alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1



                              THOUSAND TRAILS, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                    (Dollars and common shares in thousands)



<Table>
<Caption>

                                                         Year Ended      Year Ended      Year Ended
                                                       June 30, 2001   June 30, 2000   June 30, 1999
                                                       -------------   -------------   -------------

<S>                                                    <C>             <C>             <C>
BASIC:

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding           8,107           7,981           7,630
                                                       =============   =============   =============

Net income allocable to common shareholders            $       4,276   $       9,249   $       5,571
                                                       =============   =============   =============
Net income per common share -- basic                   $        0.52   $        1.16   $        0.73
                                                       =============   =============   =============
DILUTED:

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding           8,107           7,981           7,630
Weighted average common stock equivalents -
  Dilutive options                                               491             613             824
  Dilutive warrants                                             --              --                21
                                                       -------------   -------------   -------------
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding           8,598           8,594           8,475
                                                       =============   =============   =============
Net income allocable to common shareholders            $       4,276   $       9,249   $       5,571
                                                       =============   =============   =============
Net income per common share -- diluted                 $        0.50   $        1.08   $        0.66
                                                       =============   =============   =============
</Table>

                                  Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RAYMOND EDWARD KITCHEN,

Petitioner, 

vs. Case No. 3:10cv237/LAC/CJK

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated September 20, 2012. (Doc. 38). The parties have been

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of objections filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed

objections thereto, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be

adopted.

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. The petition for writ of habeas corpus(doc. 1), challenging the judgment

of conviction and sentence in State of Florida v. Raymond Edward Kitchen in the

Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County, Florida, Case No. 04-651 is DENIED, and the

clerk is directed to close the file.
Page 2 of 2

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11 day of February, 2013.

th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 3:10cv237LAC/CJK
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 134730 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 134730 COA: 277563 Wayne CC: 02-002708-02 MARCUS LAMAR RUSHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 19, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1119 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Manchester Technologies, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration  statement (No.
333-71255)  on Form S-8 of  Manchester  Technologies,  Inc. of our report  dated
September 21, 2001,  relating to the  consolidated  balance sheets of Manchester
Technologies,  Inc.  and  subsidiaries  as of July 31,  2001 and  2000,  and the
related consolidated  statements of income,  shareholders' equity and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended July 31, 2001, which report
appears  in the  July  31,  2001  annual  report  on  Form  10-K  of  Manchester
Technologies, Inc.

                                   s/ KPMG LLP

Melville, New York
October 26, 2001
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

(Filed: November 19, 2015)

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

TAHLIA SEPCTOR, M.D., *

* No. 15-401

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman

* 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Ruling on Entitlement; Conceded;

* Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury

Respondent. * Related to Vaccine Administration

* (SIRVA).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jack D. Hull, II, Goldsmith & Hull, Northridge, CA, for Petitioner.

Julia McInerny, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On April 21, 2015, Tahlia Spector, M.D., (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation 

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”).

2 Petitioner alleged

that an influenza (“flu”) vaccination she received on September 19, 2013, caused her to suffer 

from a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). 

On November 13, 2015, Respondent filed a report pursuant to Vaccine Rule 4(c) in 

which she concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Report, 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post this decision on the website of the United States Court of Federal 

Claims, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002 § 205, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2006). In 

accordance with the Vaccine Rules, each party has 14 days within which to request redaction “of 

any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in 

substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the 

disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 

18(b). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for redaction must include a 

proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material 

fits within the requirements of that provision, such material will be deleted from public access.

2 The Program comprises Part 2 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 300aa-10 et seq. (hereinafter “Vaccine Act” or “the Act”). Hereafter, individual 

section references will be to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa of the Act.
2

ECF No. 21. Specifically, Respondent agrees that Petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with

SIRVA. Id. at 7. Based on a review of the medical records, Respondent concludes that 

Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id. 

A special master may determine whether a petitioner is entitled to compensation based 

upon the record. A hearing is not required. §300aa-13; Vaccine Rule 8(d). In light of 

Respondent’s concession and a review of the record, the undersigned finds that Petitioner is 

entitled to compensation. This matter shall now proceed to the damages phase.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman

 Lisa Hamilton-Fieldman

Special Master
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM APPLICABLE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          20,053
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,248
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,791
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,038
<PP&E>                                       1,267,411
<DEPRECIATION>                               (576,914)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 780,784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,908
<BONDS>                                        205,634
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         16
<COMMON>                                           424
<OTHER-SE>                                     294,423
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   780,784
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               177,374
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  246,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (95)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,686
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (80,856)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,891
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (99,914)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (99,914)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.37)


</TABLE>
# C_2011017EN.01000101.xml

| 19.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 17/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 17/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 January 2011

2011/C 17/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3371 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 110,29 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4509 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83565 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9203 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2812 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8200 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,285 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,60 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7020 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8707 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2580 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0545 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3416 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3182 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3980 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7326 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7162 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 487,21 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,2165 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,8020 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3925 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 103,98 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0882 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,527 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,9950 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,768 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2391 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,0036 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 60,8050 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3371

JPY

Japanese yen

110,29

DKK

Danish krone

7,4509

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83565

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9203

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2812

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8200

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,285

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,60

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7020

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8707

RON

Romanian leu

4,2580

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0545

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3416

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3182

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3980

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7326

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7162

KRW

South Korean won

1 487,21

ZAR

South African rand

9,2165

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,8020

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3925

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 103,98

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0882

PHP

Philippine peso

59,527

RUB

Russian rouble

39,9950

THB

Thai baht

40,768

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2391

MXN

Mexican peso

16,0036

INR

Indian rupee

60,8050

---

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

1

Source

---
# C_2011049EN.01001401.xml

| 16.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/14

---

Special Report No 12/2010 ‘EU Development Assistance for Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia’

2011/C 49/08

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 12/2010 ‘EU Development Assistance for Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://www.eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Communication and Reports Unit |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Communication and Reports Unit

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:11cv194-WS

DANIEL J. LEVITAN and

PAMELA H. LEVITAN,

Defendants.

 

ORDER DENYING DANIEL J. LEVITAN'S MOTION TO

ISSUE JUDGMENT AS FINAL

Defendants, Daniel J. Levitan and Pamela H. Levitan, non-prisoners

proceeding pro se, commenced this action on April 25, 2011, by filing a notice of

removal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, seeking to remove the following state

court criminal prosecutions filed in the Circuit Court for Escambia County, Florida:

(1) State of Florida v. Daniel J. Levitan, Case No. 2009CF1932A, and (2) State

of Florida v. Daniel J. Levitan and Pamela H. Levitan, Case Nos. 2009CR3786A

and B. Doc. 1. Upon review, the magistrate judge concluded that this court

lacked a proper basis for removal jurisdiction over the state court criminal

prosecutions and, accordingly, recommended that the cases be remanded to the

state court. On June 23, 2011, this court adopted the magistrate judge's

thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation and directed the clerk to
Page 2 of 2

remand the cases to the Escambia County Circuit Court. A certified copy of the

order of remand was sent to the state court, and that court has since advised this

court that Levitan's attempted removal of the cases to federal court did not

interrupt the now-completed state prosecutions. 

Levitan thereafter appealed this court's order of remand to the Eleventh

Circuit, which dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution because Levitan

failed to pay the required filing and docketing fees. Levitan then filed a petition

for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court

denied Levitan's petition without explanation on October 9, 2012. 

Before the court at this time is Daniel J. Levitan's motion to issue a final

judgment. Doc. 28. Finding no merit to Levitan's motion, and mindful that 

neither this court nor any federal court ever had jurisdiction over the cases the

Levitans sought to remove, it is ORDERED:

1. Levitan's motion (doc. 28) to issue a final judgment is DENIED.

2. The clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Escambia County Circuit

Court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of March , 2013.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

SHERMAN SOLOMON,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:11cv208/MCR/CJK

DEPT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,

et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge filed on April 9 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and after

reviewing objections to the Recommendation, if any, the Recommendation is 1

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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for

plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

3. The plaintiff’s “EmergencyPetition for Temporary Injunction” (doc. 15)

is DENIED.

 The plaintiff was provided a copy of the Report and Recommendation and given an opportunity

1

to object, but no objections have been filed.

Case 5:11-cv-00208-MCR-CJK Document 17 Filed 05/15/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

4. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of May, 2012.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 5:11cv208/MCR/CJK

Case 5:11-cv-00208-MCR-CJK Document 17 Filed 05/15/12 Page 2 of 2
Order filed, January 21, 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00660

- CV

____________ MICHAEL SILBERSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY, MICHAE L R. SILBERSTEIN, LTD, MA GIC HOMES INVESTMENT S, LTD AND

ANNETTE SILBERSTEIN , Appellant

V.

TRUSTMARK NATIONAL B ANK F/K/A REPUBLIC N ATIONAL BANK , Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11

- DCV

- 190480



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due September 15, 2014

. See Tex. R. Ap p. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Vanessa Owens , the subst itute court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DAVID M. CAVINESS, SR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv97/LAC/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated June 28, 2011 (Doc. 15). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28,

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted.

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 comply with

an order of the court.

ORDERED on this 2nd day of August, 2011.

s/L.A. Collier

Lacey A. Collier

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00097-LC-EMT Document 17 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 PENSACOLA DIVISION

OMAR F. BARNES,

Petitioner,

vs. 3:09cv360/MCR/MD

SECRETARY, FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent. 

O R D E R

This cause is before the court upon respondent’s answer to petition for writ

of habeas corpus (doc. 22). Before the court rules on this matter, the petitioner shall

have an opportunity to respond.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Petitioner shall have twenty-eight (28) days from the date this order is entered

on the docket in which to reply to the answer filed by respondent.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13 day of May, 2010. th

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

WILLIAM NORKUNAS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00064-MP -GRJ

THIRTY-NINTH AVENUE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 12, defendant’s second motion for an extension

of time. The parties agree to the extensions requests, and the Court determines that they are

reasonable. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The defendant shall have until July 15, 2011, to respond to the Complaint.

The Counsel of record and any unrepresented parties shall confer (personally, by phone,

or electronically) by July 15, 2011, as required by Rule 26(f), and the joint report to the

Court [see Fed. R. Civ. P. Form 521

] shall be filed by July 29, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

1

Available in word-processing format at

http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/FederalRulemaking/RulesAndForms/IllustrativeCivil

RulesForms.aspx

Case 1:11-cv-00064-MP-GRJ Document 13 Filed 05/23/11 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32(l)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





|(1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.







|/s/ Jay A. LewisJay A. Lewis
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	August 7, 2008