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

COMPUTATION OF
EARNINGS PER SHARE

|                                              | Three Months EndedJuly 31, |  | Nine Months EndedJuly 31, |           
|--------------------------------------------- | -------------------------- |  | ------------------------- | ----------
|
|                                              |                            |  |                           |           
|Numerator:                                    |                            |  |                           |           
|Net (loss) income                             |                            |  | $                         | (1,076,927
|                                             
|Denominator:                                  |                            | 
|Denominator for basic earnings per share-     |                            |  |                           | 13,646,284
|weighted-average shares                       |                            | 
|Effect of dilutive securities:                |                            | 
|Employee stock options                        |                            |  |                           |          
|                                              |                            |  |                           |           
|Denominator for diluted earnings per share    |                            | 
|adjusted weighted-average shares and          |                            | 
|assumed conversions                           |                            |  |                           | 13,646,284
|                                             
|Basic  and diluted (loss) earnings per share: |                            | 
|Net basic (loss) earnings per share           |                            |  | $                         | (0.08     
|Net diluted (loss)earnings per share          |                            |  | $                         | (0.08
US SOUTCHOM Medical Suitability Screening Waiver Process

Authorized agents (local DoD medical provider, DoD primary care provider 

or authorized medic) ensure all supporting documents, specialty consultation 

and justification is included in the waiver request (Attachment A)

Local DoD medical screening personnel determine individual 

deploying service member is found to be NON DEPLOYABLE per SC Reg 40-501.

Authorized agents will forward a completed waiver request 

(Attachment A) to be adjudicated by the appropriate surgeon 

IAW Appendix B , Paragraph3.C

Individual Notified 

and given medical 

disposition instructions 

Individual completes 

medical workup and is 

found DEPLOYABLE. 

Local DoD Medical personnel inform the individual’s supervisor and unit command team of NON DEPLOYABLE status. 

Unit enforces compliance with medical disposition and awaits 

workup results if applicable 

Component Surgeon receives, reviews and adjudicates waiver 

within 7 business days. 

Component Surgeon Adjudicates: DEPLOYBALE Component SG Adjudicates:

NON DEPLOYABLE 

Unit leaders ( Medical and Command teams) assesses the 

individual’s deployment to be necessary and safe and decide 

to pursue a medical waiver. Submit 90 days or sooner from 

deployment date

If component SG receives appeal 

request from unit provider, he will 

forward to SOUTCHOM CMD SG

SOUTHCOM CMD SG Adjudicates: DEPLOYBALE 

SOUTHCOM CMD SG Adjudicates: NON DEPLOYABLE
#### GUY R. DAVIS v. W. T. RALPH.

(Filed 24 February, 1960.)

Landlord and Tenant §§ 10, 11—

Where plaintiff’s own evidence shows that at the end of each year be made a separate contract with defendant landlord for the ensuing year, and further discloses that no agreement for renting the land for the year in question was reached, plaintiff's own evidence discloses th-at he was not a tenant from year to year and nonsuit is properly entered in his action for breach of lease agreement.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Stevens, J.,*at December 1959 Civil Term, of BeaufoRT.

Civil action to recover damages for.alleged breach of oral sharecrop arrangement for the year 1956 in accordance with terms of preexisting contract.

Defendant answering denies in material aspect the allegations of the complaint.

Upon trial in Superior Court plaintiff testified in pertinent part that: “It was ordinarily my practice while I was renting from Dr. Ralph to make arrangements at the end of the year with him for the *68coming year. Each year when the year was completed I went to see Dr. Ralph and always rented it ahead. Ordinarily it would be before December. It could be right after the merchandise was harvested. That was usually sometime around December. In December of the year 1955 T had a conversation concerning 1956. Dr. Ralph said ‘I don’t know what I'm going to do with that piece of land another year.’ ”

And again the plaintiff testified: “I had no other conversation with Dr. Ralph concerning this land during the month of December 1955. The next conversation I had with Dr. Ralph concerning the renting of this land was in June or July * * * I went into his office and asked him what he had decided to do. He said ‘I have not decided to do nothing. I told you last year that I was not going to rent it to you next year.’ I said ‘Doctor, you did not tell me that. I can tell you the exact words you said. You told me that you did not know what you were going to do with that piece of land another year.’ ”

Motion of defendant entered when plaintiff rested his cáse for judgment as of nonsuit was allowed. To judgment in accordance therewith plaintiff excepts and appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.

*Wilkinson & Ward for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Carter & Ross for defendant, appellee.*

PER Cubiam:

While there is much other evidence shown in the record of the case on appeal the quoted portions hereinabove set forth are pivotal, and justify the ruling of the trial court from which appeal is taken. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as is done in considering motion for judgment as of non-suit, it seems clear that plaintiff recognized that he was not a tenant from year to year but that eaqh year he entered into a new agreement with defendant for the renting of the land, and that there was no agreement for the year 1956. Hence the judgment as of nonsuit is

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,025                   1,890
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         6,000                   6,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,025)                 (7,890)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,135                   1,890
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,135)                 (1,890)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,135)                 (1,890)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,135)                 (1,890)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 3, 2013 

# Order

April 3, 2013

146425 & (39)

P & M HOLDING GROUP, LLP

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 146425

v CoA: 307037

Ct of Claims: 10

- 74

- MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

______________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties

agreeing to the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal is considered and the

application is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
#### W. REUBEN RUDD v. R. L. HOLMES.

(Filed 12 November, 1930.)

Appeal by defendant from *Schenck, J.,*at August Term, 1930, of Gttjileord.

No error.

See 196 N. C., 640.

*H. B. Stamley for plaintiff.*

*John W. Hester and T. Glenn Henclerson for defendant.*

Per Curiam:.

We have examined the exceptions of the appellant and have discovered no error which entitles him to a new trial.

No error.
#### STATE v. AGNEW MOTT WILLIAMS, JR.

(Filed 25 March, 1953.)

Criminal Law § 56—

Where defendant has filed no case on appeal, the only matter before the Supreme Court is the record, and defendant cannot set up matters not appearing therein in support of his motion for arrest of judgment.

Appeal by defendant from *Sharp, Special Judge,*September Term, 1952, of CbaveN.

No error.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.*

*No counsel for defendant.*

*436Per Curiam.

The record in this case reveals that the defendant appealed from the judgment in the Recorder’s Court of the City of New Bern on a warrant charging reckless driving in violation of G.S. 20-140; that in the Superior Court he entered plea of not guilty; that the jury returned verdict of guilty; that on the verdict judgment was rendered imposing sentence. The defendant gave notice of appeal and has docketed the record in this Court, but has filed no case on appeal nor has he filed a brief. The only matter before us is the record. An examination of the record fails to reveal error. The matters attempted to be set up in a motion in arrest of judgment are not before us and cannot be considered on this record. “Judgment in a criminal prosecution may be arrested, on motion duly made, when, and only when, some fatal error or defect appears on the face of the record.” *S. v. McKnight,*196 N.C. 259, 145 S.E. 281; *S. v. Bittings,*206 N.C. 798 (803), 175 S.E. 299; *S. v. Brown,*233 N.C. 202 (206), 63 S.E. 2d 99.

On the record we find

No error.
#### Albert B. Parker, Plaintiff, v. Samuel Loring, Defendant.

Judgment for defendant upon submitted case, without costs. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
EXHIBIT A-10 

Exhibit A-10 Page 286

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 1

of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 287

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 2

of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 288

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 3

of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 289

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 4

of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 290

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 5

of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 291

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 6

of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 292

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 7

of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 293

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 8

of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 294

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 9

of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 295

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

10 of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 296

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

11 of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 297

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

12 of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 298

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

13 of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 299

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

14 of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 300

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

15 of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 301

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

16 of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 302

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

17 of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 303

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

18 of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 304

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

19 of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 305

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

20 of 21
Exhibit A-10 Page 306

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-11 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

21 of 21
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 25 51

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Mar k Li ne r
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Caro lyn W . Col vi n, Act in g C om m is si on er o f So ci al Secu rit y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - El Dora do

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 10 , 20 16 Fil ed : M arch 7, 2 01 6 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Mar k Lin er ap pl ie d fo r di sa bi li ty be ne fit s, com pl ai ni ng of rig ht -s ho ul de r an d

arm pa in

. The A LJ f

o u n d he la ck ed cred ib il it y an d de ni ed hi s ap pl ic at io n. TheApp eal s Co un ci l de ni ed Lin er’s req ue st fo r rev ie w. The d i s t r i c t co ur t affi rm ed

. 1 Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.

Rev ie wed de no vo , th e ag en cy ’s de ci si on is a f f i r med if su pp or te d by

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Se e Pelk ey v. Bar nh ar t , 43 3 F.3 d 57 5, 57 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). The ALJ co nc lu de d Lin er ha s th e Res id ua l Fu nc ti on al Cap aci ty (RFC ) to pe rfo rm
se de nt ary wor k, wh i c h “i n v o l ve s li fti ng no m or e th an 10 po un ds at a ti m e an d

oc cas io na ll y li fti ng or carr y in g a r t i c l es li ke do ck et fil es , le dg ers , an d sm al l to ol s.” 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 56 7( a). The ALJ fu rth er li m it ed Lin er t o w o r k i nv ol vi ng no
ov erh ead reac hi ng wit h hi s rig ht arm

. Lin er arg ue s th is di d no t acco un t fu ll y fo r hi s rig ht -s ho ul de r im

pa irment.

The RFC is t h e m os t a cl ai m an t can do de sp it e li m it at io ns

. 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1 54 5( a). The ALJ co ns id ers al l rel ev an t ev id en ce, bu t th e fin al de te rm in at io n
m us t be su pp or te d by so m e m ed ic al ev id en ce. Se e W il dma n v. Ast ru e , 59 6 F.3 d 95 9, 96 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Lin er ha d rig ht -s ho ul de r su rg ery in 19 90

. In 20 12 , he sa w Dr. Je rry Gran t fo r sh ou ld er pa in , who fo un d Lin er ha d no rig ht gr ip st ren gt h an d a 0- 90 de gr ee ran ge of m ot io n. An ag en cy -o rd ered co ns ul ta ti ve ex am in at io n sh owe d

“ [s ]usp ect m il d de ge ne rat iv e ch an ge s” an d li m it ed ran ge of m ot io n in th e rig ht sh ou ld er, bu t no m

us cl e at ro ph y or se ns or y ab no rm al it ie s. The ex am in at io n al so sh owe d no rm al co or di na ti on , no rm al li m b fun ct io n, and no rm al gr ip st ren gt h. Thi s
m ed ic al ev id en ce s up po rts th e RFC

.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Barr y A. Bryant , Uni te d St at es Mag is tra t e J u d g e f or th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, si tt in g by co ns en t of th e pa rti es pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (c).
-2

-
#### STATE v. E. A. BROWN, R. *L.*SETZER and CLEVE SETZER.

(Filed 4 December, 1929.)

Receiving Stolen Goods D a — Verdict oí guilty oí receiving stolen goods and acquittal of breaking and larceny is not contradictory.

Where the defendant is tried on three separate counts: (1) with felo-niously breaking into a railroad car in violation of O. S., 4237, (2) with larceny of certain goods therefrom, (3) with receiving stolen goods with knowledge that they had been stolen, C. S., 4250: *Hela,,*an acquittal on the first two counts and conviction on the third is not a contradictory verdict as a matter of law, or objectionable on the ground that the doctrine of recent possession applied equally to all counts, there being sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict o-f guilty on the third count.

Appeal by defendant, E. A. Brown, from *Oglesby, J.,*at March Term, 1929, of Bukke.

*42Criminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendant, and others, (1) with feloniously breaking into a railroad car in violation of C. S., 4237, (2) with the larceny of certain automobile tires and a number of shotguns, describing them, valued at $100, in the possession of the Southern Railway Company, as bailee, and (3) with receiving said properties, describing them, knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen or taken in violation of C. S., 4250.

Verdict: Guilty on the third count of receiving.

Judgment: Eight months on the roads.

The defendant, E. A. Brown, appeals, assigning errors.

' *Attorney-General Bnimmitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*Av&ry & Patton and C. E. Cowan for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

There is evidence on behalf of the State tending to show that on 8 September, 1928, the tires and guns in question were checked into car No. 115311 for shipment over the Southern Railway to Mor-ganton and Swannanoa. The car was sealed and remained sealed until it reached Connelly Springs, where the seal was broken, and the articles found missing. Soon thereafter, the defendants were discovered in possession of the guns and tires in question, with the numbers on the tires obliterated. They offered to sell the tires for less than half their value, and wanted to pawn or sell the guns.

It is the contention of the defendant that he cannot be convicted on the third count in the bill of indictment in the face of an acquittal on the first two counts; that the evidence of recent possession applies alike to all counts; and that as he was not convicted on the first two, he must necessarily be acquitted on the third.

The defendant’s logic is better than his law. *S. v. Sisk,*185 N. C., 696, 116 S. E., 721. Notwithstanding his acquittal on the first two counts, on which the jury may have pardoned him, there was- evidence tending to support the third, and we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the verdict is contradictory. *S. v. Record,*151 N. C., 695, 65 S. E., 1010.

We find no reversible error on the record, hence the verdict and judgment will be upheld.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001058441
<NAME> RAINBOW RENTALS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              41
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     32,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,080
<PP&E>                                           4,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,541
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,039
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,664
<SALES>                                         20,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,462
<CGS>                                            7,507
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,660
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 198
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,274
<INCOME-TAX>                                       932
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,342
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,342
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23


</TABLE>