivalents have not entered into the primary earnings per share   
computations since their effect is not significant.  
  
Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share has been computed assuming   
issuance of all shares for stock options deemed to be common stock   
equivalents, using the treasury stock method.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of River Rock EntertainmentAuthority (the “Authority”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers does hereby certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to such officers knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theAuthority.

 
| By:                     | /s/ SHAWN S. SMYTH     |   |
|-------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| Shawn S. Smyth          |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| November 14, 2007       |
|                    |
| By:                     | /s/ JOSEPH R. CALLAHAN |   |
| Joseph R. Callahan      |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| November 14, 2007       |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the River Rock Entertainment Authority and will be retained bythe River Rock Entertainment Authority and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5395 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 151 North Maitland Avenue in Maitland, Florida, as the ‘‘Paula Hawkins Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5395 EH

1 SECTION 1. PAULA HAWKINS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 151 North Maitland Avenue in 

4 Maitland, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Paula Hawkins Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Paula Hawkins Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 30, 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5395 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office Building’’. in Maitland, Florida, as the ‘‘Paula Hawkins al Service located at 151 North Maitland Avenue
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2 0 2 2

- 3 939

_____________________________
L ARRY M IGUEL B ENBOE , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. John Simon Jr. , Judge

. March 26, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
O STERHAUS , C.J., and L EWIS and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary
, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody
, Attorney General
, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### John Doe on the demise of Elias Anderson and John Anderson, et al., *vs.*Richard Roe, casual ejector, and James Wright, et al., tenants in possession.

*Ejectment—Pleading and Practice.*

1. J udgment will not be allowed in an ej ectment case where the counsel for defendants has entered his name on the appearance docket opposite the parties and has failed to enter into the consent rule and to lay pretentions, but the court will, in such case, order the defendant to enter into the consent rule at once and to lay his pretentions by the first rule day in vacation.

2. The correct practice stated.

*(October*2, 1897.)

Dorp, C. J., and Grubb and Ppnnpwipp, J. J., sitting.

*Philip Q. Churchman*for plaintiffs.

*J. Frank Biggs*for defendants.

Superior Court, New Castle County,

September Term, 1897.

Action of pjpctmpnt. See facts in opinion of court.

Dorp, C. J:—

In this case, Mr. Biggs, attorney for defendants, has entered his name on the appearance docket as attorney —opposite the names of defendants—but has not entered into the consent rule, laid any pretentions or taken any defence as to any particular property.

Mr. Churchman, attorney for plaintiff, moves for judgment because of such failure on the part of defendant to enter into the consent rule and lay pretentions.

*15We do not think judgment should be rendered, but order the defendant to enter into the consent rule at once, and to lay his pretentions by the first rule day in vacation.

The correct procedure is, for the attorney for the defendant to appear, upon filing with the Prothonotary a written paper entering into the consent rule, specifying therein, by general description, for what premises he intends to defend; and shall consent in such rule to confess upon the trial, as well as lease, entry and ouster, that the defendant (if he defends as tenant, or in case he defends as landlord then his tenant), was at the time of the service of the declaration, in possession of such premises in pursuance of *Par. 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          15,511
<SECURITIES>                                    53,412
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,645
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                     34,469
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,303
<PP&E>                                         379,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                 131,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 401,066
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,736
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       161,800
<OTHER-SE>                                     163,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   401,066
<SALES>                                        298,425
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               298,425
<CGS>                                          175,319
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  175,319
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,548
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   107
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,156
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,155
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,001
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,001
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46


</TABLE>
<Page>

                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our reports
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
Registration Statement File No. 333-95781 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account One on Form N-4.


                                                        /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
April 8, 2002
Order entered June 3, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-01088-CR

THONG QUOC PHAM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-82314-2021

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s June 2, 2022 second motion for an extension 

of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief due 

by July 5, 2022.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### ROY BRAXTON JAMES v. GREENWAY, INC.

No. 725SC726

(Filed 20 December 1972)

Appeal and Error § 39 — failure to file record on appeal in apt time

Appeal is dismissed for failure to file the record on appeal within ninety days after the date of the order appealed from. Court of Appeals Rule 5.

Appeal by plaintiff from an Order of *Wells, Judge,*8 May 1972 Session of New Hanover Superior Court.

In this action plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $6,000.00, plus interest, on a promissory note. Defendant answered and in the answer set up a counterclaim.

Plaintiff moved to quash the pleadings of the defendant and for the relief requested in the complaint for that the pleadings of defendant were not timely filed and served.

By order dated and filed 17 May 1972 Judge Wells denied the relief sought by plaintiff, and plaintiff appealed.

*Poisson, Barnhill & Butler by Algernon L. Butler, Jr. for plaintiff appellant.*

*White, Allen, Hooten & Hines by John R. Hooten for defendant appellee.*

*157CAMPBELL, Judge.

The order appealed from was dated and filed 17 May 1972. The Rules of Practice in this Court require the record on appeal to be docketed within ninety (90) days after the date of the judgment, order, decree or determination appealed from unless the trial tribunal, for good cause, extends the time not exceeding sixty (60) days. Rule 5. In the instant case no extension of time was procured from the trial tribunal, and the ninety (90) days expired 15 August 1972. The record on appeal was not filed in this Court until 21 August 1972 and was therefore not timely filed. *Dixon v. Dixon,*6 N.C. App. 623, 170 S.E. 2d 561 (1969); *Kurtz v. Insurance Co.,*6 N.C. App. 625, 170 S.E. 2d 496 (1969).

For failure to comply with the rules of this Court

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Morris and Parker concur.
# L_2007046EN.01002601.xml

| 16.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 46/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 46/26

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 152/2007

of 15 February 2007

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 9 to 15 February 2007 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 February 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 15 February 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
Exhibit 32





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 on Form 10-Q of Ameriprise Certificate Company (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Abu M. Arif, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James R. Hill, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each 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 operations of the Company.











Date:November 2, 2023By:/s/ Abu M. ArifAbu M. ArifChief Executive Officer


Date:November 2, 2023By:/s/ James R. HillJames R. HillChief Financial Officer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**831 KA 13-01178** 
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT D. SCOTT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ALAN WILLIAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), dated May 28, 2013. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq .). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court properly agreed with the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders that an upward departure from the presumptive risk level was warranted based upon aggravating factors not taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines, i.e., those relating to his risk of re-offense. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly concluded that the guidelines did not adequately take into account his lack of insight into the inappropriateness of his conduct ( see People v Cruz , 111 AD3d 685, 685-686, lv denied 22 NY3d 860), and that defendant’s California felony conviction, while not a “sex offense” under SORA ( see § 168-a [2] [d] [i], [ii]), nevertheless had a sexual component ( see People v
Faver , 113 AD3d 662, 663, lv denied 22 NY3d 865; People v Galindo , 107 AD3d 603, 604). In addition, the evidence supports the court’s conclusion that those factors are causally related to defendant’s risk of re-offense ( see People v Abraham , 39 AD3d 1208, 1209). Finally, we conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing ( see People v Russell , 115 AD3d 1236, 1236).

Entered: July 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 31995R2638

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2638/95 of 13 November 1995 derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 3389/73 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of tobacco held by intervention agencies***Official Journal L 271 , 14/11/1995 P. 0011 - 0011*

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2638/95 of 13 November 1995 derogating from  Regulation (EEC) No 3389/73 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of tobacco held  by intervention agencies

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

 Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

 Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on the common organization of  the market in raw tobacco  (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 860/92  (2), and in  particular Articles 7 (4) and 15 thereof,

 Whereas, for administrative reasons, the time limit laid down in Article 6 (1) of Commission  Regulation (EEC) No 3389/73  (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3477/93  (4), for fixing  the minimum price for each lot or for deciding not to make an award after submission of tenders  under the invitation to tender opened by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1618/95  (5) should be  extended; whereas tenderers should be permitted to withdraw their tenders;

 Whereas, in view of its objective, the provisions of this Regulation should enter into force  immediately; whereas they should apply from the end of the period provided for in Article 6 (1) of  Regulation (EEC) No 3389/73;

 Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the  Management Committee for Raw Tobacco,

 HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1 

Notwithstanding Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3389/73, the  time allowed for fixing a minimum price for each lot or for deciding not to make an award under the  invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 1618/95 shall be 60 days.

Article 2 

Notwithstanding Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 3389/73, tenderers may withdraw  their offers within five working days of publication of this Regulation.

Article 3 

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

 It shall apply from 24 October 1995.

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

 Done at Brussels, 13 November 1995.

 For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission
<PAGE>




                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
   (Form S-8 No.33-91296, Form S-8 No. 333-56125 and Form S-8 No. 333-39700)
   pertaining to the Bull Run Corporation 1994 Long Term Incentive Plan, the
   Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-91298) pertaining to the Bull Run
   Corporation Non-Employee Directors' 1994 Stock Option Plan, and the
   Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-84833) pertaining to the issuance of
   shares of BR Holding, Inc. of our report dated September 12, 2002, except as
   to Note 9, for which the date is October 11, 2002, with respect to the
   consolidated financial statements and schedule of Bull Run Corporation
   included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Bull Run Corporation for the
   year ended June 30, 2002, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



   PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

   Atlanta, Georgia
   October 11, 2002