alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
Centrum Industries, Inc.                                   Exhibit - 11
Computation of Earnings per Share 
March 31, 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Net
                            Average            Outstanding
         Exercise           Market     Net        Share        Days     Weighted    
 Number    Price  Proceeds   Price  Repurchase   Increase   Outstanding  Average    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------    
 <S>         <C>   <C>         <C>     <C>         <C>              <C>  <C>        
  49,600     1.00   49,600     1.96     25,326      24,274          365   24,274    
 440,000     1.00  440,000     1.96    224,662     215,338          365  215,338    
                                                                         -------           
                                                                         239,613    
</TABLE>                                                                 =======





<TABLE>
                                    <S>                           <C>        
                                    Net Income after Tax          $1,305,318 
                                                                  ---------- 
                                    Wtd Avg Shares O/S             8,412,642 
                                                                             
                                    BASIC EPS                          $0.16 
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                    Adj Net Income after Tax      $1,305,318 
                                                                  ---------- 
                                    Wtd Avg Shares O/S w/dilution  8,652,255 
                                                                             
                                    DILUTED EPS                        $0.15 
</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03322-LBS Document 3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03322-LBS Document 3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### McKinney v. MORROW

No. 109 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 282.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 12 July 1973.
Case 1:07-cv-03231-RJS-FM Document 64 Filed 02/13/09 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-03231-RJS-FM Document 64 Filed 02/13/09 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-03231-RJS-FM Document 64 Filed 02/13/09 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-03231-RJS-FM Document 64 Filed 02/13/09 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-03231-RJS-FM Document 64 Filed 02/13/09 Page 5 of 5
U.S. Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration 

 Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

 Division of Longshore and 

 Harbor Workers’ Compensation 

 Washington, D.C. 20210

 

Working for America’s Workforce 

September 16, 1994

Notice No. 76

NOTICE TO INSURANCE CARRIERS, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYERS UNDER THE 

LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, AND OTHER INTERESTED 

PERSONS

SUBJECT: Customer Satisfaction Survey Results

This Office recently conducted a customer satisfaction survey 

directed to claimants whose cases under the Longshore and Harbor 

Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) were created during fiscal year 

1993. While the responses to the survey were quite favorable 

overall, they did show some areas for improvement in the service 

provided by employers and insurance carriers. The two most 

frequently received comments from claimants were that they did not 

receive prompt initial payment of compensation from the employer or 

insurance carrier, and that they were not advised at the time of the 

injury that they had the right to receive medical treatment from the 

physician of their injury from the physician of their choice. As a 

result, employers and insurance carriers are reminded of their 

responsibilities in the following areas: 

Prompt Payment of Compensation

Section 14 of the LHWCA provides that, unless the employer 

controverts its liability under the Act, the employer or insurance 

carrier shall promptly pay compensation to the claimant. "Promptly" 

means that the first installment of compensation is due by the 

fourteenth day after the employer has been notified or has actual 

knowledge of the injury or death. (Also see Title 20, Sections 

702.231 - 702.233 of the Code of Federal Regulations.) 

Employee's Right to Choose Attending Physician

Section 7 of the LHWCA provides that the claimant has the right to 

choose his or her attending physician to provide medical care under 

the LHWCA. It is the responsibility of the employer to advise the 

injured employee of this right at the time of injury. (Also see 

Title 20, Sections 702.401 - 702.406 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations.)

In order to help employers meet these responsibilities as well as 

comply with the requirements of Section 34 of the LHWCA, employers 

should obtain Form LS-241 (for employers who obtain insurance 
U.S. Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration 

 Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

 Division of Longshore and 

 Harbor Workers’ Compensation 

 Washington, D.C. 20210

 

Working for America’s Workforce 

through a carrier) or LS-242 (for self-insured employers) and post 

them in conspicuous locations around there place(s) of business. 

These forms provide employees with information concerning choice of 

physician and prompt payment of compensation and also advise them of 

their responsibilities when injured at work. Copies of the 

appropriate form(s) may be obtained by contacting the nearest 

Longshore district office or by contacting this office at (202) 693-

0038. 

Joseph F. Olimpio 

Director, Division of 

Longshore and Harbor 

Workers' Compensation
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                             392
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   392
<PP&E>                             1,455,377
<DEPRECIATION>                     962,811
[OTHER]                            94,577
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     587,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              86,332
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                           47,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                         453,503
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       587,535
<SALES>                            56,422
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   56,422
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   40,932
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 1,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    13,992
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                13,992
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       13,992
<EPS-BASIC>                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>
#### THE STATE, EX REL. MICHAEL A. SAGARESE, RELATOR, v. ALBERT H. HOLLAND, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND E. BERTRAM MOTT, CLERK OF THE COUNTY OF MORRIS, RESPONDENTS.

Submitted October 19, 1931

Decided February 8, 1932.

Before Justices Trenchard, Daly and Donges.

Dor the relator, *Minium •& Weinberger.*

Dor the respondents, *Orville V. Meslar (Elmer*King, of counsel).

Per Curiam.

On affidavit filed in the above stated cause it was ordered that Albert H. Holland, judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Morris, and E. Bertram Mott, clerk of the county of Morris, respondents, show cause why a peremptory or alternative writ of *mandamus*shall not issue commanding them and enjoining him, Albert H. Holland, judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Morris, “to approve *one of the bonds”*which relator, Michael A. Sagarese, filed with him for approval, and to permit the said relator to qualify as justice of the peace, as of May 1st, 1931.

Our examination of the depositions results in the conclusion that sufficient appears to justify the award of an alternative writ, but not a peremptory writ. The legal right is not clear, and the facts which may well be pertinent are not definitely settled. In such case the court will ordinarily *231award an alternative writ to the end that an issue may be made, and the facts definitely ascertained, and thereby an opportunity given for review in error. *Hugg*v. *Camden,*39 *N. J. L.*620; *Schnitzler*v. *New York Transportation Co.,*76 *Id.*171.

Accordingly an alternative writ will be awarded.
Case 1:07-cv-03320-SHS Document 11-4 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03320-SHS Document 11-4 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### IN RE LAWS

No. 117 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 554.

Petition by Employment Security Comm, for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 June 1980.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 70023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22870]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as Amended by Pub. L. 104-13; 
Proposed Collection, Comment Request

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority.

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed information collection described below will be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 
as amended). The Tennessee Valley Authority is soliciting public 
comments on this proposed collection as provided by 5 CFR Section 
1320.8(d)(1). Requests for information, including copies of the 
information collection proposed and supporting documentation, should be 
directed to the Agency Clearance Officer: Alice D. Witt, Tennessee 
Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street (EB 5B), Chattanooga, Tennessee 
37402-2801; (423) 751-6832.
    Comments should be sent to the Agency Clearance Officer no later 
than January 17, 2006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Title of Information Collection: Economic Assessment of Waterway 
Docks and Terminals in the Tennessee Valley and Parts of the 
Surrounding National Inland Waterway Network.
    Frequency of Use: Occasional.
    Type of Affected Public: Federal, State and local governments, and 
private industry.
    Small Businesses or Organizations Affected: Yes.
    Federal Budget Functional Category Code: 450.
    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1700.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3400 hours.
    Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Response: 2 hours.
    Need For and Use of Information: The information collection is 
necessary to assess the service capability of waterway docks and 
terminals located in the Tennessee Valley and surrounding States. The 
data will be used to help potential industrial clients with decisions 
regarding transportation information and the handling capabilities of 
waterway facilities located on various river segments. This is vital 
information for industry when deciding where the most economical 
location is for a new plant site or project. In addition the data 
collection surrounding the waterway terminals located on the Tennessee 
River is necessary for use in updating TVA's river performance 
indicator.

Jacklyn J. Stephenson,
Senior Manager, Enterprise Operations Information Services.
[FR Doc. 05-22870 Filed 11-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED DONALD A. WILLIAMS O/B/O CEDRIC WARREN , Petitioner ,
v. Case No. 5D 23

- 1172 LT Case No. 2001

- 34902

- CF AES CORRECTED STATE OF FLORIDA , Respondent

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed May 19, 2023 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, A Case of Original Jurisdiction.
Donald A. Williams , Lake City, pro se. Cedric Warren, Lake City, pro se. No Appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM. The petition is dismissed with prejudice. See Durocher v. Singletary , 623 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1993); Pancoast v. Crews , 128 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).2 In accordance with State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla.1999) , Cedric
Warren is hereby barred from filing any pleading or permitting anybody to file any pleading on his behalf in this Court in any action, case, or matter, unless signed by a member of the Florida Bar. Mr. Warren has repeatedly filed frivolous pleadings and has bee n Spencer banned previously in the underlying Volusia County Circuit Court C ase No. 2001

- 34902

- CFAES . By permitting Donald A. Williams , who is not a member of the Florida Bar, to file on his behalf, Mr

. Warren has violated this Court’s previous Spencer ban order. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any fil ings from or on behalf of Cedric Warren except those signed and filed by a member of the
Florida Bar

. The Clerk will summarily reject any future filings regarding the referenced case unless filed by a member in good standing of t he Florida Bar. See Isley v. State , 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough.”). It is further ordered that t he Clerk of our Court forward a copy of this opinion to the Department of Corrections for appropriate action. PETITION DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; PETITIONER SANCTIONED.
EDWARDS, HARRIS and SOUD , JJ., concur.
Document

                                                                                                         10.5


Amendment to The Joint Corp. Amended and Restated 2014 Incentive Stock Plan
(effective with respect to Awards issued on or after November 2, 2021)


1.The following shall be added to Article 2 of the Amended and Restated 2014 Incentive Stock Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), immediately following the definition of “SAR Award”:


Section 16 Officer means an “officer” as defined by Rule 16a-1 promulgated under the Exchange Act.


2.The first paragraph of Section 3.2 of the Plan, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following, effective for Awards issued on or after November 2, 2021:


Subject to the terms of the Plan, the Committee shall have the authority to select the Eligible Persons to whom Awards are to be granted and to determine the time, type, number of shares, vesting, restrictions, limitations and other terms and conditions of each Award. The Committee may, in a limited manner and from time to time, delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer or to the Chair of the Committee to grant Awards to employees, including officers who are not deemed Section 16 Officers (defined below), of The Joint that are newly hired employees, newly promoted individuals and recipients of recognition equity awards other than awards granted in connection with annual incentive programs. Any such delegation must be made within the guidelines established by the Committee and may be subject to review by the Committee (or the Board of Directors), at the discretion of the Committee (or the Board of Directors).


Approved by the Board of Directors of The Joint Corp. on November 2, 2021.
Douglas 

J. 

Relying in part on Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 132 S. Ct. 

1309 (2012), appellant argued that he had good cause because he was not 

appointed counsel in the first post-conviction proceedings. We conclude 

that this argument lacked merit. The appointment of counsel was 

discretionary in the first post-conviction proceedings, see NRS 34.750(1), 

and appellant failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or provide an 

explanation for why he could not raise this claim earlier. Further, this 

court has recently held that Martinez does not apply to Nevada's statutory 

post-conviction procedures. See Brown v. McDaniel, Nev. , P.3d 

(Adv. Op. No. 60, August 7, 2014). Thus, the failure to appoint postconviction counsel and the decision in Martinez would not provide good 

cause for this late and successive petition. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

cc: Holt Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge 

Roy H Philson 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A citeP
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2010 

0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

140813 

PATRICK J. DEVLIN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v SC: 140813 

 COA: 294131 

Ingham CC: 08-000918-AA 

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 10, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 23 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03340-RJH Document 23 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 2 of 2
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Past Conflicts             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns             
  -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Livestreams             
  -  Year In Review             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  Volunteer		 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Clear Search1 result found.
CLARK, ATCHESON & REISERT 

Richard J. Reisert (RR-7118) 

Attorneys for Garnishee 

Société Générale New York Branch 

7800 River Road 

North Bergen, NJ 07047 

Tel: (201) 537-1200 

Fax: (201) 537-1201 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

---------------------------------------------------------------x 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 07-CV-3353 (JSR)

 : 

 v. :

 : NOTICE OF 

NATIONAL BIOFUELS, L.P. and : APPEARANCE

ENAGRA INC. : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

---------------------------------------------------------------x 

TO THE CLERK OF THIS COURT AND ALL PARTIES OF RECORD: 

 Please enter my appearance as counsel for Garnishee, Société Générale New York 

Branch. I certify that I am admitted to practice before this Honorable Court. 

Dated: North Bergen, New Jersey 

 May 21, 2007 

 CLARK, ATCHESON & REISERT 

 Attorneys for Garnishee 

 Société Générale New York Branch 

 

 By: 

 Richard J. Reisert (RR-7118) 

 7800 River Road 

 North Bergen, NJ 07047 

 Tel: (201) 537-1200 

 Fax: (201) 537-1201 

 Email: reisert@navlaw.com

Case 1:07-cv-03353-JSR Document 12 Filed 05/21/2007 Page 1 of 1