alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          EXHIBIT 11


                              ORION CAPITAL CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                      (UNAUDITED)
                   (000s omitted - except for per common share data)


                                               Three Months Ended    Six Months Ended
                                                    June 30,             June 30,
                                               ------------------    ----------------
                                                  1997     1996        1997     1996
                                                  ----     ----        ----     ----
<S>                                             <C>      <C>         <C>      <C>
Computation of weighted average number of 
  common and equivalent shares outstanding:

 PRIMARY -

  Weighted average number of shares
    outstanding .............................    27,299   27,324      27,302   27,477      
  Dilutive effect of stock options and stock
    awards ..................................       504      374         499      369      
                                                -------  -------     -------  -------
  Weighted average number of common and                
    equivalent shares .......................    27,803   27,698      27,801   27,846      
                                                =======  =======     =======  =======
Net earnings attributable to common
  stockholders ..............................   $25,381  $20,573     $54,859  $38,460      
                                                =======  =======     =======  =======
Net earnings per common share ...............   $   .91  $   .74     $  1.97  $  1.38      
                                                =======  =======     =======  =======

FULLY DILUTED 

  Weighted average number of shares 
    outstanding .............................    27,299   27,324      27,302   27,477      
  Dilutive effect of stock options and stock
    awards ..................................       556      415         525      390      
                                                -------  -------     -------  -------
  Weighted average number of common and
    equivalent shares .......................    27,855   27,739      27,827   27,867      
                                                =======  =======     =======  =======
Net earnings attributable to common 
  stockholders ..............................   $25,381  $20,573     $54,859  $38,460      
                                                =======  =======     =======  =======
Net earnings per common share ...............   $   .91  $   .74     $  1.97  $  1.38      
                                                =======  =======     =======  =======







                                         Page 25
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7958
KENNETH FRANKLIN BELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusLIEUTENANT MCCULLION; MEDICAL STAFF, Cumberland County Jail; OFFICIALS, Cumberland County Jail, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-150-CT-BR) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Franklin Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bell v. McCullion , No. CA-95-150-CT-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

P.M., 

 Respondent 

 v. 

K.W., 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 679 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
NO. 07-06-0170-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	JULY 13, 2006

	______________________________

	JUAN RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

	NO. 17512-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	ORDER ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Juan Rodriguez appeals a judgment of conviction rendered by the 47th District Court of Randall County.   The clerk’s record, which, after extension of the due date, was due no later than July 10, 2006, has not been received.  On June 12, 2006, this court was notified by the district clerk that appellant had not paid or made arrangements to pay for the record. By letter, appellant’s counsel was directed to certify to the clerk of this court on or before June 19, 2006, in writing, whether Rule 35.3(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure had been complied with; if so, the date of compliance, and if not, a reasonable explanation for non-compliance.  No response to the court’s letter has been received.  We, therefore, abate the appeal and remand the cause to the 47th District Court of Randall County.  The judge of said court is ordered to convene a hearing (after notice to appellant and other parties in interest) to determine the following matters:

	1.	Whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal;

	2.	if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal then whether appellant is indigent;

	3.	whether appellant is entitled to a clerk’s record and reporter’s record, without charge to appellant;

	4.	whether appellant is entitled to appointed counsel;

	5.	if appellant has counsel, whether appellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel arising from the delay encountered in prosecuting this appeal; and

	6.	what orders, if any, should be entered to assure the filing of appropriate notices and documentation to dismiss appellant’s appeal if appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, or if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, to assure that the clerk’s record will be promptly filed and that the appeal will be diligently pursued. 

	If the court determines that appellant is indigent and has been denied the effective assistance of counsel, we order it to appoint counsel for appellant.

	We next order the court to cause a supplemental clerk’s record to be developed. The supplemental clerk’s record shall include 1) a transcription of the hearing convened to answer the questions itemized above, 2) findings of fact and conclusions of law answering the questions itemized above, 3) the name, state bar number, and address of any counsel appointed to represent appellant, and 4) all orders made in accordance with this opinion.  We further order the court to cause the supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before August 14, 2006.  Should additional time be needed to comply with this order, the district court may request the same on or before August 14, 2006.

						Per Curiam

Do not publish.
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   Exhibit 12

COMPUTATION OF TOTAL DEBT TO TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
(Unaudited; dollars in thousands)



                                                    March 31,       December 31,
                                                      1997              1996
                                                      ----              ----

Short-term debt                                    $   62,900            66,500
Current portion of long-term debt                      51,700            38,200
Long-term debt                                        531,800           554,600
                                                   ----------        ----------
   Total debt                                         646,400           659,300
Minority interests in subsidiaries                     87,600            85,500
Common shareholders' equity                         2,754,700         2,755,900
                                                   ----------        ----------
   Total capitalization                            $3,488,700         3,500,700
                                                   ==========        ==========

Ratio of total debt to total
 capitalization                                         18.5%             18.8%
                                                   ==========        ==========
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6242 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6242

     To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that 
    limitations on the scope of judicial review of certain removal 
proceedings apply only in the case of discretionary determinations, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2021

   Ms. Tlaib (for herself, Mr. Grijalva, and Mr. Johnson of Georgia) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that 
    limitations on the scope of judicial review of certain removal 
proceedings apply only in the case of discretionary determinations, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Family Unity Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. NARROWING OF LIMITATIONS ON THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF 
              CERTAIN REMOVAL ACTIONS.

    Section 242(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1252(g)) is amended by striking ``or claim by or on behalf of any alien 
arising from the decision or action'' and inserting ``or claim by or on 
behalf of any alien challenging the discretionary decision or action''.
                                 <all>
```
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   Exhibit 12

COMPUTATION OF TOTAL DEBT TO TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
(Unaudited; dollars in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           June 30,            December 31,
                                            1998                  1997
                                            ----                  ----
<S>                                      <C>                   <C> 
Short-term debt                          $      87.8                 91.4
Current portion of long-term debt               65.2                 54.8
Long-term debt                                 831.7                857.1
                                          ----------           ----------
   Total debt                                  984.7              1,003.3
Minority interests in subsidiaries              95.6                113.3
Common shareholders' equity                  2,621.4              2,510.4
                                          ----------           ----------
   Total capitalization                  $   3,701.7              3,627.0
                                          ==========           ==========
Ratio of total debt to total
 capitalization                                26.6%                27.7%
                                          ==========           ==========
</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Almadoro Minerals Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ending January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ken Ralfs, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to s.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 the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.













/s/
Ken Ralfs


Ken
Ralfs




Chief
Executive Officer






June 6,
2008









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 Annual Report of Almadoro Minerals Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ken Ralfs, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to s.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 the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.













/s/
Ken Ralfs


Ken
Ralfs


Chief
Financial Officer




June 6,
2008
#### DELATOUR v. RISPOLI POULTRY, Inc., et al.

No. 16187.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 17, 1937.

John H. Hammel, Jr., of New Orleans, for mover.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee moves to dismiss this suspensive appeal on the ground that the appellant has not furnished sufficient surety on the appeal bond. Counsel for appellant has filed no brief.

The record shows that the plaintiff was awarded judgment against defendant in the sum of $183.50 and that defendant obtained an order for a suspensive appeal and furnished bond. Plaintiff-appellee, by rule, tested the sufficiency of the surety and obtained a judgment holding the surety deficient. Within the four days permitted by Act No. 284 of 1928, a second bond was furnished and a rule was again taken to test the surety. The court again held the surety insufficient. Defendant-appellant thereupon applied to this court for a writ of prohibition to prevent the issuance of execution under the judgment and also for an alternative writ of certiorari praying that we hold the surety sufficient. We refused to grant the writs prayed for.

That the trial court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of testing the surety on the appeal bond is the necessary result of the application of the statute which we have referred to and is well settled. See Mundy v. Phillips, 157 La. 445, 102 So. 519. The law is settled that, in such sitúation as is presented here, the appeal musí be dismissed because of the holding below that the surety on the appeal bond is insufficient. See Menefee Motor Co. v. Pique, 17 La.App. 431, 136 So. 224, 225, ahd American Brick Co. v. Tulane Investment Co., 11 La.App. 173, 123 So. 160. In the Menefee Motor Company Case we said:

> “It would appear from the foregoing that where a defective or insufficient bond has been given the party furnishing it is allowed an opportunity to substitute a proper bond. But, if the second bond proves to be defective, the furnisher of the bond shall not thereafter be permitted to give any additional bond.”

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal be and it is dismissed at the cost of appellant.

Appeal dismissed.
|                       |   |                         |   |                       |
|----------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
| Direct Subsidiary          |   | Jurisdiction of Organization |   | Does Business As           |
| PBI Bank                   |   | Kentucky                     |   | PBI Bank                   |
| Asencia Statutory Trust I  |   | Connecticut                  |   | Asencia Statutory Trust I  |
| Porter Statutory Trust II  |   | Connecticut                  |   | Porter Statutory Trust II  |
| Porter Statutory Trust III |   | Connecticut                  |   | Porter Statutory Trust III |
| Porter Statutory Trust IV  |   | Connecticut                  |   | Porter Statutory Trust IV  |
| PBIB Corporation, Inc.     |   | Kentucky                     |   | PBIB Corporation, Inc.     |

|                                          |   |                         |   |                                          |   |          |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|---------------|
| Indirect Subsidiary                           |   | Jurisdiction of Organization |   | Does Business As                              |   | Parent Entity |
| PBI Title Services, LLC                       |   | Kentucky                     |   | PBI Title Services, LLC                       |   | PBI Bank      |
| Durham-Mudd Insurance  Agency, Inc. |   | Kentucky                     |   | Durham-Mudd Insurance  Agency, Inc. |   | PBI Bank      |
|                                          |   |                         |   |                                          |   |          |
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the  reference  to our firm under the  caption  "Selected
financial  data"  and to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statements  on Form S-8 (Nos.  33-81044,  333-19753,  333-59902,  333-74197  and
333-86728)  (pertaining to the 1991 Qualified Stock Option Plan, the Amended and
Restated 1993 Stock Option and Restricted  Stock Purchase Plan, the 1995 Amended
and Restated  Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan and the 1998 Non-Executive
Employee  Stock Option and  Restricted  Stock  Purchase Plan) and Form S-3 (Nos.
333-95361,  333-33986,  333-37630,  333-45818,  333-49628, 333-59346, 333-63514,
333-99559,  and 333-99673) of our report dated February 27, 2003 with respect to
the consolidated  financial  statements of Electric Fuel Corporation for each of
the three years  included in the period ended December 31, 2002 included in this
amended Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2002.



                                                 /S/    KOST FORER & GABBAY
                                               --------------------------------
                                                        Kost Forer & Gabbay
                                               A Member of Ernst & Young Global



Tel-Aviv, Israel
May 8, 2003

<PAGE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 632 

To provide limitations on maritime liens on fishing permits, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2021 

Mr. YOUNG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide limitations on maritime liens on fishing permits, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Maritime Lien Reform 

5 Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON MARITIME LIENS ON FISHING PER7 MIT AND PERMIT DESCRIPTION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter I of chapter 313 of 

9 title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

10 end the following: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 632 IH

1 ‘‘§ 31310. Limitation on maritime liens on fishing per2 mit and permit description 

3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—This chapter— 

4 ‘‘(1) does not establish a maritime lien on a 

5 permit that— 

6 ‘‘(A) authorizes a person or use of a vessel 

7 to engage in fishing; and 

8 ‘‘(B) is issued under State or Federal law; 

9 and 

10 ‘‘(2) does not authorize any civil action to en11 force a maritime lien on such a permit. 

12 ‘‘(b) TREATMENT OF FISHING PERMITS.—A fishing 

13 permit— 

14 ‘‘(1) is governed solely by the State or Federal 

15 law under which it was issued; and 

16 ‘‘(2) is not included in the whole of a vessel or 

17 as an appurtenance or intangible of a vessel for any 

18 purpose. 

19 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.— 

20 Nothing in subsections (a) and (b) shall be construed as 

21 imposing any limitation upon the authority of the Sec22 retary of Commerce to modify, suspend, revoke, or sanc23 tion any Federal fishery permit issued by the Secretary 

24 of Commerce or to bring a civil action to enforce such 

25 modification, suspension, revocation, or sanction.’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 632 IH

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

2 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

3 after the item relating to section 31309 the following: 

‘‘31310. Limitation on maritime liens on fishing permit and permit description.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
NO. SCPW-11-0000741
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
MICHAEL J. MATSUKAWA, Petitioner,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI # I 2011 REAPPORTIONMENT COMMISSION; and SCOTT NAGO, CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER, STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

AND JUDICIAL REVIEW (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus and judicial review filed by petitioner Michael J. Matsukawa, the answer by respondents 2011 State of Hawai # i Reapportionment Commission and the Chief Election Officer, and oral argument, we conclude that the 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan is constitutionally invalid. The Hawai # i Constitution, article IV, section 4, expressly mandates that only permanent residents be counted in the population base for the purpose of reapportionment. The 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan disregards this constitutional mandate by including non-permanent residents Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-11-0000741 04-JAN-2012 03:05 PMin the population base that the Reapportionment Commission used

to allocate the members of the state legislature among the basic island units. Therefore, pursuant to our power under the Hawai # i Constitution, article IV, section 10, to correct any error in a reapportionment plan,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus and judicial review is granted. The 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan for the state legislature is hereby invalidated. The 2011 State of Hawai # i Reapportionment Commission shall prepare and file a new reapportionment plan that: (1) allocates the members of the state legislature among the basic island units by using a permanent resident population base, and then (2) apportions the members among the districts therein as provided by article IV, section 6. The Chief Election Officer shall rescind the publication of the 2011 Final Reapportionment Plan for the state legislature. An opinion will
follow. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 4, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

2