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

                                                                      Exhibit 11


                                  RDO EQUIPMENT CO.
                          COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended April 30
(In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts) (Unaudited)          1997          1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>            <C>
Net income                                                 $   2,379      $   1,598
                                                           ---------      ---------
                                                           ---------      ---------


Weighted average number of shares outstanding                 13,180          8,370

Dilutive effect of shares for which proceeds were
necessary to fund the $15 million distribution of
accumulated S corporation earnings                               ---          1,059

Dilutive effect of stock options outstanding                      46            ---
                                                           ---------      ---------

Weighted average number of shares outstanding                 13,226          9,429
                                                           ---------      ---------
                                                           ---------      ---------


Net income per share                                       $    0.18      $    0.17
                                                           ---------      ---------
                                                           ---------      ---------
</TABLE>



                                          14
23

B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of total non-real-estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1997...... 93 6 19 19 50 .230 .014 .049 .045 .112

1998...... 87 4 15 24 45 .198 .008 .036 .051 .095

1999...... 126 18 37 35 36 .280 .040 .086 .078 .080

2000...... 108 11 17 34 45 .259 .027 .041 .075 .098

2001...... 308 67 53 140 48 .656 .142 .118 .294 .101

2002...... 221 40 50 58 73 .471 .085 .114 .124 .157

2003...... 175 34 35 48 58 .382 .074 .080 .108 .128

2004...... 129 28 17 46 38 .284 .062 .039 .099 .081

2005...... 59 8 16 12 24 .124 .017 .035 .026 .048

2006...... 73 9 7 23 34 .146 .018 .015 .045 .064

2007...... 90 8 13 23 47 .170 .014 .025 .042 .085

2008...... n.a. 12 20 n.a. n.a. n.a. .022 .037 n.a. n.a.

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude

foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks that

are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data

are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
203 La. 1032

#### STATE v. POOLE.

No. 37073.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1943.

L. G. Campbell, of Benton, for appellant.

Eugene Stanley, Atty. Gen., Niels F. Hertz, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and A. M. Wallace, Dist. Atty., of Benton, for the State.

ODOM, Justice.

The defendant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to serve two years at hard labor in the State Penitentiary. He appealed.

There is only one bill of exception in the record. After conviction and before sentence, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the sole ground that “The verdict rendered herein is contrary to the law and evidence tendered on the trial of the said cause”. The motion was overruled by the judge, who stated in his per curiam that the evidence “fully justified the verdict”.

A bill of exception reserved to the overruling of a motion for a new trial on the sole ground that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for review. If any question can be settled by jurisprudence, this one is settled. Citation of the numerous cases so holding — or of any of them— would be a waste of space in the books.

The verdict and sentence are affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of SPO Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Michael Braunold, 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.


April 11, 2006                                          /s/ Michael Braunold
                                                        --------------------
                                                        Michael Braunold
                                                        Chief Executive Officer

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO SPO MEDICAL INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY SPO MEDICAL INC. AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 08-cr-99-01-SM

Joel Gordon

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 14) is

granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the April 2009 trial period. Defendant shall

file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than February 17, 2009. On the filing

of such waiver, his continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into

account the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:08-cr-00099-SM Document 15 Filed 02/03/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: April 14, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Jury Selection: April 21, 2009 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

February 3, 2009 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00099-SM Document 15 Filed 02/03/09 Page 2 of 2
H. R. 1374

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 600 Calumet

Street in Lake Linden, Michigan, as the ‘‘Philip E. Ruppe Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Philip E. Ruppe Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Philip

E. Ruppe Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### In the Matter of Antoine P., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 882]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (O’Donoghue, J.), dated April 7, 2005, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated January 13, 2005, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the third degree and attempted assault in the third degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and conditionally discharged him and directed that he comply with certain conditions for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated January 13, 2005.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see Matter of David H.,*69 NY2d 792 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the third degree and attempted assault in the third degree *(see Matter of Stafford B.,*187 AD2d 649, 650 [1992]; *cf. People v*
      *615
      *Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see Matter of Dennis G.,*294 AD2d 501 [2002]; *Matter of Stafford B., supra; cf. People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see Matter of Dennis G., supra; Matter of Stafford B., supra; cf. People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence *(cf.*CPL 470.15 [5]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1799

To designate a United States Post Office located in Nathalie, Virginia, as

the ‘‘Lewis F. Payne United States Post Office’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 10, 2001

Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. TOM DAVIS of

Virginia, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of

Virginia, Mr. WOLF, Mr. SCOTT, and Mr. BOUCHER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate a United States Post Office located in Nathalie,

Virginia, as the ‘‘Lewis F. Payne United States Post Office’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The United States Post Office lo5 cated at 2663 Rockfish Valley Highway in Nathalie, Vir6 ginia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lewis F.

7 Payne United States Post Office’’.

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
2

•HR 1799 IH

1 States to the post office referred to in subsection (a) shall

2 be deemed a reference to the ‘‘Lewis F. Payne United

3 States Post Office’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Presby Environmental, Inc.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00434-JL

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.

 PROCEDURAL ORDER

On or before May 11, 2009, the parties shall jointly file:

• a single timeline setting forth all pertinent dates and

events, in whatever format the parties jointly choose

(in other words, the parties need not comply with Local

Rule 5.1(a) with respect to the timeline);

• a single Statement of Agreed Facts followed by a

Statement of Disputed Facts. The disputed facts are

not an invitation to advocacy (i.e., "The plaintiff can

not establish irreparable harm because.....” or "There

is a strong likelood of success on the merits

because....”). The parties should simply list facts

they intend to establish at the hearing, or which they

contend will not be established at the hearing. 

On or before May 11, 2009, each party shall file:

• a witness list; and

• an exhibit list.

Counsel shall confer before the hearing to identify all

areas of agreement and disagreement as to the admissibility of

each exhibit. 

On or before May 11, 2009, the plaintiff shall file a

proposed proposed order in compliance with Rule 65 and Local Rule

65.1. The order shall specifically address the amount of the

bond required under Rule 65(c). 

Case 1:08-cv-00434-JL Document 23 Filed 04/10/09 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: April 10, 2009

cc: David W. Rayment, Esq.

Walter B. Pribis, Esq.

Teresa C. Tucker, Esq.

Scott C. Walker, Esq.

Daniel J. Mullen, Esq.

Emily E. Root, Esq.

Keith Shumate, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00434-JL Document 23 Filed 04/10/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Luis Caraballo

v. Case No. 07-cv-172-SM

United States

ORDER

Re: Document No. 1, Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28

U.S.C. § 2255

Ruling: The motion for relief under the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 2255 is denied as the motion, files, and records of the

case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.

The sentence was lawful, jurisdiction is not in doubt, and the

petition does not describe any denial or infringement of

petitioner’s constitutional rights.

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: June 18, 2007

cc: Luis Caraballo, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00172-SM Document 3 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 1

Caraballo v. USA Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Veronica Wilding-White, et al.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00141-JL

Stanley Convergent Security

Solution, Inc.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

July 21, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. will include a substantive,

meaningful discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. 

Counsel are expected to be prepared to engage in an open,

cooperative discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of

the obligations imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all

matters.

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

Case 1:08-cv-00141-JL Document 18 Filed 07/17/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: July 17, 2008 

cc: David W. Johnston, Esq.

John P. Fagan, Esq.

Arpiar G. Saunders, Jr., Esq.

Christopher A. Duggan, Esq.

Gerard A. Butler, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00141-JL Document 18 Filed 07/17/08 Page 2 of 2
Form of First Amendment, dated as of 1/24/2004, to Executive Employment Contract



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 EXECUTIVE
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 
  
 This First Amendment, dated as of
January 27, 2004, to Executive Employment Contract dated May 1, 2003 (“Employment Contract”), between Huttig Building Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with its principal office located at 555 Maryville University Drive, Suite 240,
St. Louis, Missouri 63141, hereinafter termed “Company”, and Michael A. Lupo, hereinafter termed “Executive”. 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to the Employment Contract which provides for a term of employment continuing until April 30, 2005; and

  
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined
that it is in the best interests of the Company to extend the term of the Employment Contract and has approved the extension of the term of the Employment Contract to December 31, 2005; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the representations, warranties, covenants and agreements contained
herein, the Company and the Executive agree as follows: 
  
 1.
Section 2(a) of the Employment Contract is hereby amended and restated to read as follows: 
  
 “(a) In General. The term of this Employment Contract shall begin on the 1st day of May, 2003 (“Commencement Date”)
and shall continue until December 31, 2005.” 
  
 2. This
Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original but all of which when taken together shall constitute but one contract. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Amendment by facsimile
transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Employment Contract to be executed by its duly authorized officers, and Executive has hereunto set his hand, as of the day and year first-above written. 
  

			
	 COMPANY:
 Huttig Building Products, Inc.

		
	By:	 	 
	 	 	

	 Name:
	 	 
	 Title:
	 	 


  

	
	EXECUTIVE:
	
	 
	

	Michael A. Lupo
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Lucille Clement

v. Case No. 08-cv-384-SM

GE Group Life Assurance Company

O R D E R

TO: Plaintiff, Lucille Clement

Court records indicate the withdrawal of your attorney Vicki S. Roundy, Esq.

You are herewith directed to advise this court by February 17, 2009, of the name of a new

attorney or, in the alternative, of your decision to appear pro se (without counsel). See Local Rule

83.6(b) and (d). Understand that you are under no obligation to retain counsel; you may prosecute

this case yourself.

If no new appearance or other response is received within the time specified, the file will be

referred to a judicial officer for further action, which may include a dismissal of the case.

By the Court,

/s/ Judith A. Barrett

January 26, 2009 _________________________________

Judith Barrett

Deputy Clerk

cc: Lucille Clement

Christopher Flanagan, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00384-SM Document 7 Filed 01/26/09 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. 05-cr-45-PB

Zbigniew May

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the September 7, 2005

trial in the above case. Defendant cites the need for additional

time to engage in further plea negotiations. The government does

not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement or prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from September 7, 2005 to December 6,

2005. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds

pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated

reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a continuance

outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00045-PB Document 11 Filed 08/22/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The August 22, 2005 final pretrial conference is continued

until October 20, 2005 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

August 22, 2005

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00045-PB Document 11 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 09-cr-11-03-PB

Joseph Delgado, et al.

O R D E R

Defendant Felicia Earley, through counsel, has moved to

continue the trial scheduled for March 3, 2009, citing the need

for additional time to complete discovery and prepare for trial

or negotiate a plea agreement. The government and co-defendants

do not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from March 3, 2009 to June 2, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:09-cr-00011-PB Document 28 Filed 02/23/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The February 25, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued

to May 20, 2009 at 2:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 23, 2009

cc: Michael Ramsdell, Esq.

Liam D. Scully, Esq.

John Pendleton, Esq.

Ray Raimo, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:09-cr-00011-PB Document 28 Filed 02/23/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-232-PB

Efrain Perez

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

June 3, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to finalize a plea agreement. The government

does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from June 3, 2008 to July 8, 2008. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00232-PB Document 17 Filed 05/21/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The May 22, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued to

June 26, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 21, 2008

cc: Jessica Brown, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00232-PB Document 17 Filed 05/21/08 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7400** 

MATTHEW ANDERSON , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v.
BERNARD MACKIE; MS. GASQUE , Defendants

– Appellees , and

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SERGEANT LIVINGSTON; SERGEANT CHESTNUT; MAJOR JACKSON; LIEUTENANT GIBSON , Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv
- 01505

- GRA )

Submitted : November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Matthew Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Matthew Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on Anderson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unl ess the district court extends the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 55 1 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
July 14, 2015 . The notice of appeal was filed on
August 31, 2015

. * Because Anderson failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the

ap peal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED