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

                                                                      Exhibit 11

                          NU HORIZONS ELECTRONICS CORP.
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                                   __________



                                             FOR THE YEAR ENDED
                                             ------------------

                                    February      February      February
                                    28, 2002      28, 2001      29, 2000
                                    --------      --------      --------

BASIC EARNINGS:
--------------

Net income                         $ 2,219,676   $35,352,085   $11,698,786
                                   ===========   ===========   ===========

Weighted average number
of common shares outstanding        16,574,911    16,213,084    13,511,345
                                   ===========   ===========   ===========

Basic earnings per common share    $        13   $      2.18   $        87
                                   ===========   ===========   ===========

DILUTED EARNINGS:
----------------

Net income                         $ 2,219,676   $35,352,085   $11,698,786

Net (after tax) interest expense
related to convertible debt                 --            --       332,296
                                   -----------   -----------   -----------

Net income as adjusted             $ 2,219,676   $35,352,085   $12,031,082
                                   ===========   ===========   ===========

SHARES:

Weighted average number of
common shares outstanding           16,574,911    16,213,084    13,511,345

Stock options                          855,421     1,532,991     2,988,906

Assuming conversion of
convertible debt                            --            --     1,047,538
                                   -----------   -----------   -----------

Weighted average number
of common shares outstanding
as adjusted                         17,430,332    17,746,075    17,547,789
                                   ===========   ===========   ===========

DILUTED EARNINGS PER
COMMON SHARE                       $        13   $      1.99   $        67
                                   ===========   ===========   ===========
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST CHARGER CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          59,967
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,995
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   665
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    342,136
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,426,495
<ALLOWANCE>                                     17,339
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,894,317
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,149,512
<SHORT-TERM>                                   213,955
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             25,117
<LONG-TERM>                                    278,021
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        99,905
<OTHER-SE>                                     127,807
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,894,317
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                116,834
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               19,480
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   403
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               136,717
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              44,371
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,898
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           69,448
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,350
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,158
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 45,869
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,442
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      38,442
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,092
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.17
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,738
<LOANS-PAST>                                     3,460
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                15,554
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,915
<RECOVERIES>                                       719
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               17,339
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            17,339
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02260-BNB 

EUGENE DURAN, 

Applicant, 

v. 

PAMELA PLOUGHE, Acting Warden CTCF, and 

JOHN W. SUTHERS, the Attorney General of the State of Colorado, 

Respondents. 

ORDER DRAWING CASE

Upon completion of the court’s review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2C, the

court has determined that this case does not appear to be appropriate for summary

dismissal. Therefore, the case will be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate

judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2D. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate

judge.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 13th day of August , 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Craig B. Shaffer 

CRAIG B. SHAFFER

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02260-WYD Document 36 Filed 08/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph S. Haas

v. Civil No. 08-cv-169

Stephen R. Monier, U.S. Marshal,

District of NH and Gary DiMartino,

Chief Deputy, U.S. Marshal Service-NH

O R D E R

The undersigned recuses himself from presiding over this

case. The case shall be assigned to another judge.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: May 20, 2008

cc: Joseph S. Haas, pro se

Seth R. Aframe, Esq., AUSA

Case 1:08-cv-00169-MML Document 7 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 894 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 176
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 894

                          [Report No. 110-499]

 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 
  3996) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain 
              expiring provisions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2007

  Ms. Slaughter, 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 the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 
  3996) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain 
              expiring provisions, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3996) to amend 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring 
provisions, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, 
and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 
order, a motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. 
The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
motion to its adoption without intervening motion.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of the motion to concur pursuant to 
this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the motion to 
such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
                                                 House Calendar No. 176

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 894

                          [Report No. 110-499]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 
  3996) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain 
              expiring provisions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 19, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### BEAN et al. v. INDEPENDENT EXPLORATION CO. et al.

No. 1681.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 12, 1937.

Pujo, Bell & Hardin, of Lake Charles, for appellants.

Griffin T. Hawkins, of Lake Charles, for appellee.

LE BLANC, Judge.

This is a companion suit to that of Mrs. Dennis H. (Bonnie) Newton et al. v. Independent Exploration Company et al. (La. App.) 171 So. 875,- in which an opinion and decree were this day handed down by the *880court. As appears from the opinion in that case, this plaintiffs suit arose out of the same accident. The facts surrounding the accident were fully discussed therein and the defendants held liable for the negligence of the driver of the truck who was the servant and employee of the defendant Independent Exploration Company. In this short opinion, we will merely discuss the quantum of damages.

Mrs. Bean was awarded judgment for her personal injuries in the sum of $2,375. She had asked for $2,875. Mr. Bean, who had joined -his wife as plaintiff and demanded $75 for expenses incurred in' the treatment of his wife, was awarded $37.33. Mrs. Bean has answered the appeal asking for an increase in the amount of the award, Mr. Bean has not.

Mrs. Bean’s injuries consisted of severe abrasions and contusions of, the right chest wall, a fracture of the eighth and ninth ribs, and bruises in the back and lumbar region. Her right knee was badly bruised and swollen, and she also had bruises on the right eye and about the 'right side of the face. In fact, the doctor says that her entire body was badly bruised and that she was so nervous on the night of the accident that it was impossible then to determine the extent of her injuries. There is a fluid in the joint of her knee which will eventually have to be drained. She has to continue her visits to the doctor, who testifies that her back and knee injuries are of a permanent character.

Mrs. Bean, at the time of the trial, was fifty-eight years of age. She had been a rather busy and active woman. She testifies that she is a practical nurse and that because of her injury to her back, she finds it difficult to assist patients who have to be lifted in bed and to do any work which required bending over. However, she does not say that she has. sustained any financial loss in carrying out her vocation as a nurse. She formerly attended to all her domestic duties, did her washing, and even worked in her yard. She says that now, because of her condition, she finds it impossible to do anything but part of her housework.

We think that Mrs. Bean is really entitled to a substantial award but cannot but feel also that the district judge was a bit too liberal in the amount he allowed her. We have concluded to reduce the amount to $2,000, believing that to be ample compensation for all of her injuries.,

For the reasons stated, it is now ordered that the judgment appealed from be and the same is hereby amended by reducing the amount awarded to the plaintiff, Mrs. J. K. Miriam Bean, from the sum of $2,375 to the sum of $2,000, and that as thus amended, the judgment be affirmed.
1It appears that the pleading has been docketed twice, once

as an objection to the Report and Recommendation (document no.

19) and once as a motion for clarification (document no. 20).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Elijah E. Gross

v. Civil No. 08-cv-517-JL

Mary Rose

O R D E R

This matter previously came to my attention when it was

referred to me for preliminary review. On March 18, 2009, I

issued a Report and Recommendation (document no. 18),

recommending to the District Judge that this matter be dismissed

as plaintiff had failed to state a claim for the denial of

constitutionally adequate mental health care. My Report and

Recommendation set out a full recitation of the facts alleged in

the complaint as well as an explanation of the legal authority

and reasoning relied upon in making the recommendation.

Gross now files a “Motion for Clarification to the Issues of

the Complaint and Objection to Magistrate Report and

Recommendations to Dismiss” (document nos. 19 & 20).1 I have

Case 1:08-cv-00517-JL Document 21 Filed 04/07/09 Page 1 of 2
2

reviewed this document and I find that it does not contain any

new facts or claims. All of the issues raised in Gross’

motion/objection have been addressed in my Report and 

Recommendation, and nothing in the recent filing alters my

recommendation regarding the disposition of this case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 7, 2009

cc: Elijah E. Gross, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00517-JL Document 21 Filed 04/07/09 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. PARSONS.

No. 7446.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 4, 1950.

Gravel & Downs, Alexandria, for appellant.

Thomas Tomeny, Alexandria, for appel-lee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

The State, through its Collector of Revenue, seeks, in this suit, to recover judgment against the defendant, W. H. Parsons, doing business as Square Deal Liquor Store, for One Thousand One Hundred Eighty-One and 77/100 ($1,181.77) Dollars, allegedly due on sales tax account for the period January 1, 1945, to December 31 1947, and for Fifteen ($15.00) Dollars al*690legedly due for occupational license tax for the same years, plus ten per cent (10%) of said amount as attorney’s fees.

The proceeding was by rule and as to the sales taxes the provisions of Act No. 57 of the Regular Session of the Legislature for the year 1944 are invoked; and as to the occupational license taxes, Act No. 15 of the 3rd Extra Session of 1934, as amended, is invoked.

The rule was signed by the District Judge on December 17, 1948, and it was filed on that day. It ruled defendant to show cause at 10:00 o’clock A.M. December 21, 1948, why he should not be condemned to pay the taxes, etc. sued for. Service was made upon defendant on Saturday, December 18th. He did not answer nor otherwise make appearance. At the hour and on the date named, viz. December 21st, the rule was made absolute and judgment was accordingly rendered and signed as prayed for.

Defendant appealed to this Court. He challenges the validity of the judgment on the ground that it was rendered prematurely in that he was not allowed the minimum time (two days) exclusive of holidays, in which to answer, after service upon him.

The law applicable to this sort of action is Section 15(a) of Act No. 9 of the Regular Session of the Legislature of the year 1948, which reads:

> “The procedure to collect the delinquent taxes due hereunder shall be by rule, which shall be tried or heard by preference, in all courts, original and appellate, whether in or out of term time and either in open court or in chambers at such time as may be fixed by the court, which shall be *not less than two nor more than ten days, exclusive of holidays after service on the defendant or opposing party.”*

It seems clear that appellant’s position is well founded. The day the service was made upon him (Saturday) is not counted in determining the commencement of the time in which he has to answer, and Sunday being a holiday, of course, under the plain language of the quoted law, likewise is not counted. Therefore, the two days delay began to run with Monday, the 20th day of December. He had all of December 21st in which to answer; and trial of the rule on that day was premature. Defendant thereby was not accorded “two * * * days, exclusive of holidays *after*service” in which to answer the rule. Article 180 of the Code of Practice. See: Evans v. Hamner, 209 La. 442, 24 So.2d 814.

For the reasons herein given, the judgment appealed from is annulled, reversed and set aside, and this cause is now remanded to the lower Court for further proceedings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
|  | 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. |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November      15, 2010 |   | /s/ Richard J. Lampen                |   |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Richard      J. Lampen                    |   |
|                   |   | Chairman      and Chief Executive Officer |   |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

v. Civil No. 08-cv-248-JD

Judith A. Hanson, et al.

O R D E R

After reviewing the Discovery Plan, the Interpleader

Complaint, and the nature of the relief sought in the complaint,

I have determined that I should recuse in light of the

involvement of General Electric in this case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

November 18, 2008

cc: Jackson W. Casey, Esquire

Jeanne P. Herrick, Esquire

Jonathan A. Lax, Esquire

Patrick M. McAvoy, Esquire

William D. Pandolph, Esquire

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JL Document 19 Filed 11/18/08 Page 1 of 1
* Judge Hall participated in the oral argument of this case,

but recused himself thereafter. The case is decided, and the

opinion filed, by a quorum of the panel. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2320

FOOD LION, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INC.; ABC HOLDING COMPANY,

INCORPORATED; AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES,

INCORPORATED; ABC NEWS; LYNN NEUFER; RICHARD

N. KAPLAN; IRA ROSEN; SUSAN BARNETT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-95-513-4)

Argued: May 9, 1997 Decided: June 19, 1997

Before HALL, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. *

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

ARGUED: Michael John Mueller, AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD,

L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Nathan Lewin, MILLER,

CASSIDY, LARROCA & LEWIN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Richard L. Wyatt, Jr., Charles L. Warren, Steven E. Ross,

AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; W.

Andrew Copenhaver, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, P.L.L.C.,

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. William H. Jeffress,

Jr., Randall J. Turk, Daniel J. Cloherty, MILLER, CASSIDY, LARROCA

& LEWIN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; Nathan Siegel, CAPITAL

CITIES/ABC, INC., New York, New York, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Food Lion, Inc., appeals an order of the district court

dismissing, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), its action seeking a

declaration that it is the owner of the copyright to videotapes

made by undercover journalists employed by defendant Capital

Cities/ABC, Inc., and damages for the infringement of its alleged

copyright. We have considered the briefs and heard the arguments

of the parties, and we affirm the judgment of the district court

for the reasons stated by that court in its memorandum opinion.

Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 946 F.Supp. 420

(M.D.N.C. 1996).

AFFIRMED