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

                                                                      Exhibit 11

                FRONTIER NATIONAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



The following tabulation presents the calculation of basic and diluted earnings
per common share for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30,
2001 and 2000.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Three-Months Ended                Nine-Months Ended
                                                       September 30,                    September 30,
                                                  ---------------------------  --------------------------------
                                                      2001             2000            2001              2000
                                                  ----------       ----------      ----------        ----------
<S>                                               <C>              <C>             <C>               <C>
Basic Earnings Per Share:
 Net income.................................      $  524,683       $  428,526      $1,534,168        $1,869,720
                                                  ==========       ==========      ==========        ==========

 Earnings on common shares..................      $  524,683       $  428,526      $1,534,168        $1,869,720
                                                  ==========       ==========      ==========        ==========

 Weighted average common shares
   outstanding - basic......................       3,427,877        3,418,243       3,424,855         3,416,748
                                                  ==========       ==========      ==========        ==========

 Basic earnings per common share............      $     0.15       $     0.13      $     0.45        $     0.55
                                                  ==========       ==========      ==========        ==========

Diluted Earnings Per Share:
 Net income.................................      $  524,683       $  428,526      $1,534,168        $1,869,720
                                                  ==========       ==========      ==========        ==========

 Weighted average common shares
   outstanding - diluted....................       3,537,183        3,492,566       3,524,514         3,485,083
                                                  ==========       ==========      ==========        ==========

 Diluted earnings per common share..........      $     0.15       $     0.12      $     0.44        $     0.54
                                                  ==========       ==========      ==========        ==========
</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 April 2, 2019

p0325

Order 

Clerk

April 2, 2019

158410 & (86)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158410

COA: 334744

Wayne CC: 15-005480-FC

DAMON EARL HOUSTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 24, 2018 judgment 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand 

and/or to expand the record is DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHNATHAN ROBINS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 502 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of March, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
COMPONENT NUMBER

A34992

CUSTOMER NUMBER

1513426XXX

FINISHED GOOD NUMBER

4SW19944

RANK

3. N/G ILLUMINATION MASTER

JIG NUMBER

15

MANUFACTURING PLANT

STEC B

DESTINATION

FAUR

PART DESCRIPTION

CLS CONTROL SW L

AIR PRESSURE

0.4 - 0.6 MPa

30.

PACKING THE PARTS

PRESENT AND NO DAMAGE.

CONFIRM

MASTERS (START-UP/CHANGEOVER)

CUSTOMER

VW

1. OK MASTER

2. N/G FUNCTION MASTER

11.

CONTROL ITEM

TEST MARK

DURING 5/10 PC INSPECTION IF REJECT IS FOUND ENTIRE SHIPMENT 

MUST BE 100% INSPECTED

TESTING THE PART

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

15.

2. Push Unlock 2 times

6.

9.

10.

7.

8.

1. Press Green Button to Start Test

5.

4.

3. Push Lock 2 times

14.

SMALL LOTS

N/A N/A

QTY = 336 QTY = ?

CHANNEL NUMBER

16

ORIGINAL ALTERNATIVE #1

ILLUMINATION

Yes

SHAKE PART

Yes

Date Issued: 

PROBLEM NOTIFICATION

Part Number(s) Affected: Photo Here Problem:

PROBLEM NOTIFICATION

Part Number(s) Affected: Photo Here Problem:

Date Issued: 

PROBLEM NOTIFICATION

Part Number(s) Affected: Photo Here Problem:

Date Issued: 

CONTAINER

TOP - Left to Right

MIDDLE - Middle to Right

BOTTOM - Right to Left

Pack in secure/suitable cardboard container. 

(per T/L)

NEEDED PACKING MATERIAL: NEEDED PACKING MATERIAL:

SERVICE

CONTAINER

29.

12. 27.

13. 28.

ASSEMBLED CORRECTLY (VERIFY COLORS), NO 

DAMAGE OR DEFECTS. PRINT CORRECT AND 

LEGIBLE. NO CONTAMINATION. SCREWS 

PRESENT IF REQUIRED. BAR CODE CORRECT 

AND LEGIBLE IF PRESENT. NO BENT TERMINALS 

IF PRESENT.

PART CONDITION

4 layers of 84 pcs

Parts are placed in plastic trays

Line box with plastic bag

Place PKG in bottom, between layers and on top

25.

26.

23.

24.

LOT DATE PRESENT AND LEGIBLE

PART OPERATION MOVING PARTS (BUTTONS, KNOBS, LIDS, ETC.) 

OPERATE SMOOTHLY AND CORRECTLY

Top Middle Bottom

GLOVES MUST BE WORN
#### MARGARET JOHN v. H. R. ALLEN et al.

(Filed 1 January, 1935.)

1. Schools and School Districts G b—

*Mandamus*will not lie to compel a county to issue its voucher to pay a debt due by a county school district to a principal in its elementary school, chs. 88 and 361, Public-Local Laws of 1933, applying only to county vouchers and county obligations.

3. Mandamus A h—

A writ of *mandamus*can confer no new authority, but the writ lies only to compel the performance of an existing ministerial duty by a party having a clear legal right to demand its performance.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Harris, J.,*at August Term, 1934, of BLADEN.

Civil action to recover $280.00 for services rendered as principal of Elizabethtown Elementary Public School (District No. 66), Bladen County, for the year 1930-1931, with application for writs of *mandamus*to require issuance of voucher and to compel levy of tax sufficient to pay same.

The debt of the district is not denied, but defendants say plaintiff’s claim is not a county obligation, and that there is no authority for levying a county tax to pay the same. From the denial of the writs of *mandamus*the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

*Maxcy L. J ohn for ¡plaintiff.*

*II. II. Clark for defendant Bladen County.*

*521Staoy, 0. J.

Tbe statutes under which the plaintiff seeks to compel the issuance of a voucher and the levy of a tax, chs. 88 and 361, Public-Local Laws 1933, deal only with county vouchers and county obligations. The application for writs of *mandamus*was, therefore, properly denied. *Rollins v. Rogers,*204 N. C., 308, 168 S. E., 206; *Comrs. v. Lacy,*174 N. C., 141, 93 S. E., 482.

*Mandamus*is available against a board of county commissioners only to compel the board to do something which it is its duty to do without it. The writ confers no new authority. The party seeking it must have a clear legal right to demand it, and the board must be under a legal obligation to perform the act sought to be enforced. Neither of these prerequisites appears in the instant case. *Powers v. Asheville,*203 N. C., 2, 164 S. E., 324.

Affirmed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

October 26, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2558

Price Pump Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR ADAMS GOLF, INC. AND
ITS SUBSIDIAIRIES FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,601
<SECURITIES>                                    20,796
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,236
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,210
<INVENTORY>                                     18,244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,973
<PP&E>                                          10,138
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,986
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,322
<SALES>                                         43,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,100
<CGS>                                           13,883
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,408
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   444
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,152)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,912)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,240)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,240)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)


</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2349

US Industrial Sales LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT
                           -------------------------------


Board of Directors
Nittany Financial Corp.


We  have  reviewed  the  accompanying  consolidated  balance  sheet  of  Nittany
Financial  Corp.  and  subsidiaries  as of September  30, 2003,  and the related
consolidated  statements  of income for the three and  nine-month  periods ended
September 30, 2003 and 2002, the consolidated statements of stockholders' equity
for the nine-month  period ended September 30, 2003, the consolidated  statement
of cash flows for the  nine-month  periods  ended  September  30, 2003 and 2002.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America,  the
objective  of which is the  expression  of an opinion  regarding  the  financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance with auditing  standards  generally
accepted in the United States of America,  the consolidated  balance sheet as of
December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders'  equity,  and cash flows for the year then  ended  (not  presented
herein),  and in our report dated January 31, 2003, we expressed an  unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.




/s/S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
Wexford, PA
October 10, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4146 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4146

 To amend title 40, United States Code, to grant the Supreme Court of 
   the United States security-related authorities equivalent to the 
                  legislative and executive branches.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 2022

  Mr. Cornyn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 40, United States Code, to grant the Supreme Court of 
   the United States security-related authorities equivalent to the 
                  legislative and executive branches.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 
2022''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PROTECT FAMILY MEMBERS.

    Section 6121(a)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``and'' after the 
        semicolon; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) any member of the immediate family of the 
                Chief Justice, any Associate Justice, or any officer of 
                the Supreme Court if the Marshal determines such 
                protection is necessary.''.

SEC. 3. PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES.

    Section 6121 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(c) Obstruction of the Supreme Court Police.--Whoever knowingly 
and willfully obstructs, resists, or interferes with a member of the 
Supreme Court Police engaged in the performance of the protective 
functions authorized by this section, shall be fined not more than 
$300, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

/(\ 

DAVIS SMITH, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Plaintiff, 

FILED 

APR 1 9 2012 

Clerk, U.S. District & B 

Courts tor the District ;~~~~~~r" 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 12 0619 

THE NBC NEWS, eta!., 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the 

complaint. 

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by 

pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted 

by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even prose litigants, however, 

must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 

(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint 

contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand 

for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum 

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to 

prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the 

1 
doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

Plaintiffs complaint is so disorganized that the Court cannot discern a viable claim 

within this Court's jurisdiction, or identify a clear statement showing plaintiffs entitlement to the 

relief he seeks. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. An Order 

consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. 

DATE: ~ /'f; ;(tJ/;,1. 

~ 414.- (;tif United States Distnct Judge 

2
#### PATE HOTEL COMPANY, Owner of GREYSTONE INN, and W. H. PATE, Manager of GREYSTONE INN, v. H. BLAIR and Wife, MRS. H. BLAIR.

(Filed 12 December, 1934.)

Innkeepers B a—

Under tbe facts of tbis case, a hotel beeper’s lien for charges, O. S., 2461, *is held*not to attach to an automobile belonging to- a third person which was brought to the hotel by the guest.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Harris, J.,*at May Term, 1934, of New HaNOVER.

*465Civil action to enforce innkeeper’s lien on automobile brought by defendants to plaintiffs’ hotel.

The defendants were guests at plaintiffs’ hotel at Carolina Beach during the month of July, 1933. In addition to certain baggage, they had in their possession a Ford automobile which was kept, during their stay, on the hotel property just outside the window of the room occupied by defendants. They attempted to leave without paying board and lodging bill of $93.75. The plaintiffs attached the baggage and automobile as the property of the defendants.

The Eose Investment Company and Ike W. Wright intervened and established title to the automobile; whereupon the court released said automobile from the attachment and alleged lien of the plaintiffs. From this ruling the plaintiffs appeal.

*John W. Hinsdale for plaintiffs.*

*Qarr, Poisson & James for intervenors.*

Staoy, C. J.

It is provided by C. S., 2461, that every hotel or innkeeper who furnishes hotel accommodations to any person shall have a lien upon “all baggage or other property of such person . . . brought to such hotel” or inn, until all reasonable charges for such accommodations have been paid. The lien, however, would not attach to an automobile, the property of a third person, brought to the inn by the guest under circumstances disclosed by the present record. *Covington v. Newberger,*99 N. C., 523, 6 S. E., 205; *Cook v. Kane,*13 Or., 482, *51*Am. Rep., 28, and annotation.

Affirmed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1694

Brooks Instrument LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 04, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 04, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19I0042. MICHAELE BROWN v. LAURA HUNTER. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 08A8682