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

                                  Exhibit 11.0
                        Calculation of Earnings per Share

(In thousands, except for per share data, adjusted for the four for three stock
split on August 24, 2001)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      December 31,
                                                             2001       2000        1999
                                                             ----       ----        ----
<S>                                                        <C>         <C>       <C>
Weighted Average shares Outstanding                         2,990       3,049      3,066

Common Stock Equivalents                                       --          --        --

Average Common Shares and Equivalents, Fully Diluted        2,990       3,049      3,066

Net income ($000)                                          $  506      $  972     $  690

Basic Earnings per Share                                   $ 0.17      $ 0.32     $ 0.22

Diluted Earnings per Share                                 $ 0.17      $ 0.32     $ 0.22
</TABLE>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 23, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00410-CV 

DARRELL PERKINS, Appellant 

V. 

VITRUVIAN WEST 2 LLC DBA, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-24-01514-C 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Nowell, and Kennedy 

Opinion by Justice Nowell 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. After appellant failed to respond to 

our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted without 

a reporter’s record and for appellant’s brief to be filed by July 27, 2024. By postcard 

dated July 30, 2024, we informed appellant his brief was overdue and directed 

appellant to file a brief within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so 

would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed a brief nor otherwise corresponded 

with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c). 

240410F.P05 

 

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DARRELL PERKINS, Appellant 

No. 05-24-00410-CV V. 

VITRUVIAN WEST 2 LLC DBA, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-24-01514-

C. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. 

Justices Molberg and Kennedy 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered August 23, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 766 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 111
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 766

                          [Report No. 111-264]

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 23, 2009

    Ms. Matsui, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

    Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time through the 
legislative day of September 24, 2009, for the Speaker to entertain 
motions that the House suspend the rules relating to the bill (H.R. 
3631) to amend title XVIII to provide for the application of a 
consistent Medicare part B premium for all Medicare beneficiaries in a 
budget neutral manner for 2010.
                                                 House Calendar No. 111

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 766

                          [Report No. 111-264]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

      Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 23, 2009

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### Kelly A. WALSH, Petitioner-Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 55980.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 20, 1989.

*866William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Van M. Pounds, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-appellant.

Timothy F. Devereux, Clayton, for petitioner-respondent.

REINHARD, Judge.

Director of Revenue appeals from the trial court’s judgment reinstating petitioner’s driver’s license after trial de novo. We reverse and remand.

Petitioner’s driving privileges were suspended pursuant to § 302.505, RSMo 1986. She filed a petition for trial de novo in the circuit court. The summons indicated the case was assigned to Division 37 of the St. Louis County Circuit Court. Director filed a timely answer and simultaneously requested a change of judge from Judge Quillin who presides in Division 37. On the day the application for change of judge was set to be heard, Judge Quillin denied the application as being “untimely filed.” He then called the case for trial, and when Director announced “not ready,” the court entered judgment for petitioner, reinstating her license.

On appeal, Director contends that the court erred in failing to sustain his application for change of judge. The record is sparse in this case and petitioner has not favored us with a brief. We conclude based on the record before us that the trial court erred in failing to sustain the application. Rule 51.05 provides, in part,

> (a) A change of judge shall be ordered in any civil action upon the filing of a written application therefor by any party or by his agent or attorney. The application need not allege or prove any cause for such change of judge and need not be verified.

> (b) The application must be filed within thirty days after the answer is due to be filed if the trial judge is designated at the time the answer is due....

Here, Director filed his application on the same day he filed his answer, well within the time limit imposed by Rule 51.05(b); the application was therefore timely filed. Upon the filing of the application, Director was entitled to a change of judge, Rule 51.05(a), and the court, upon presentation of the application, was required promptly to sustain it. Rule 51.05(e). Once the application was filed, the court had no power to take further action in the case. *Natural Bridge Development Co. v. St. Louis County Water Co.,*563 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Mo.App.1978).

The cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to set aside the order reinstating petitioner’s driver’s license and to sustain Director’s application for change of judge.

Reversed and remanded.

CRANDALL, P.J., and CRIST, J., concur.
Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Joye Vaught,

Defendant.

 CR-2018-0422-SMB

MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR MS. 

VAUGHT APPEAR BY PHONE OR 

VIDEOCONFERENCING AT JULY 

27, 2023 HEARING 

NOW COMES the Defendant, Joye Vaught, by and through her counsel of 

record, Joy Bertrand, to ask this Court for leave for her to appear by phone or 

video conferencing at the July 27, 2023 final pretrial hearing in this matter. As 

further grounds therefore, the Defendant submits the following:

Like Andrew Padilla, Ms. Vaught lives in the Dallas, Texas area. Roundtrial airfare to Phoenix and lodging would cost approximately $1,100 before 

ground transportation – a considerable expense for Ms. Vaught, who remains 

indigent. 

The Court will find attached a proposed Order.

Joy Bertrand, Esq.

PO Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252-2734

Telephone: 602-374-5321

Fax: 480-361-4694

joyous@mailbag.com

www.joybertrandlaw.com

Arizona State Bar No. 024181

ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1647 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 3
Page 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on July 25, 2023.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1647 Filed 07/25/23 Page 2 of 3
Page 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On July 25, 2023, I, Joy Bertrand, attorney for the Defendant, Joye Vaught, 

filed the Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Appear by Phone at July 25, 2023 

Hearing with the Arizona District Court’s electronic filing system. Based on my 

training and experience with electronic filing in the federal courts, it is my 

understanding that a copy of this request will be electronically served upon

opposing counsel and codefendant counsel upon its submission to the Court.

Respectfully submitted this 25th day of July, 2023.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1647 Filed 07/25/23 Page 3 of 3
----

Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATIONS OF CFO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Aloysius (Ken) Kow, certify that

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Drucker Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge the financial statements and other financial information included in this report fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of and for the periods presented in this report;

4.  I, the registrant’s certifying officer, am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  I, the registrant’s certifying officer, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, have disclosed to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)  All deficiencies and weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

October 15, 2008

/s/ Aloysius (Ken) Kow
Advanced BioMedical Technologies, Inc. 10-Q








Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanced BioMedical Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, Wang Hui, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)           The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Dated this 17th day of March 2011./s/ Wang HuiWang Hui, Director and Chief Executive Officer
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Timothy J. Eckstein, 018321 

Joseph Roth, 025725 

Sarah P. Lawson, 036436 

OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 

2929 North Central Avenue, 20th Floor 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793 

(602) 640-9000 

teckstein@omlaw.com 

jroth@omlaw.com

slawson@omlaw.com

Attorneys for James Larkin 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

 

vs. 

James Larkin,

 Defendant. 

Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-DJH-2 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Osborn Maledon, P.A., by and through Timothy J. Eckstein, Joseph N. Roth, and 

Sarah P. Lawson, gives notice of its appearance as counsel for defendant James Larkin 

in the above captioned matter. 

DATED this 13th day of December, 2022. 

OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 

By /s/ Timothy J. Eckstein 

Timothy J. Eckstein 

Joseph Roth 

Sarah P. Lawson 

2929 North Central, 20th Floor 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794 

Attorneys for James Larkin 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1509 Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on December 13, 2022, the attached document was 

electronically transmitted to the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which will 

send notification of such filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all 

CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance as counsel of record. 

/s/ Timothy J. Eckstein 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1509 Filed 12/13/22 Page 2 of 2
#### Snyder, d. b. a. Superior Confection Co., *v.*City of Alliance et al.

(No. 23176

Decided November 4, 1931.)

*Messrs. Hart, Drukenbrod & McHenry*and *Mr. Joseph McGhee,*for plaintiff in error.

*666It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Matthias, Day and Kinkade, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF


GREENLIGHT CAPITAL RE, LTD.





This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the ‘‘Form 10-Q’’) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 of Greenlight Capital Re, Ltd. (the ‘‘Issuer’’).





I, Leonard Goldberg, the Principal Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:





1. the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and





2.the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.





Dated: November 2, 2009

/s/ Leonard GoldbergLeonard Goldberg
ORDER VACATING AND REMANDING 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

BOWMAN LAIR, LLC, 

Appellant, 

VS. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

Respondent. 

No. 68581 

FILED 

JUN 17 2 016 

This is an appeal from a district court order granting a motion 

to dismiss in a quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark 

County; Carolyn Ellsworth, Judge. 

Having considered the parties' arguments, we conclude that 

dismissal of the underlying matter based on issue preclusion was improper 

because the April 22, 2013, order in a previous case did not accurately 

reflect that judge's reasoning.' In particular, the record demonstrates that 

the judge who entered the April 2013 order orally indicated she did not 

intend to dismiss the previous case on its merits, but only based on 

appellant's pending bankruptcy petition. Thus, the issue of whether Wells 

Fargo's deed of trust was extinguished by Butler Estates' foreclosure sale 

was not actually and necessarily litigated in the previous case. See Five 

Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (2008) 

(setting forth the elements of issue preclusion). Because dismissal of the 

'The April 2013 order in the previous case was entered by thenDistrict Judge Abbi Silver. District Judge Carolyn Ellsworth presided 

over the underlying matter. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A ),-{q()-i9 
underlying matter based on issue preclusion was improper, and because 

the district court in the underlying matter did not address the parties' 

remaining arguments, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

flx; 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge 

Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. 

Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Tucson 

Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A nefe.
#### Thatcher *v.*Winters et al.

(No. 23141

Decided November 4, 1931.)

*Mr. Silas E. Hurin*and *Mr. Charles P. Carroll,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Martin S. Dodd*and *Mr. Gerald P. Open-lander,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen and Robinson, JJ., concur.

Kinkade, J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                          14,323
<SECURITIES>                                    20,746
<RECEIVABLES>                                      512
<ALLOWANCES>                                        88
<INVENTORY>                                        811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,452
<PP&E>                                          17,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,067)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,523
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           184
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,132
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,914
<SALES>                                         13,162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,380
<CGS>                                           10,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,497)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,497)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,497)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.74)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Corillian Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-72652, 333-55176, 333-35448 and 333-111447) on Form S-8 of Corillian
Corporation of our report dated January 30, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Corillian Corporation as of December 31, 2002 and
2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2003, which report appears in the Corillian Corporation Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.



/s/ KPMG LLP


Portland, Oregon
March 24, 2004
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-34502, 333-42844, 333-49032, 333-60156 and
333-83506) of Chordiant Software, Inc. of our report dated February 1, 2002,
except as to Note 20 which is as of March 28, 2002, relating to the financial
statements, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
March 28, 2002