alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
 
                               BGS SYSTEMS, INC.
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31
                                                         ----------------------------------------
                                                            1997           1996           1995
                                                         ----------     ----------     ----------
<S>                                                      <C>            <C>            <C>
PRIMARY
Average shares outstanding.............................   6,256,099      6,223,420      6,201,646
Net effect of stock options, if dilutive, based on
  treasury stock method using the average market
  price................................................      87,876         40,670         31,574
                                                         ----------     ----------     ----------
          TOTAL........................................   6,343,975      6,264,090      6,233,220
                                                         ==========     ==========     ==========
          Net income...................................  $9,112,718     $7,981,917     $7,405,299
                                                         ==========     ==========     ==========
          Net income per share.........................  $     1.44     $     1.27     $     1.19
                                                         ==========     ==========     ==========
FULLY DILUTED
Average shares outstanding.............................   6,256,099      6,223,420      6,201,646
Net effect of stock options, if dilutive, based on
  treasury stock method using the year end market price
  if higher than the average market price..............      90,393         47,220         31,574
                                                         ----------     ----------     ----------
          TOTAL........................................   6,346,492      6,270,640      6,233,220
                                                         ==========     ==========     ==========
          Net income...................................  $9,112,718     $7,981,917     $7,405,299
                                                         ==========     ==========     ==========
          Net income per share.........................  $     1.44     $     1.27     $     1.19
                                                         ==========     ==========     ==========
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT  23**

**INDEPENDENT  AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

     We  consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (File  Nos. 333-98669, 333-87507, 33-61949, 33-52786, 33-36609 and 33-23837) of the  A.G. Edwards, Inc. 1988 Incentive Stock Plan on Form S-8 of our reports dated  April 25, 2003, included in Form 10-K of A.G. Edwards, Inc. for the year ended  February 28, 2003.

  /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

  St. Louis, Missouri   May 12, 2003

51

----
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
Ross Mandel and Lea Mandel v. Lewisville Independent School District; County of Denton, Texas; and City of Plano NO. 0 2

- 13

- 00171

- CV

AND

In re Ross Mandel and Lea Mandel NO. 0 2

- 13

- 00412

- CV

TO ANY SHERIFF, CONSTABLE, OR ANY OTHER PERSON AUTHORIZED
BY LAW , GREETINGS: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that you serve Constable Ron Smith
, with the accompanying copies of the Notice to Show Cause and the Order to Show Cause styled Ross Mandel and Lea Mande l v. Lewisville Independent School District; County of Denton, Texas; and City of Plano
, cause number 0 2

- 13

- 00171

- CV , and In re Ross Mandel and Lea Mandel
, cause number 0 2

- 13

- 00412

- CV, from the 431st District Court of Denton County, Texas, trial court
cause number 2011

- 0490

- 431

. See the attached notice and order, incorporated by reference for all
purposes. The present address of Constable Ron Smith i s Denton County Constable’s Office, Precinct 6, 1029 W. Rosemeade P arkway, Car r ollton, Texas
75007. MAKE DUE RETURN of this order and how you have executed the

same no later than Monday, March 10, 2014.
ISSUED AND GIVEN UNDER MY HAND and seal of said Court in the City
of Fort Wort h, Tarrant County, Texas, this 2 8 th day of February , 2014

.

Debra Spisak , Clerk2 OFFICER ’ S RETURN

Came on to hand on the____ day of ______________, 20 14 , at ________

o ’ clock, __.m., and executed at ___________________ within the county of

______________ , State of Texas, at ________ o ’ clock, __.m. on the____ day of ______________, 20 14 by delivering to Constable Ron Smith in person a true copy of this citation with the date of delivery endorsed thereon, together with the accompanying copies of the Notice to Show Cause and the Order to Show Cause
issued February 2 8 , 2014

.

Authorized Person / Constable / Sheriff: ____________________________ County of ___________ State of ____________ By ____________ Deputy

Fees for Service $____________

State of Texas County of _________________

Verification
Before me, a Notary Public, on this day personally appeared ________________________, known to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing document and being by me first duly sworn, declared that the statements therein contained are true and correct.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of office this the ______d ay of ________________, 2014.
Notary Public, State of Texas

The citation is returnable to:
Debra Spisak, Clerk Second Court of Appeals 401 W. Belknap, Suit e 9000 Fort Worth, TX 76196
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01756-DME-MJW

MARCUS LELAND FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOOLSTON, Vocational Instructor, and

LIKEN, Education Department,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER 

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Discovery Pursuant

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 34 (Docket No. 31) is denied as premature. 

The docket reflects that the two defendants were served on October 7, 2011, and thus

their answers are not due until December 6, 2011. (See Docket Nos. 28 and 29). No

appearance of counsel has yet been entered for either defendant.

Date: November 4, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-01756-DME-MJW Document 33 Filed 11/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1





                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Radyne Comstream Inc.:

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  registration  statement of
Radyne  Comstream  Inc. on Form S-8 (File No.  333-23159)  filed as of March 12,
1997 and Form S-8 (File No.  333-67469)  filed as of November 19,  1998,  of our
report dated March 19, 1999, on the balance sheet of Radyne Comstream Inc. as of
December  31,  1998 and the  related  statements  of  operations,  stockholders'
capital  deficiency and cash flows for the year ended  December 31, 1998,  which
report  appears in the December 31, 1998,  annual  report on Form 10-K of Radyne
Comstream Inc.





/s/ KPMG LLP


Phoenix, Arizona
April 14, 1999


                                      E-11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01734-PAB-BNB

DANIEL LEROY RHODEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD, COLORADO,

KEVIN PALETTA, in his individual capacity and official capacity,

RYAN O’HAYRE, in his individual capacity, and

STUART RUYBAL, in his individual capacity,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer

This matter is before the Court on defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No.

24]. On February 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint [Docket No. 30]

which was accepted for filing pursuant to the Order [Docket No. 34] granting his Motion

for Leave to Amend Complaint [Docket No. 31]. Thus, the First Amended Complaint

became the operative pleading in this action, and the Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 24]

is directed to an inoperative, superseded pleading. See, e.g., Gilles v. United States,

906 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir. 1990) (“a pleading that has been amended under Rule

15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies”) (internal quotation marks omitted). As such,

the motion to dismiss is moot. It is

ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 24] is DENIED as

moot.

DATED February 29, 2012.

Case 1:11-cv-01734-PAB-BNB Document 35 Filed 02/29/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Lamar Witt WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1221 

To provide for the enactment of comprehensive health care reform. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2007 

Mr. KERRY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for the enactment of comprehensive health care 

reform. 

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 ‘‘Countdown to Cov5 erage Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE REFORM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—If a provision of law that ensures 

8 accessible, affordable, and meaningful health insurance for 

9 all Americans is not enacted before the adjournment, sine 

10 die, of the 111th Congress, as determined by Institute of 

11 Medicine, there shall be no Government contribution 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 1221 IS

1 under section 8906 of title 5, United States Code, for any 

2 Member of Congress and any Member of Congress shall 

3 pay 100 percent of all premiums for any health benefits 

4 plan under chapter 89 of that title. 

5 (b) NOTIFICATION.—The Institute of Medicine shall 

6 submit timely notice to the Office of Personnel Manage7 ment, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Chief Adminis8 trative Officer of the House of Representatives of— 

9 (1) the determination that a provision of law 

10 has not been enacted before the adjournment, sine 

11 die, of the 111th Congress, as described under sub12 section (a); and 

13 (2) the dates and adjustments that are required 

14 to take effect under this Act. 

15 (c) ADJUSTMENTS.—After receiving notice under 

16 subsection (b), the Office of Personnel Management, the 

17 Secretary of the Senate, and the Chief Administrative Of18 ficer of the House of Representatives shall make such ad19 justments as may be necessary on the first day of the first 

20 applicable pay period beginning on or after the date of 

21 that notice. 

22 (d) REGULATIONS.—The Office of Personnel Man23 agement may prescribe regulations to carry out this sec24 tion. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

204 

KA 06-00061 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DOUGLAS E. LEE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM, PLLC, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR. OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi,

J.), rendered October 5, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon

his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Same Memorandum as in People v Lee ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___

[June 15, 2012]).

Entered: June 15, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 10.22

              Schedule to Form of First Amendment to Loan Agreement

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Lender                       State of Incorporation    Tenant
------                       ----------------------    ------
<S>                          <C>                       <C>
Pennsylvania BCC             Pennsylvania              Financial Care Investors of
Properties, Inc.                                       Lebanon, L.L.C.

Pennsylvania BCC             Pennsylvania              Financial Care Investors of
Properties, Inc.                                       Loyalsock, L.L.C.

HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.       Delaware                  Financial Care Investors of
                                                       Sagamore Hills, L.L.C.

HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.       Delaware                  Financial Care Investors of
                                                       Westerville, L.L.C.

HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.       Delaware                  Financial Care Investors of
                                                       Morristown, L.L.C.

HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.       Delaware                  Financial Care Investors of
                                                       Oak Ridge, L.L.C.
</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Lender                     Unit      Bed       Facility                  Loan
------                     ----      ---       --------                  ----
<S>                        <C>       <C>        <C>                       <C>
Pennsylvania BCC            60        66        Personal Care             $686,800.00
Properties, Inc.

Pennsylvania BCC            60        66        Personal Care             $674,050.00
Properties, Inc.

HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.      103       105       Residential Care          $1,243,550.00


HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.      106       106       Residential Care          $1,313,675.00


HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.      60        66        Assisted-Care Living      $692,000.00


HCN BCC Holdings, Inc.      60        66        Assisted-Care Living      $697,948.00
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   2
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Tenant                                 Property                            Manager
------                                 --------                            -------
<S>                                    <C>                                 <C>
Financial Care Investors of Lebanon,   Lebanon, Pennsylvania               Lebanon
L.L.C.

Financial Care Investors of            Williamsport, Pennsylvania          Loyalsock
Loyalsock, L.L.C.

Financial Care Investors of Sagamore   Sagamore Hills, Ohio                Sagamore Hills
Hills, L.L.C.

Financial Care Investors of            Westerville, Ohio                   Westerville
Westerville, L.L.C.

Financial Care Investors of            Morristown, Tennessee               Morristown
Morristown, L.L.C.

Financial Care Investors of Oak        Oak Ridge, Tennessee                Oak Ridge
Ridge, L.L.C.
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-001953-BNB

ANTHONY HERNANDEZ

Applicant,

v.

STEVE HARTLY, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Respondents’ Motion for Leave to File Motion

to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14) filed on October 11, 2011. On August 26, 2011, the Court

ordered Respondents to file a Pre-Answer Response limited to addressing the

affirmative defenses of timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and/or exhaustion of state

court remedies under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Respondents were directed not to file

a dispositive motion as their Pre-Answer Response, or an Answer, or otherwise address

the merits of the claims in response to the Court’s August 26 Order.

In the Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss, Respondents seek leave to file

a motion to dismiss limited to addressing the affirmative defense of timeliness. 

Respondents allege that this action clearly is time-barred and that, because the

Attorney General’s files from Applicant’s direct appeal and the appeal of other

postconviction motions have been destroyed as part of routine file management,

Case 1:11-cv-01953-BNB Document 17 Filed 11/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

obtaining copies of the documents necessary to address exhaustion of state remedies

would be an expensive endeavor.

Applicant responded to the Motion for Leave. He argues that Respondents’

motion to dismiss defies the August 26 Order to File a Pre-Answer Response. 

Applicant asserts that he filed a postconviction motion, out of time, on February 16,

1999, and demonstrated extraordinary circumstances which prevented him from filing a

postconviction motion in a timely manner. He, nonetheless, fails to assert with

specificity the steps he took to pursue his federal claims. Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d

925, 930 (10th Cir. 2008). Applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that equitable

tolling is appropriate. See Miller v. Marr, 141 F.3d 976, 978 (10th Cir. 1998). 

Under these unusual circumstances, the Court agrees that Respondents should

be allowed to file a motion to dismiss limited to addressing the affirmative defense of

timeliness. Applicant may respond to the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss and

demonstrate that equitable tolling is appropriate. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss (Doc.

No. 14) filed on October 11, 2011, is granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant may file a Response to the Motion to

Dismiss within twenty-one days from the date of this Order.

DATED November 21, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01953-BNB Document 17 Filed 11/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted), the undersigned, Charles J. Drake, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of Integral Vision, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies
that, to the best of his knowledge:




1.The
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008
(the “Periodic
Report”), to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.The
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period
covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the
period covered by the Periodic Report.




DATED:
December 20,
2010




/S/ Charles J. DrakeCharles
      J. DrakeChairman
      of the Board andChief
      Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
32.2




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 ZAP (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter  ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
William  Hartman, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,
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/ William Hartman
              William
      HartmanTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
      Officer)Date:
      May 20, 2009








This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131792 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131792 

 COA: 259193 

Washtenaw CC: 02-001366-FC 

ERIC JOHN BOLDISZAR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 15, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge John L. Kane

Civil Action No. 11-cv-2322-AP

DANIEL O. ALVARAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER

Kane, J.

The Unopposed Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access

to Justice Act, (doc. #17), filed June 18, 2012, is GRANTED. In consideration thereof, it

is

ORDERED that the Defendant pay to Plaintiff , through counsel, reasonable attorney

fees and expenses in the amount of $4,229.31. 

Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 25th day of June, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

S/John L. Kane

JOHN L. KANE, SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 1:11-cv-02322-JLK Document 18 Filed 06/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Lowell Adams Discount Co., Inc., Appellant, *v.*Lester Carter, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 1, 1956.

*Eugene Brooks*for appellant.

*David R. Rubin*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

After the entry of judgment by plaintiff, as a result of defendant’s failure to answer, the parties entered into a written stipulation in which defendant conceded liability and agreed to settle the controversy on specific terms. The granting of defendant’s motion to open the default, long after the execution of said stipulation, was improper since the relief afforded defendant ignored the stipulation and in effect set it aside. The Municipal Court lacks jurisdiction to set aside a stipulation made between parties in settlement of a controversy *(Boericke & Tafel*v. *Gold,*88 N. Y. S. 2d 726; *Equitable Trust Co.*v. *MacLaire,*77 Misc. 116).

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and, motion denied.

Eder, Heoht and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.
Exhibit 32.1



FOOTHILL INDEPENDENT BANCORP



Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2004



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Foothill Independent
Bancorp (the Company), hereby certifies that: (i) he Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Annual Report), to which this
Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: March 14, 2005



/s/ GEORGE E. LANGLEYGeorge E. LangleyPresident and Chief Executive Officer