alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12-1267

___________ Jeffrey Bowman, also known as * Jeffery Bowman, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Michael Bowersox; Jeff Norman; Joe * Hoffmeister; Correctional Medical * [UNPUBLISHED] Services; Dr. Elizabeth J. Conley; J. * Cofield; Dr. Jihad Ibrahim; Dr. * Vermilyea; Dr. Hauenstein; Renee * Todaro; Wanda Laramore; Edie * McDaniel, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 11, 2012 Filed: April 16, 2012

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
In this interlocutory appeal, Jeffrey Bowman challenges two district court orders that granted a defendant’s motion for leave to answer the complaint out of time, and denied Bowman’s motion to compel discovery, his motion for default judgment, his motion to reconsider his motion to compel, and his motion for appointment ofcounsel. We grant Bowman leave to pr oceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Henderson v. Norris , 129 F.3d 481, 483-85 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).
We have jurisdiction to review only the ruling denying the motion for appointment of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291-1292 (gran ting jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions, specified interlocutory decisions, and certified controlling legal questions ); Tenkku v. Normandy Bank , 218 F.3d 926, 928 (8th Cir. 2000) (collateral-order doctrin e allows interlocutory app eal when appealed decision conclusively determined disputed questi on, resolved important issue completely separate from merits, and is effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment); Slaughter v. City of Maplewood , 731 F.2d 587, 588-89 (8th Cir. 1984) (denial of motion for appointment of counsel is immediately appealable in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under collateral-order doctrine). We ar e to review the denial of counsel for abuse of discretion, see Reynolds v. Dormire , 636 F.3d 976, 978 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011), but here the district court did not expl ain why it denied Bowman’s motion, seeSours v. Norris , 782 F.2d 106, 107 (8th Cir. 1986) (d istrict court must provide enough reasoning for denying counsel motion to allow court of appeals to determine whether it abused its discretion).
Accordingly, we remand for the limited purpose of obtaining the district court’s reasons for denying Bowman’s motion for appointment of counsel, and we retain jurisdiction so that we may then make our determination. SeeSlaughter , 731 F.2d at 590 & n.2.

______________________________

-2-
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 169 (Friday, August 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19916]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Category A and B Pathogens.
    Date: September 18, 2008.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Lucy A. Ward, DVM, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramual 
Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-6635, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0acb7a1b2a480aea9a1a9a4eeaea9a8eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c706b7d6e785c72757d757832727574327b736a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 21, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-19916 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 11
                                        
                      SPARTECH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
                                        
                                 QUARTER ENDED      SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                 May 2,    May 3,    May 2,    May 3,
                                 1998      1997      1998      1997

NET EARNINGS
  Basic and diluted
    net earnings                $  8,863  $  6,675  $ 15,884  $ 12,153

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES
 OUTSTANDING
  Basic weighted average common
   shares outstanding             26,764    26,387    26,611    26,385
  Add:  Shares issuable from
   assumed exercise of options     1,964     1,370     1,834     1,362

  Diluted weighted average        28,728    27,757    28,445    27,747
   shares outstanding


NET EARNINGS PER SHARE

  Basic                         $    .33  $    .25  $    .60  $    .46
  Diluted                       $    .31  $    .24  $    .56  $    .44
EXHIBIT 11

                   PCA INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    COMPUTATION OF PRlMARY AND FULLY DILUTED
                           EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Three Months Ended         Nine Months Ended
                                                       October 27,    October 29,   October 27,  October 29,
                                                          1996          1995           1996         1995   
<S>                                                         <C>        <C>            <C>         <C>       
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:
 EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK:
  Net income............................................  $  641,112  $ 1,677,469     $2,012,187  $2,726,972

 COMPUTATlON OF COMMON SHARES AND
  COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES:
   Weighted average number of common shares.............   7,556,349    7,476,683      7,498,032   7,680,476
   Dilutive effect of stock options.....................     575,572      553,867        521,646     468,751
   Weighted average number of common shares after
    dilutive effect.....................................   8,131,921    8,030,550      8,019,678   8,149,227

 EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE AND COMMON
  EQUIVALENT SHARE:

   Net income...........................................  $     0.08  $      0.21     $     0.25  $     0.33

FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:
 EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK:
  Net income............................................  $  641,112  $ 1,677,469     $2,012,187  $2,726,972

 COMPUTATION OF COMMON SHARES AND
  COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES:
   Weighted average number of common shares outstanding.   7,556,349    7,476,683      7,498,032   7,680,476
   Dilutive effect of stock options.....................     576,027      554,027        648,973    556,142
   Weighted average number of common shares after 
    dilutive effect....................................    8,132,376    8,030,710      8,147,005   8,236,618

EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE AND COMMON
EQUIVALENT SHARE ASSUMING FULL DILUTION:

   Net income...........................................     $  0.08       $ 0.21         $ 0.25    $   0.33


</TABLE>

                                       13
<PAGE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

No. 1D19-1194

_____________________________ 

MICAH LAMB, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondent. 

_____________________________ 

Petition for Writ of Mandamus—Original Jurisdiction. 

August 5, 2019 

PER CURIAM. 

The amended petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the 

merits. 

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________ 
2 

Micah Lamb, pro se, Petitioner. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                       10,021
<SECURITIES>                                 16,511
<RECEIVABLES>                                33,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                    610
<INVENTORY>                                  33,452
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             94,812
<PP&E>                                      133,942
<DEPRECIATION>                               56,802
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              175,684
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        19,094
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         90
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  148,024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                175,684
<SALES>                                      93,037
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             93,559
<CGS>                                        63,580
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                81,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              12,523
<INCOME-TAX>                                  4,202
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           8,321
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  8,321
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.96


</TABLE>
The Honor able Jerome F arr is, Circuit J udg e of the United States Court of Appea ls for * the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0437n.06 F iled: July 22, 2008 No. 07-5878 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
J OHNSON CONTROL S, I NC., Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. CA RO L YNTH OM AS, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

B e fo re : D AU GH TRE Y, CO OK , a nd F ARRI S, Cir c uit

Judg e s. *
PE R C U RIA M
. Jo h n s o nCo n tr o ls , In c . , f il e d th is a c ti o ns e e k in gto d e c la r e it s former employ ee, Caroly

n Thomas, inelig ible for wor kers’ compensation. The district court dismissed the complaint beca

use Thomas a lrea dy

initiated state-cour

t proce eding s seekingbenef its from J ohnson Controls. W e af

firm the dis trict court’s judgment but not its rea soning inasmuch as i t gr ounded the dismiss al on Colorad

o R iv e r abstention when it should have invoked its Decla ratory -Judgment-Ac t discretion. See W

ilton v. Seven Falls Co. , 51 5 U. S. 2 77 , 2 86 (1 99 5) (h old ingthat Colorado River abstention is inapplicable to ac tions requestingdecla ratory relief ).
I t su ff ic e s f or dis po sit ion

of thi s a pp e a l to say

that th e di st ri c t c ourt

a c te d w e ll w ith in i tsNo. 07-5878

Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Thomas

- 2 - discretion in de clining to de cide this issue of an employ ee’ s rig ht to state worke rs’ compensation benef its. See id. ; se e als o Sc ott sd ale In s. Co. v . F

low e rs , 513 F.3d 546, 554 (6th Cir. 2008)
. Such
a ca se has no business in fe dera l court, par ticularly afte r the state court has r eac hed a de cision inconsistent with the reque sted fede ral re lief. Johns on Controls cited not one ex ample of a fede ral court e ntertainingthe merits of a state workers’ compensation claim. And whe n confr onted at ora l argument with th e fr ivolous nature of this ca se—and w orse yet, this appea l—appellant’s c ounsel fa ile d to of

fe r any te na

ble jus tif ic atio n, e ve n wh e n g ive n the op po rt un ity to de fe nd

a g a ins t su a s

po nte sanctions with a post-ar g ument brief.
We a ff ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt d ism iss ingthe c omp la int
.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 606 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 606

To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 1995

 Mr. Hall of Ohio (for himself, Mr. Hobson, and Mr. Regula) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 201(b) of 
the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-
419, approved October 16, 1992), is amended as follows:
            (1) In paragraph (2), by striking ``from recommendations'' 
        and inserting ``after consideration of recommendations''.
            (2) In paragraph (4), by striking ``from recommendations'' 
        and inserting ``after consideration of recommendations''.
            (3) In paragraph (5), by striking ``from recommendations'' 
        and inserting ``after consideration of recommendations''.
            (4) In paragraph (6), by striking ``from recommendations'' 
        and inserting ``after consideration of recommendations''.
            (5) In paragraph (7), by striking ``from recommendations'' 
        and inserting ``after consideration of recommendations''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31(b)****RULE 13a — 14(a)/15d — 14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Henry G. Schopher, III., Chief Financial Officer of Peerless Mfg. Co., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peerless Mfg. Co.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.                                                        /s/   Henry G. Schopfer, III   Henry G. Schopfer, III   Chief Financial Officer
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 Annual Report of Middle Kingdom Alliance Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bernard J. Tanenbaum III, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the period certified.



|                            
|----------------------------
|                            
|/s/ Bernard J. Tanenbaum III
|Bernard J. Tanenbaum III    
|Chief Executive Officer     

May 14, 2009
Exhibit 12


    PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                        TOTAL ENTERPRISE

        Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                                            Millions of Dollars
                                         ------------------------
                                             Nine Months Ended
                                                September 30
                                         ------------------------
                                           2001              2000
                                         ------------------------
                                                (Unaudited)
Earnings Available for Fixed Charges
  Income before income taxes             $2,942             2,368
  Distributions less than equity in
    earnings of fifty-percent-or-less-
    owned companies                         (28)             (120)
  Fixed charges, excluding capitalized
    interest*                               328               348
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                         $3,242             2,596
=================================================================

Fixed Charges
  Interest and expense on indebtedness,
    excluding capitalized interest       $  240               259
  Capitalized interest                      170               119
  Preferred dividend requirements of
    capital trusts                           40                40
  Interest portion of rental expense         32                36
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                         $  482               454
=================================================================
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges          6.7               5.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*Includes amortization of capitalized interest totaling
 approximately $16 million and $13 million in 2001 and 2000,
 respectively.


Earnings available for fixed charges include, if any, the
company's equity in losses of companies owned fifty percent or
less that have debt for which the company is contingently liable.
Fixed charges include the company's proportionate share, if any,
of interest relating to the contingent debt.

In 1990, the company guaranteed a $400 million bank loan for the
Long-Term Stock Savings Plan (LTSSP), an employee benefit plan.
Consolidated interest expense includes a minimal amount of
interest attributable to the LTSSP borrowing in both the first
nine months of 2001 and 2000.


<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Penn-Pacific  Corp., on Form
10-QSB for the quarter  ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),  the  undersigned,  Rose
Fischer,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Principal  Accounting  Officer  of the
Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


Date: June 26, 2007



/s/ Rose Fischer
Rose Fischer
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.