alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11.1

EFJ, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except
share and per share data)



|                                                     |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  |   |           
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ---------- | - | ---- | - | ---------- |  | - | ----------
|                                                     |  | 2006 |            |   | 2005 |   | 2004      
|Net income (loss)                                    |  | $    | (6,781     | ) |      | $ | 22,549     |  | $ | 9,958     
|                                                     |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  |   |           
|Net income per share  Basic:                        |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  |   |           
|                                                     |  |      |           
|Weighted average common shares  Basic               |  |      | 25,844,956 |   |      |   | 20,984,688 |  |   | 17,824,708
|                                                     |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  |   |           
|Net income (loss) per share  Basic                  |  | $    | (0.26      | ) |      | $ | 1.07       |  | $ | 0.56      
|                                                     |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  |   |           
|Net income per share  Diluted:                      |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  |   |           
|                                                     |  |      |           
|Shares used in this computation:                     |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  |   |           
|Weighted average common shares  Basic               |  |      | 25,844,956 |   |      |   | 20,984,688 |  |   | 17,824,708
|Dilutive effect of shares under employee stock plans |  |      | 151,430    |   |      |   | 247,670    |  |   | 925,185   
|Weighted average restricted shares granted           |  |      | 210,856    |   |      |   | 21,425     |  |   |          
|                                                     |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  |   |           
|Weighted average common shares  Diluted             |  |      | 26,207,242 |   |      |   | 21,253,783 |  |   | 18,749,893
|                                                     |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  |   |           
|Net income (loss) per share  Diluted                |  | $    | (0.26      | ) |      | $ | 1.06       |  | $ | 0.53      
|                                                     |  |      |            |   |      |   |            |  |   |
# C_2011215EN.01002601.xml

| 21.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/26

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 July 2011

2011/C 215/10

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4207 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,05 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4553 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88065 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1713 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1652 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8040 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,498 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 269,18 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9917 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2475 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3575 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3218 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3451 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0704 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6609 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7247 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 500,59 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,8020 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,1762 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4575 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 130,21 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2585 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,690 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,7267 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,493 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2206 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5442 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 63,1570 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4207

JPY

Japanese yen

112,05

DKK

Danish krone

7,4553

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88065

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1713

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1652

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8040

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,498

HUF

Hungarian forint

269,18

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9917

RON

Romanian leu

4,2475

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3575

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3218

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3451

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0704

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6609

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7247

KRW

South Korean won

1 500,59

ZAR

South African rand

9,8020

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,1762

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4575

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 130,21

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2585

PHP

Philippine peso

60,690

RUB

Russian rouble

39,7267

THB

Thai baht

42,493

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2206

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5442

INR

Indian rupee

63,1570

---

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

1

Source

---
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, December 3, 2007, 8 a.m. to December 5, 2007, 10:30 a.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Floor 6C, 31 Center Drive, Conference Room 10, Bethesda, MD, 20892, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 13, 2007, 72 FR 218 page 63917.                

On December 4, 2007, the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee meeting will be held from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and begin again at 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. instead of meeting from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.

Dated: November 15, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-5814 Filed 11-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DEBORAH HOLLEY, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00095-MP-GRJ

CITY OF HIGH SPRINGS, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 29, Mediation Report. On November 23,

2011, the parties participated in mediation. The mediator reports that all issues have

been resolved.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The parties are directed to file a notice of settlement and stipulation of

dismissal on or before December 23, 2011.

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

áBZtÜç eA ]ÉÇxá 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00095-MP-GRJ Document 30 Filed 12/15/11 Page 1 of 1
Presidential Documents

7343 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 30 

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of February 9, 2007 

Designation of Officers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Memorandum for the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Vacancies Reform 

Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345, et seq., it is hereby ordered that: 

Section 1. Order of Succession. During any period when the Director of 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Director) has died, resigned, or otherwise 

become unable to perform the functions and duties of the office of the 

Director, the following officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 

the order listed, shall perform the functions and duties of the office of 

the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, until such time as the 

Director is able to perform the functions and duties of the office of Director 

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

(a) Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; 

(b) Associate Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; 

(c)Executive Assistant Director of the National Security Branch; 

(d) Executive Assistant Director for Criminal, Cyber, Response and Services; 

and 

(e) The Assistant Directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the 

order listed: 

(1) Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division; 

(2) Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division; 

(3) Assistant Director, Counterintelligence Division; 

(4) Assistant Director, Washington Field Office; 

(5) Assistant Director, New York Field Office; and 

(6) Assistant Director, Los Angeles Field Office. 

Sec. 2. Exceptions. 

(a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 1 in an 

acting capacity, by virtue of so serving, shall act as the Director pursuant 

to this memorandum. 

(b) No individual shall act as Director unless that individual is otherwise 

eligible to so serve under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. 

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this memorandum, the President retains 

discretion, to the extent permitted by law, to depart from this memorandum 

in designating an acting Director. 

Sec. 3. Judicial Review. This memorandum is intended to improve the internal 

management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does 

not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at 

law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, 

agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS5
7344 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Presidential Documents 

Sec. 4. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized 

and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, February 9, 2007. 

[FR Doc. 07–714 

Filed 2–13–07; 9:01 am] 

Billing code 44–1002–M 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS5GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 23.1


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of GeoTel Communications Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 33-21525) of our
report dated January 20, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of GeoTel Communications Corporation as of December 31, 1997 and
1996, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1997,
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.


                                        /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                        ----------------------------------
                                        Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.



Boston, Massachusetts
May 14, 1998
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

EMMANUEL LEE JONES,

 Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:11cv106/LAC/EMT

WENDALL HALL, et al.,

 Defendants.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated March 30, 2011 (Doc. 5). 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 cause is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

DONE AND ORDERED this 3 day of May, 2011. rd

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00106-LC-EMT Document 6 Filed 05/03/11 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, Appellants

V.

ELISSA KATZ, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-01898-D

ORDER

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 clerk’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 TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c).

/s/ CRAIG SMITH

JUSTICE
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2380

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Ricky Coppedge, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 30, 1997 Filed: February 5, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circui t Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. AfterRic ky Coppedge pleaded guilty to drug offenses, the district court 1 sentenc edhim to 135 months imprisonment and four years supervised release o n October 12, 1995. Coppedge did not appeal. On October 1, 1996, the governmen t filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) (upon government motion made within one year after imposition of sentence, district court may reduce-2-

sente nce to reflect defendant & s subsequent, substantial investigative or prosecutoria l as sistance), which the district court granted; the court resentenced Coppedge to 8 4 months i mprisonment and four years supervised release. On appeal, Coppedge & s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the co urt should have departed farther, and moving to withdraw as appointed counsel ; Coppedgehas also filed a pro se supplemental brief. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We c onclude that Coppedge & s challenge to the extent of the district court & s d e parture is unreviewable, because Coppedge is not appealing his sentence based on any criter ia listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (defendant may appeal sentence imposed in violation of law, imposed as result of misapplication of Guidelines, which is upwar d departure from Guidelines, or im posed for offense for which there is no Guideline and which is plainly unreasonable). See United States v. Mc Dowell , 117 F.3d 974, 977-78 (7th Cir . 1997) (appeal of extent of downward departure under Rule 35(b) i s unreview able, because § 3742(a) provides no jurisdictional basis to consider suc h appeal; listing cases in accord from Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, an d Eleventh Circuits). But see United States v. McAndrews , 12 F.3d 273, 277-78 (1st Cir. 1993) (appeal of extent of downward departure; con cluding order resolving Rule 35(b) motion is n ot a sentence, and thus 28 U.S.C. § 1291 governs appeals from order s granting or denying Rule 35(b) motions). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and grant defense counsel & s motion to withdraw.-3-

A true copy. Attest: CLE RK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIAM GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-104/RS-WCS

GEICO GENERAL INS. CO.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike GEICO’s Reply (Doc. 21) is Denied as moot. 

ORDERED on June 24, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00104-RS-WCS Document 29 Filed 06/24/11 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 2-94852-99) pertaining to the Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc.
Investment Savings Plan, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-37304-99) pertaining to the Company's Stock Appreciation Rights
Plan, of our report dated January 31, 1997, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedules of ASA Holdings, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.

ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 27, 1997
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2009

d1019 

# Order

October 26, 2009

137473

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137473 COA: 278268 Macomb CC: 2 006-004308-FC DONALD GAVIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 11, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , C.J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her opinion in People v Idziak , 484 Mich 549 (2009).
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5395 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 3, 2018 

Received 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 116 Main Street in Dansville, New York, 

as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Alexandria Gleason-Morrow Post 

Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

HR 5395 RDS

1 SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT ALEXANDRIA GLEASON-MOR2 ROW POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 116 Main Street in Dansville, 

5 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Staff 

6 Sergeant Alexandria Gleason-Morrow Post Office Build7 ing’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Alex12 andria Gleason-Morrow Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 29, 

2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2006-25941; Airspace Docket No. 06-ACE-11]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Creston, IA.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

0901 UTC, March 15, 2007.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Grant Nichols, System Support, DOT                               ( print page 7929)                            Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2522.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 28, 2006 (71 FR 78054). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on March 15, 2007. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 6, 2007.

Ronnie Uhlenhaker,

Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Area.

[FR Doc. 07-777  Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M