alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   LCS INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE AND
                                          COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                                For the Three and Six Months Ended March 31,
                                                (Unaudited)


                                                        Three Months                    Six Months
                                                   -------------------------     ------------------------- 
                                                      1998           1997            1998          1997
                                                   ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
<S>                                                <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Basic earnings per share:

Weighted average shares outstanding ..........      4,801,861      4,649,076      4,774,356      4,591,288

Net income....................................      2,195,324    $ 2,112,729    $ 4,783,101    $ 4,298,304

Basic earnings per share......................     $      .46    $       .45    $      1.00    $       .94

Diluted earnings per share     

Weighted average shares outstanding...........      4,801,861      4,649,076      4,774,356      4,591,288

Weighted average - dilutive stock options ....        253,011        356,906        314,921        378,089

Shares issuable in connection with the
   acquisition of Catalog Resources, Inc. ....         89,733        121,713         89,733        121,713
                                                   ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
                                                    5,144,605      5,127,695      5,179,010      5,091,090
                                                   ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

Net income ...................................     $2,195,324     $2,112,729     $4,783,101     $4,298,304

Diluted earnings per share and common 
equivalent share..............................     $      .43     $      .41     $      .92     $      .84
                                                   ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

 
</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2 (PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS LOGO) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Southwark Towers 32 London Bridge Street London SE1 9SY Telephone +44 (0) 20 7583 5000 Facsimile +44 (0) 20 7833 4652 The Directors
Barclays Bank PLC
1234 Pavilion Drive
Northampton
NN4 7SG The Directors
Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 6) PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Barclaycard Funding PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited
26 New Street
St. Helier
Jersey
JE2 3RA February 28, 2005 Dear Sirs Report of Independent Accountants We have examined managements assertions that Barclays Bank PLC (the Servicer), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Barclays PLC, has complied with its obligations, in its capacity as Servicer, in
respect of the minimum servicing requirements for the credit card receivables
arising on designated accounts as set forth in the clauses 2.1.d, 2.1.e, 2.1.f, 2.1.j, 2.2.a, 2.5.a
and 2.5.b, using definitions set forth in the Master Definitions schedule between Gracechurch
Receivables Trustee Limited, Barclays Bank PLC and Barclaycard Funding PLC dated 24 October 2002 of
the Beneficiaries Servicing Agreement between Barclaycard Funding PLC and Barclays Bank PLC dated
23 November 1999 (BSA) during the year ended 31 December 2004 . Management is responsible for
the assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our
examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting managements assertion about the Servicers compliance with those requirements
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on the Servicers compliance with specified servicing requirements. In our opinion,managements assertion that the Servicer complied with the aforementioned
requirements during the year ended 31 December 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 28 February 2005 Yours faithfully, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP End of Filing
#### INVESTMENTS v. HOUSING, INC.

No. 70 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 385.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 April 1976.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

HELEN MARISA ANN DYKES , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1316

[ January 26, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County ; Michael McNicholas , Judge; L.T. Case No. 472019CF000648A

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Elijah Giuliano, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and MaryEllen M.
F arrell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed. See Brown v. State

, 4D20

- 1426

, 2022 WL 107974 (Fla. 4th DCA J an

. 12, 2022 ).

M AY , G ERBER and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

To NutriSystem, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-117781 and 333-110772) on Form S-3 and registration statements (Nos. 333-44908,333-134215 and 333-119009) on Form S-8 of NutriSystem, Inc. of our reports dated February 29, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of NutriSystem, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of NutriSystem, Inc. 

Our report dated February 29, 2008 withrespect to the consolidated balance sheets of NutriSystem, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2007, refers to NutriSystem, Inc.’s adoption of the fair value method of accounting for stock-based compensation as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), Share-BasedPayment. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

February 29, 2008
# CE2013168EN.01014501.xml

| 14.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 168/145 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 168/145

---

Tuesday 13 December 2011Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors (Mr V. Caldeira - PT)

P7_TA(2011)0558

European Parliament decision of 13 December 2011 on the nomination of Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0344/2011 – 2011/0809(NLE))

2013/C 168 E/32

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0344/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0344/2011),

| — | having regard to the fact that at its meeting of 23 November 2011 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the fact that at its meeting of 23 November 2011 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

| — | having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0423/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0423/2011),

| A. | whereas Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU;

| 1. | Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council's nomination of Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira as a Member of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council's nomination of Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

---
EXHIBIT 99.2
                            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 Annual Report of Lescarden Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 29,2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William E. Luther, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:

   (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 result of
        operations of the Company.


                         /s/ William E. Luther
                             William E. Luther
                     President and Chief Executive Officer
                             March 30, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Walters, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(a)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(b)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



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



Date: May 14, 2004





Date: May 14, 2004



By   /s/ Richard R. Walters



Richard R. Walters

President and  Chief Executive Officer





































15
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CRAIG K. STATEN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv108/WS/EMT

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This civil rights action is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff filed

numerous motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 2, 7, 9, and 14), all of which the court denied

(Docs. 5, 8, 10, and 16). Plaintiff failed to respond to the court’s September 30, 2010, order denying

his most recently-filed motion to proceed in forma pauperis and directing him to pay the filing fee

within thirty (30) days (Doc. 16). Therefore, on November 3, 2010, the court issued an order

requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days, why this action should not be

dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court (Doc. 17). This date was later extended

to December 28, 2010 (Doc. 19). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now

elapsed, and Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 4th day of January 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:10cv108/WS/EMT
# C_2012068EN.01007401.xml

| 6.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/74

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a multiannual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock’

COM(2011) 760 final — 2011/0345 COD

2012/C 68/14

On 30 November 2011 the European Parliament and on 13 December 2011 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43, paragraph 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Regulation Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a multi-annual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock

Proposal for a Regulation Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a multi-annual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock

COM(2011) 760 final — 2011/0343 COD.

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal, it decided, at its 477th plenary session of 18 and 19 January 2012 (meeting of 18 January 2012), by 171 votes with 14 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 18 January 2012.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON

---
#### ADVERTISING, INC. v. PEACE

No. 186 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 534.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 February 1980.
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 0

### CFR Correction

In Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 0 to 19, revised as of October 1, 2006, on page 45, in § 0.406, in paragraph (b)(2), the eighth sentence, beginning with “Additional procedures applicable . . .”, is removed and a sentence is added following the sixth sentence to read as follows:

§ 0.406

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) * * * Part 1, subpart E, of this chapter contains general rules and procedures applicable to common carriers. * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 07-55514 Filed 9-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

OF MARYLAND Petitioner, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Misc. Docket AG No. 8 9 V. RICHARD J. KWASNY Respondent. September Term, 2015

ORDER Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent filed herein pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-772, it is this 25 thday of April , 2016, ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Respondent, Richard J. Kwasny, be and he is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Maryland for violating Rules 1.15 and 8.4(c) of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Richard J. Kwasny from the register of attorneys in the Court and certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-772(d).

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr. Senior Judge
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-24-00422-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

324th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 324-656801-19

Before Bassel, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE S.N., Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: September 24, 2024
#### HUGH PRATHER, Trading as HUGH PRATHER COMPANY v. SHAW PAINT AND WALLPAPER COMPANY.

(Filed 9 October 1963.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Froneberger, J.,*March 25, 1963 Regular “B” Civil Term, MecicleNbueg Superior Court.

The plaintiff instituted this civil action to recover from the defendant $8,049.90 alleged to be due for certain work done and materials furnished over and above those provided for and specified in a certain written contract dated April 14, 1958. The plaintiff alleged that additional work was dome and additional materials were furnished under a subsequent parol contract between the parties. After a lengthy hearing the jury found the parties did not enter' into a supplemental contract as .alleged by the plaintiff. From judgment *314that the plaintiff recover 'nothing and pay the costs, he excepted and appealed.

*B.. Kermit Caldwell, for plaintiff appellant.*

*Helms, Mulliss, McMillan & Johnston, by James B. McMillan, for defendant appellee.*

Per CuRIAM.

The written contract of April 14, 1958, was stipulated. The defendant paid in full the amount provided for in the written contract.

The plaintiff ¡based his claim on what he alleged to be a subsequent parol contract which the defendant denied. On the issues submitted, the jury found that the parties did not enter into any parol agreement. Error does not appear in any matter material to that issue. The jury’s finding settled the dispute in .favor of the defendant.

No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
                                                                EXHIBIT-27
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE LIBERTY CORPORATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,527,054
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      60,879
<MORTGAGE>                                     239,170
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  131,384
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,081,702
<CASH>                                          16,939
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             282,669
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         337,258
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,051,526
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,862,425
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  29,142
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           37,026
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                247,791
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           45,530
<PREFERRED>                                     20,999
<COMMON>                                       164,227
<OTHER-SE>                                     387,301
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,051,526
<PREMIUMS>                                      86,441
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             39,055
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               1,725
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  30,021
<BENEFITS>                                      58,605
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     11,367
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            35,629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,122
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,255
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,867
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,867
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011190EN.01003901.xml

| 30.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/39

---

Corrigendum to authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 187 of 28 June 2011
  )

(2011/C 190/11)

On page 8:

for:

‘Reference number of State Aid: SA.322266 (11/N)’,

read:

‘Reference number of State Aid: SA.32266 (11/N)’.

---