alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

KIMBERLY ANNETTE KLINE-PARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00111-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 23, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends that the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits to

plaintiff be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand

the administrative law judge should analyze the medical evidence and medical opinions as

described in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation – and as required by applicable

law, regulations and rulings – and to properly analyze the mental and physical demands of

plaintiff’s past relevant work as a bill collector and then determine whether plaintiff can perform

the mental and physical demands of that job in light of the ALJ’s evaluation of plaintiff’s RFC.

Absent a court order stating otherwise, a successful plaintiff’s counsel has fourteen days

after final judgment to file a motion with the District Court requesting an award of attorney fees. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B). This Rule has been interpreted by the Eleventh Circuit to even

apply to a request for fees to be paid from plaintiff’s past due benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

406(b)(1). See Bergen v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1273, 1277-78 (11th Cir. 2006). However,

plaintiff's counsel in such a case will not know the amount of benefits - and therefore fees - until

Case 1:10-cv-00111-GRJ Document 24 Filed 09/19/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

after the Commissioner awards benefits, which typically takes longer than fourteen days after the

entry of judgment. Therefore, an extension of time to seek such fees is warranted, as was

recommended by the Bergen opinion. See id. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 23, is

ACCEPTED, and incorporated herein.

2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment reversing the decision to deny benefits

and remanding the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent

with this order.

3. Pursuant to Bergen, proceedings on attorney fees under the Social Security Act,

42 U.S.C. § 406(b) are stayed until the matter is fully adjudicated upon remand. 

The Plaintiff shall file a motion to award fees under § 406(b) within 30 days after

counsel receives notice from the Defendant Commissioner as to Plaintiff’s past

due benefits.

4. This stay relates only to attorney fee proceedings under § 406(b) of the Social

Security Act, not to attorney fee proceedings under the Equal Access to Justice

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the latter of which may be adjudicated at this time.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of September, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-00111-MP-GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00111-GRJ Document 24 Filed 09/19/11 Page 2 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03549-SCR Document 2 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. MADDOX and STATE v. PHILLIPS

No. 46.

Case below: 13 N.C. App. 261.

Motion to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 7 March 1972.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JOSEPH D. LAMB, SR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:10cv66/RS/MD

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff

commenced this action on March 26, 2010 by filing a civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (doc. 1), along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 2). On

April 9, 2010, the court issued an order advising plaintiff that his in forma pauperis

application was incomplete, and requiring plaintiff to correct the deficiency within

twenty-eight (28) days (doc. 4). Plaintiff failed to respond, other than to file a motion

for injunction and motion to appoint counsel (docs. 5 and 6). Accordingly, on May

24, 2010, the court issued an order issued requiring plaintiff to show cause, within

fourteen (14) days, why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to comply

with an order of the court (doc. 7). To date, plaintiff has neither responded, nor

complied with the April 9, 2010 order.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this cause be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s failure

to comply with an order of the court.

2. That all pending motions be DENIED as moot.
Page 2 of 2

3. That the clerk be directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30 day of June, 2010. th

 

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within fourteen days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that

may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of any objections shall be served upon any 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 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 5:10cv66/RS/MD
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 Genesis Biopharma, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert T. Brooke,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.




/s/
      Robert T. BrookeRobert
      T. BrookeChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)May
      14, 2010
# C_2010022EN.01000101.xml

| 29.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 January 2010

2010/C 22/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3999 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 126,36 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4447 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86160 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2021 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4725 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1790 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,232 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 271,30 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7083 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0705 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1360 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0898 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5537 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4824 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,8755 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9695 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9623 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 612,18 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,6097 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,5570 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3210 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 050,19 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7719 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 65,232 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 42,4650 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,316 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5882 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,1179 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 64,7870 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3999

JPY

Japanese yen

126,36

DKK

Danish krone

7,4447

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86160

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2021

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4725

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1790

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,232

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

271,30

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7083

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0705

RON

Romanian leu

4,1360

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0898

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5537

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4824

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,8755

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9695

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9623

KRW

South Korean won

1 612,18

ZAR

South African rand

10,6097

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,5570

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3210

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 050,19

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7719

PHP

Philippine peso

65,232

RUB

Russian rouble

42,4650

THB

Thai baht

46,316

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5882

MXN

Mexican peso

18,1179

INR

Indian rupee

64,7870

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 27-17 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 27-17 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 27-17 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 27-17 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

FRED C. PROCTOR, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv149/RS-MD 

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL 

CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation; COUNTRYWIDE HOME

LOANS, INC., a New York corporation;

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, a

Texas Limited Partnership; LARRY WRIGHT,

Individually; WRIGHT & ASSOCIATES OF

NORTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., a Florida

corporation; CHRISTOPHER LEE PEAVY,

Individually; JAMES A. PEAVY, JR., 

Individually; ANDREW PICKEL, Individually;

and PEAVY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,

a Florida corporation,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., a

New York corporation,

Counter-Plaintiff,

vs.

FRED C. PROCTOR, JR.,

Counter-Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is Countrywide’s, BAC’s, and Fred C. Proctor, Jr.’s Joint Stipulation of

Dismissal with Prejudice and Joint Motion To Amend Order Of Dismissal (Doc. 62). 

This Order amends the Order (Doc. 55).
IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and

BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP are dismissed with prejudice.

2. Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.’s Counterclaim against Plaintiff

is dismissed with prejudice.

3. The parties shall bear their respective costs and attorney’s fees.

ORDERED on December 17, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CONTRELL LEO FLOYD,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:09cv366-WS

M.L. CARHAHAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 35)

docketed October 18, 2011. The magistrate judge recommends that this case be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal.

The court having reviewed the record, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 35) is ADOPTED

and incorporated into this order by reference.

2. The clerk shall enter judgment, stating: "All claims are DISMISSED without

prejudice pursuant to the plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal."

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of November , 2011.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00366-WS-EMT Document 36 Filed 11/15/11 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2
                            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 Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Royall,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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:  July 29, 2004


/s/ Richard R. Royall
Richard R. Royall,
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.1


 


 





 


 


 


 


April 15, 2020


 


 


Bison Global Investment SPC for and on behalf of


Global Investment SPC-Bison Global No. 1 SP


Room 609-610, 21st Century Tower B,


No.40 Liangmaqiao Road,


Chaoyang District,


Beijing, China


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to that certain Convertible Subordinated Promissory
Note dated July 12, 2019 issued to you by Cinedigm Corp. (“Cinedigm”) having a principal amount of $10,000,000 (the
 “Note”). All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Note.


 


This letter amendment hereby amends the Note, effective as of
March 4, 2020, as follows:


 


 


		(a)	the Maturity Date set forth in Section 2(a) of the
note shall be changed to March 4, 2021;



 


Except as expressly amended hereby, the
Note shall remain in full force and effect. The Note, as amended hereby, is hereby ratified and confirmed. All references in the
Note to “this Note” shall be deemed to refer to the Note, as amended hereby.


 


You hereby indemnify Cinedigm from and
against any claims or damages resulting from the transfer of the Note without this letter amendment to any transferee.


 


This letter amendment shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of New York without giving effect to any principle or rule (whether
of the State of New York or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of Laws of any jurisdiction other than those
of the State of New York.


 






     


     


    

 


This letter amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts
and by different parties in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of
which taken together shall constitute one and the same letter amendment.








 


 


	 	Very
truly yours,
	 	 
	 	CINEDIGM CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Gary S. Loffredo
	 	 	Name: Gary S. Loffredo
	 	 	Title:  Chief Operating Officer


 





 


Acknowledged and agreed:


 


 


BISON GLOBAL INVESTMENT SPC


FOR AND ON BEHALF OF GLOBAL INVESTMENT SPC –


BISON GLOBAL NO.1 SP


 


 


	By:	/s/ Fung Ka Chun
	 	Name: Fung Ka Chun
	 	Title: Director
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MANOUCHE SEJOUR et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 1:10cv96-SPM/GRJ

STEVEN DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court upon the Joint Motion for Enlargement

of Time to File Responses to Motions for Summary Judgment (doc. 138). Upon

consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 

1. The motion (doc. 138) is granted.

2. The deadline for filing responses to the motions for summary

judgment is extended to May 25, 2012.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2012.

S/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM-GRJ Document 139 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 1
Order entered April 22, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00057
- CV NOVO POINT, LLC, QUANTEC, LLC, RPV, LTD., AND JEFFREY BARON , Appellant s V. ELISSA KATZ, E T AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 19
- 01898
- D

O RDER Before the Court is Dallas County Clerk John F. Warren’s April 21, 2021 request for a thirty

- day extension of time to file the c lerk’s record

. Because this is an accelerated appeal, we GRANT the extension to the extent that the record shall be filed no later than May 3 , 2021. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 35.3(c).

/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1413** 

H. LEIGHTON LASKEY , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. STATE OF MARYLAND; CITY OF BALTIMORE; MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, for the City of Baltimore; LAW DEPARTMENT, for the City of Baltimore; CHRIS LUNDY, Defense Counsel; FRANK CONAWAY, Clerk of the Court ’ s Baltimore City Circuit; BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. William D. Quarles, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 00853

- WDQ )

Submitted : June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. H. Leighton Laskey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: H. Leighton Laskey appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his civil action without prejudice pursuant to Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971). On app eal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Laskey does not fairly argue that Younger abstention is inappropriate in his case. Rather, he baldly alleges that the state court clerk falsified court records in his state court action, that the action should have been dismissed earlier for lack of prosecution , and that Appellees are engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of access to the judicial system. These allegations are raised for the first time on appeal, see Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (declining to address on appeal claims not presented to district court), and in any event, find no support in the record. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s judgment
. Laskey v. Maryland , No. 1:14

- cv - 00853

- WDQ (D. Md. Apr. 21, 2014) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
# C_2011141EN.01000801.xml

| 12.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/8

---

Commission information notice pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations as detailed in the information notice published in OJ C 141, 12.5.2011

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 141/08

| Member State | Italy |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Reggio Calabria–Milano Malpensa and vice-versa |
| Period of validity of the contract | 2 years from 27 June 2011 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 2 months after the publication of this information notice |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation is made available free of charge | ENAC (Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile) |
| Direzione sviluppo trasporto aereo |
| Viale del Castro Pretorio 118 |
| 00185 Roma RM |
| ITALIA |
| http://www.enac.gov.it |
| E-mail: osp@enac.gov.it |

Member State

Italy

Route concerned

Reggio Calabria–Milano Malpensa and vice-versa

Period of validity of the contract

2 years from 27 June 2011

Deadline for submission of tenders

2 months after the publication of this information notice

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation is made available free of charge

ENAC (Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile)

Direzione sviluppo trasporto aereo

Viale del Castro Pretorio 118

00185 Roma RM

ITALIA

http://www.enac.gov.it

E-mail: osp@enac.gov.it

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

TIMOTHY CLIFTON,

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 5:10cv154/RS/CJK

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the court upon plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees

(docs. 24 & 25), filed pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28

U.S.C. § 2412(d), and defendant’s response (doc. 26). Plaintiff’s counsel requested

reimbursement in the amount of $4,575.00 under the EAJA. (Doc. 24, 1) Plaintiff’s

counsel filed a time itemization accounting that shows 30.0 hours as the total time

spent representing plaintiff in this court; a paralegal spent a total of 16.5 hours on the

case as well. (Doc. 25-1) After discussion between counsel, the parties agreed to an

award of attorney’s fees under the EAJA in the amount of $4,250.00. (Doc. 26, 1)

The court concludes that an award of attorney’s fees is justified under the EAJA, in

light of the Commissioner’s agreement.

The Commissioner asks that the fee be distributed in accordance with Astrue

v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010), but does not directly allege or show that plaintiff

owes a debt to the United States. Although Ratliff applies, the fee should be “paid

directly to counsel aslong asthe Government is afforded an opportunity to offset any

Case 5:10-cv-00154-RS-CJK Document 27 Filed 01/27/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

preexisting debt owed by the plaintiff . . . .” Meyer v. Astrue, Civ. No. 09–3205

(MJD/LIB), 2011 WL 4036398, at *3 (D. Minn. 2011).

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That the application for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act

(docs. 24 & 25) be GRANTED in the amount of $4,250.00, and the Commissioner

be ordered to pay that amount to plaintiff’s counsel. The Commissioner will follow

Astrue v. Ratliff, but must make prompt payment of the amount due, as no showing

of an outstanding federal debt has been made to date.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 27th day of January, 2012.

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITEDSTATESMAGISTRATEJUDGE

Case No: 5:10cv154/RS/CJK

Case 5:10-cv-00154-RS-CJK Document 27 Filed 01/27/12 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1



                                   Exhibit 11


                  COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               Three Months Ended
                                                    March 31,
                                           -------------------------
                                              1997           1996   
                                           ----------     ----------
<S>                                        <C>            <C>       
EARNINGS                                                            
Net Earnings                               $1,104,882     $1,241,828
                                           ==========     ==========
                                                                    
SHARES                                                              
Weighted Average Number                                             
 of Common Shares Outstanding               4,788,858      4,735,314
Common Share Equivalents                       87,858         87,756
                                           ----------     ----------
                                                                    
Weighted Average Common                                             
 Shares Outstanding and                                              
 Equivalents                                4,876,716      4,823,070
                                           ==========     ==========
                                                                    
EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE                                           
Net Earnings                               $      .23     $      .26
                                           ==========     ==========
</TABLE>