alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11
                    THE LIBERTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   CONSOLIDATED EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Three Months Ended
                                                                           March 31,
                                                                   ------------------------  
                                                                          1997         1996
                                                                   ------------------------  
                                                                           (Unaudited)
<S>                                                                <C>          <C>    

PRIMARY SHARES
Common shares outstanding - end of period                           20,251,865   20,092,805

Weighted average common shares outstanding                          20,234,731   20,080,138

Weighted average common stock options outstanding                      207,968      160,246

Preferred stock considered a common stock equivalent                   599,985      599,985
                                                                    ----------   ----------

Total primary shares                                                21,042,684   20,840,369
                                                                    ==========   ==========

FULLY DILUTED SHARES

Weighted average common shares outstanding                          20,234,731   20,080,138

Weighted average common stock options outstanding                      221,065      160,290

Preferred stock considered a common stock equivalent                   599,985      599,985

Assumed conversion of redeemable preferred stock not considered
     a common stock equivalent                                       1,259,236    1,261,281
                                                                    ----------   ----------

Total fully diluted shares                                          22,315,017   22,101,694
                                                                    ==========   ==========


 NET INCOME                                                        $15,867,000  $14,055,000
                                                                    ==========   ==========

PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS ON REDEEMABLE PREFERRED STOCK

Dividends                                                          $   661,000  $   663,000
                                                                    ==========   ==========

Primary earnings per share (net income minus preferred dividends
     divided by total primary shares)                              $      0.72  $      0.64
                                                                    ==========   ==========
Fully diluted earnings per share (net income divided by total
     fully diluted shares)                                         $      0.71  $      0.64
                                                                    ==========   ==========

</TABLE>
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

South Carolina Public Intere st Foundation and Edward
D. Sloan, Jr., individually, a nd on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners,

v.

James Rozier, as Chairman of the Commission on the Department of Transportation, James H "Jay" Lucas, as Speaker of the S.C. House of Representatives, Henry D. McMaster, as President of the S.C. Senate, and The State of South Carolina, Respondents.

Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr., in hi s capacity as President Pro Tempore of the South Carolina Senate, Intervenor.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001443

IN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Memorandum Opinion No. 2016-MO-019 Heard March 22, 2016 – Filed May 18, 2016

RELIEF DENIED

James G. Carpenter, of Car penter Law Firm, PC, of Greenville, for Petitioners.Andrew F. Lindemann, of Davidson & Lindemann, PA of Columbia, for Respondent James Rozier; Michael J.
Anzelmo and Blake Teren ce Williams, both of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP; and Richard L. Pearce, Patrick G. Dennis a nd Charles Fennell Reid; all of Columbia, for Respondent James H. "Jay" Lucas, Jr.; Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Deputy
Solicitor General J. Emory Smith, Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondents State of South Carolina and Lieutenant Governor Henry D. McMaster.

Kenneth M. Moffitt and Edwa rd Houseal Bender, both of Columbia, for Intervenor Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr.

CHIEF JUSTICE PLEICONES: We agreed to hear th is constitutional challenge to 2007 Act No. 114, § 6, which provides th e authority to appoint the Secretary of Transportation devolves upon the Department of Transportation Commission
under certain circumstances. After careful consideration of the briefs, and after oral argument, we find no merit to petitione rs' challenge and therefore decline to issue the declaratory relief they seek.

RELIEF DENIED.

BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., co ncur. FEW, J., dissenting in a separate opinion.JUSTICE FEW: For the reasons explained in my dissenting opinion in S.C. Pub.
Interest Found. v. Lucas , Op. No. 27638 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed May 18, 2016) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 20 at 30), I would di smiss this petition as not of sufficient public interest to justify the Court hear ing it in our original jurisdiction. See Key v.
Currie , 305 S.C. 115, 116, 406 S.E.2d 356, 357 (1991) ("Only when there is an extraordinary reason such as a question of significant public interest or an emergency will this Court exercise its original jurisdiction.").
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00288-CR

JEFFREY BOYCE JONES APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Jeffrey Boyce Jones appeals his felony convictions for two 

counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a 

child by contact. Appellant pled guilty to all three counts pursuant to an open 

plea, and the trial judge assessed his punishment at thirty-five years’ 

confinement for each aggravated sexual assault count and twenty years’ 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

confinement for the indecency with a child count, all to run concurrently. We 

affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to 

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel 

avers that, in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief 

and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, by presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We gave appellant 

an opportunity to file a pro se brief, but he has not done so. Likewise, the State 

has not filed a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on 

the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we 

are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. 

See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. 

State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only 

then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with 

counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in 

the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 
3

684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

TERRIE LIVINGSTON

CHIEF JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED: September 19, 2013
#### SOUTHERN SPINDLE v. MILLIKEN & CO.

No. 85 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 785.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 12 January 1982.
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 1 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 2 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 3 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 4 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 5 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 6 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 7 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 8 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 9 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 10 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 11 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 12 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 13 of 14

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 22-20      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 14 of 14
# C_2011164EN.01001301.xml

| 2.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/13

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

2011/C 164/09

Aid No: SA.32979 (11/XA)

Member State: Germany

Region: Deutschland

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Förderung der integrierten ländlichen Entwicklung (Verfahrenskosten der Flurneuordnung)

Legal basis: Rahmenplan der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe zur Verbesserung der Agrarstruktur und des Küstenschutzes (GAK)

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company:

| | Overall amount of the ad hoc aid awarded to the undertaking: EUR 336 million |
| --- | --- |

Overall amount of the ad hoc aid awarded to the undertaking: EUR 336 million

| | Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme: EUR 112 million |
| --- | --- |

Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme: EUR 112 million

Maximum aid intensity: 90 %

Date of implementation: —

Duration of scheme or individual aid award: 27 May 2011-31 December 2013

Objective of aid: Land reparcelling (Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006)

Sector(s) concerned: Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Name and address of the granting authority: Landesministerien

Jeweilige Adresse der Landesministerien

Website: http://www.bmelv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Landwirtschaft/Foerderung/GAK-Foerdergrundsaetze/2011/IntegrierteLaendlicheEntwicklungTeilA.pdf?_blob=publicationFile

Other information: —

---
#### STATE v. CASS

No. 39P82.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 291.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 30 March 1982.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00432-CV

Martha Seward Oestreich, Appellant

v.

Ronald David Seward, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LLANO COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 12,048, HONORABLE V. MURRAY JORDAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Martha Seward Oestreich filed her notice of appeal on July 31, 2001, and the 

record was filed by January 23, 2002. Appellant=s brief was originally due to be filed by February 22, 

2002. We extended the deadline for filing appellant=s brief to April 25, 2002. To date, appellant has not 

filed her brief. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: August 8, 2002
Do Not Publish
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 LaBarge, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Craig E. LaBarge, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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.





|                          |                     |                                                       
|------------------------- | ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|                          |                     |                                                       
|Dated:   November 9, 2005 | /S/CRAIG E. LABARGE
|                          |                     | Craig E. LaBarge
Chief Executive Officer and President
Case 1:07-cv-03430-BSJ-AJP Document 12 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03430-BSJ-AJP Document 12 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03430-BSJ-AJP Document 12 Filed 08/24/2007 Page 3 of 3
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 024

- 0728 LT Case No. 2008

- CF

- 016758

- B

_____________________________ G EORGE P UGH , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

3.800 A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark J. Borello , Judge

. George Pugh, East Palatka, pro se

. No Appearance for Appellee.

August 29, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L AMBERT , J AY , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

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

.

_____________________________
#### Rowland & Tobiason, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Matthew Daily, defendant in error.

(By two judges.) — 1. Under the Act of 1865 and 1866 (R. Code, sec. 3917), a lost note may be established before the Superior Court. (R.)

2. The Act of 1865 and 1866, providing for the summary establishment of promissory notes, requires the party seeking to establish the same, to swear that he is the owner, or the agent or the representative of the owner of the same, and if the affidavit is defective in this respect the proceeding is null. 12th March, 1872.

Lost note. Before Judge Cole. Bibb Superior Court. November Term, 1871.

Said firm sued Daily upon a lost promissory note. Their counsel tendered in evidence a copy. To it was appended an affidavit before a Commissioner of Georgia, in New York, by Rowland, that said copy “ is a copy, in substance, of a certain promissory note given by Matthew Daily to said firm of Rowland *&*Tobiason, which said note is wholly due and unpaid. Deponent has not said note in his possession, but verily believes that the same was lost, whilst the property of said Rowland & Tobiason.” There was also a notice therein to Daily, that on a day named they would move the Superior Court to establish said lost paper, which notice had been duly served. It also appeared that Daily filed no objection to the proceeding, and that the said Court ordered said copy estab*130lished in lieu of the lost original. These papers tendered together were objected to upon the ground that the affidavit did not conform to the statute and were ruled out. This is assigned as error.

Poe & Hall, for plaintiffs in error.

The establishment of the copy concluded defendant: 16 Ga. R., 487; 20th, 90; 22d, 60. The Superior Court had jurisdiction: Pr. Dig., 420; 36 Ga. R., 212, 219. The affidavit complied with the statute: R. Code, sec. 3917.

Lanier & Anderson, for defendant.

McCay, Judge.

1. The Act of 1865 and 1866, providing for the summary establishment of promissory notes is very badly drawn; indeed, it is difficult to understand some of its language at all. We see no good reason, however, to confine the persons, before whom the plaintiff may go, to Justices of the Peace. The Superior Court is surely a proper tribunal before which to take the proceedings required.

2. But the Act is positive that the party must make oath that he is the owner, or the agent of the owner of the paper. This the affidavit, in the present case, fails to do. The proceeding is a -summary and rather an extraordinary one, and we think it ought to be fully complied with. The ownership of the paper is an important fact in such a proceeding, and the maker has a right to know that the person who is endeavoring to establish the paper, is the proper person to do it.

For this reason we affirm the judgment. The affidavit is defective.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I,
William Pulver, President and Chief Executive Officer of NetRatings, Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|                      |  |                                                                      
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2003 |  | /s/WILLIAM PULVERWilliam Pulver
President and Chief Executive Officer

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NetRatings and will be retained by NetRatings and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-4050

___________________________

Jose Barron

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: August 28, 2013

Filed: September 3, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Jose Barron petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an immigration judge’s decision denying

him asylum and withholding of removal. After careful review, we find no basis for

granting the petition, as the BIA’s denial of relief was supported by substantial

evidence on the record as a whole. See Cubillos v. Holder, 565 F.3d 1054, 1056-58
(8th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard for asylum claim; denial of asylum

dictates same outcome on withholding-of-removal claim based on same underlying

factual allegations). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

______________________________

-2-
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RICHARD MICHAEL FERRARI,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv34/MCR/MD

OKALOOSA COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant.

 /

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge filed on May 24, 2010, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and after reviewing

objections to the Recommendation, if any, the Recommendation is adopted as the

opinion of the Court.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s failure to

keep the court informed of his current address, and the clerk is directed to close the

file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of June, 2010.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
USLX: SDhT 

I 1 DOClJMl73T 

LWI'l'E1) STATES DISTRIC 1- COIIRI' I BLECTgG:;iC?,I,Z 

; E i I 

SOUTlIERN D1STRIC"I' i)F KEW YORK +-* 

iL$: ;-J: <? -f y- cJ, 

/ 1 ._ .......................................................................... ---- .,~y-._ ~i i -* 

IN KII: 

j LIXS'I'EK FILE 

FOSAMAX PKODUCTS LIABl [.IT Y L1'I~lGA'I''IC)N 

: 1 :06-M1)- 1789 (JFK) 

This Dorumeni Rel~ii~>s 7 '0 '11 I1 Act ions 

............................... ............_ I 

ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO H.4C VICE 

C'onsidering the C'crtificate of Good Standing and all other documenls required by Casc 

Management Order No. 5 submitted b>- counsel. IT IS 1 1EKt:HY OKDERED that: 

Firn~ Name: Butler, Snow1 O'Mara, SIC\-C~S & Cannada. PLLC 

Address: AmSouth Pla7a. 2 10 Easl Capitol Strcet, Suite 1700 

Email Address: Christy.Jones~~bi~tlersuow.com 

is ddmittcd to practice pro hac vice as counsel li)r Merck & Co., Inc. in the above captioned case 

in the United States District Court for thc Southern District ofNc~\- l'c3rk. 

lie~v York, N~M J'ork 

Ad V -. -- 

~niicd ~[kc~ District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 24 Filed 03/14/2008 Page 1 of 3
cer-tfy that . - 

MISSISSIPPI 

Christy D. Jones 

CERTIFTCATE OF 

GO00 STANDlNCI 

, Bar # 

, Clerk qf this Court, 

~~as duly udmitted to practice h illis Court OH 

September 30, 1977 , nild is ill good standing 

as o nzemher ofthe Bar oj'this Court. 

Jackson. -- .- - Mississippi . . - - . -- - . - - . 011 March 4, 2008 . . - - -. - -. . -- -- 

/ (JC 11 770 1 1 I., 1 r.r ~ 

Dated (7t 

1. T. NOBLIN 

C'L ERK 

Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 24 Filed 03/14/2008 Page 2 of 3
1. David C:reivs, Clerk ul'tllc United Sratcs District CIourl lbr the Knrthern District of 

Mississippi, cei-ljfj the nttorncy idcrltilied below WJS ciuil aiiillitted tcj pwc~iz;: b~fbi~~ this 

Court vn the date s~atcd and is. 3s of the dart ul this certiti~atc, in good standing as a mcnlber of 

the Bar oi-lhc IJnitcd States Tlislrict Cou~l fur tllc Nort11~1-17 Ilistrict of' hlissis~ippi. 

~).\TL .A D.11 ITTE 11: OC-~ODLR 10,1978 

C;i~:en undcr m>- 11iind and Scal of this I'ourt. 

Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 24 Filed 03/14/2008 Page 3 of 3