alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT  11.0

                               PIZZA INN, INC.
                     COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                   (In thousands, except per share amounts)
<TABLE>

<CAPTION>
 
 
 
                                                                  Year Ended
                                                         --------------------------------
                                                          June 29,    June 30,   June 25,
                                                            1997        1996        1995
                                                         ---------  -----------  --------
<S>                                                     <C>        <C>          <C>
 
PRIMARY
------------------------------------------------                                   
 
NET INCOME                                            $   4,528  $     3,908  $   3,198
                                                         ======      =======     ======

COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING                                12,873       13,209     13,869
COMMON SHARES EQUIVALENTS:
     Net shares issuable upon exercise of stock
     options (computed by the "Treasury Stock
     Method")                                               834          798        365
                                                       ---------  -----------    -------
Weighted average shares and equivalent
shares for primary earnings per share                    13,707       14,007     14,234
                                                        =======     ========     ======

NET INCOME PER SHARE                                  $    0.33  $      0.28  $    0.22
                                                        =======     ========     ======
FULLY DILUTED
------------------------------------------------                                   

COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING                                12,873       13,209     13,869

COMMON SHARES EQUIVALENTS:
     Net shares issuable upon exercise of stock
     options (computed by the "Treasury Stock
     Method")                                               855          924        365
                                                      ---------  -----------  ---------

Weighted average shares and equivalent
shares for fully diluted earnings per share              13,728       14,133     14,234
                                                         ======      =======     ======
NET INCOME PER SHARE                                  $    0.33  $      0.28  $    0.22
                                                         ======      =======     ======
</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132095 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132095 

 COA: 271710 

Cass CC: 00-010527-FC 

BRIAN JAMES HAMMOND, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 17, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

d1120 

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
#### RYAN v. GOODWYN.

No. 13932.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 16, 1931.

M. C. Scharff, of- New Orleans, for appellant.

A. C. Hammer and E. I. Mahoney, both of •New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, J.

At about 5 o’clock in the late afternoon on November 8, 1929, plaintiff, Dan L. Ryan, was driving his Oldsmobile on Jackson avenue near Baronne street, going towards the Mississippi river.

At the same time defendant and plaintiff in reeonvention, Miss Lilly B. Goodwyn, was driving her automobile up Baronne street; her course being across Jackson avenue.

The automobiles collided at the corner of Jackson avenue and Baronne street, and the two owners, each convinced that the other was at fault, seek to recover for the respective losses sustained.

In the trial court judgment was rendered dismissing both the main and the reconven-tional demands. Only Ryan has appealed.

Under the traffic laws of the city, automo- , biles proceeding on streets on which are located street car tracks are given the'right of way over those on intersecting streets. Thus, at that crossing, vehicles on Jackson avenue have a right superior to those on Baronne street.

This, of course, does not mean that those on Jackson avenue may be driven at reckless speeds or that their operators may disregard the rights of others. Nor does it mean that cars on Jackson avenue may force others already in the intersection to come to a stop.

But, it does mean that a driver, in the position in which Ryan was, was justified in assuming that a car, in the position in which Miss Goodwyn’s car was, would not attempt to force its way across, regardless of the superior right of the other.

The two cars reached the intersection at approximately the same time, and the Ryan car had the right to proceed. We reach the eonelusion that Ryan’s speed was not excessive, and we feel that the proximate causé of the collision was Miss Goodwyn’s failure to realize that she was approaching Jackson avenue, on which traffic might be expected, and to which traffic the ordinance accorded the right of way.

We do not 'find evidence warranting a holding that Ryan was under the influence of liquor.

The judgment appealed from, in so far as it dismisses the demand of Ryan, must bé reversed.

The estimate made for the repair of the Ryan car was $640, and it is not contertded that this amount is incorrect. Personal injuries sustained were shown to be a lacerated wound of the scalp, which required treatment for about ten days. $100 is proper compensation for such an injury.

The judgment appealed from is amended, in so far as it rejects the demand of plaintiff, and there is now judgment in favor of plaintiff, Dan L. Ryan, and against defendant, Miss Lilly B. Goodwyn, in the sum of $740, with legal interest from judicial demand, and for all costs, and, as thus amended, the judgment is affirmed.

Amended and affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet as of June 30, 1998 and Statements of Operation for the Six and Three
Months Ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001024605
<NAME>                          New Generation Plastic, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999       Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-1999       Apr-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1999       Jun-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                       1.000             1.000
<CASH>                               43,227            43,227
<SECURITIES>                              0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0                 0
<INVENTORY>                               0                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    129,682           129,682
<PP&E>                                    0                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    2,064,058         2,064,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               415,000           415,000
<BONDS>                                   0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                 0
<PREFERRED>                               0                 0
<COMMON>                             11,828            11,828
<OTHER-SE>                          211,038           211,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      2,064,058         2,064,058
<SALES>                                   0                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0                 0
<CGS>                                     0                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       580,302           573,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (593,667)         (590,557)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (580,302)         (573,751)
<DISCONTINUED>                      (13,365)          (16,806)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                 0
<CHANGES>                                 0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (593,667)         (590,557)
<EPS-BASIC>                        (0.049)           (0.048)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.049)           (0.048)



</TABLE>
[No. 34722.

Department Two.

July 17, 1958.]

#### *In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of*Truman Wilson McClintock, *Petitioner,*v. B. J. Rhay, *as Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent.*
      *1*

*Truman Wilson McClintock, pro se.*

*The Attorney General*and *Michael R. Alfieri, Assistant,*for respondent.

Reported in 328 P. (2d) 369.

Per Curiam.

This is an original application for a writ of *habeas corpus,*prosecuted *in forma pauperis.*

Petitioner was charged, on September 11, 1957, in the superior court for Grant county, with the crime of forgery in the first degree.

Prior to entering his plea, petitioner was informed of his constitutional guarantees, all of which he waived. He thereupon entered a plea of guilty as charged. The court deferred entering its judgment and sentence until :a presen-tence investigation could be furnished. During the period of the investigation, petitioner was confined in the county jail. Before the investigation was completed, petitioner wrote a letter to the prosecuting attorney for Grant county, in which he requested that an attorney be appointed for him. When petitioner was brought before the court for sentencing, he again requested, in open court, that he be furnished counsel, and that he be permitted to change his *616plea to not guilty. Both requests were denied, and petitioner was then'orally sentenced Upon his plea of guilty, and a written-judgment *and*sentence were entered in accordance with .the oral decision. ■ •

The application for a writ raises but one question: Did the trial court err in refusing petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel?

Amendment 10 of the state constitution provides:

> “In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person, or *by counsel,*to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a copy thereof, to testify in his own behalf, to meet the witnesses against him face to face, to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his own behalf, to have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is charged to have been committed and the right to appeal in all cases: . , . In no instance shall any accused person *before final judgment*be compelled to advance money or fees to secure the rights herein guaranteed.” (Italics ours.) ■ •

Under the constitution, a defendant in a criminal proceeding is an *accused person*until formal judgment and sentence have been entered. As such, he is entitled, under amendment 10, to have an attorney appointed at public expense, if he is without funds. The trial court erred in refusing to grant petitioner’s request for counsel before judgment and sentence were entered.

The judgment and sentence are vacated. It is ordered that petitioner be returned to the superior court for Grant county, and that he be afforded counsel, as provided by law.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 6Federal Reserve Bank of: AtlantaFilings received during the week ending May 24, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBANCO DE CREDITO E INVERSIONES S.A.                                                                                     * 3A1Banco De Credito E Inversiones, Empresas Juan Yarur S.A.C., Inversiones Petro S.A., Inversiones Baquio LTDA., Inversiones Nueve LTDA., and Administraciones Baquio LTDA., all of Santiago, Chile, to become bank holding companies by acquiring 100 percent of CM Florida Holdings, Inc., Coral Gables, Florida, and its subsidiary, City National Bank of Florida, Miami, Florida.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 08/08/2013FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF THE GULF COAST                                                                                   MemberFirst National Bank of the Gulf Coast, Naples, Florida, to become a member of the Federal Reserve System.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicable
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Strickland, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 718]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered July 26, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony is granted, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is *585remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50 (see *People v Hargroves,*296 AD2d 581 [decided herewith]). Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23282]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Monday, September 
29, 2008, at 3 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matter will attend the Closed Meeting.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions as set 
forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(8) and (9), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the item 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session, and determined that no 
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Monday, 
September 29, 2008, will be: Matters Related to the Financial Markets.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 29, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23282 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

301 Fannin, Room 245

Houston, Texas 77002

To: Chris Daniel February 11, 2015

County: Harris (Criminal)

Subject: RETURN OF ORIGINAL EXHIBITS

Please acknowledge the receipt of the original exhibits listed below. Please sign and return 

the original to this court.

14-10-00383-CR Ronald Eugene Tiller v The State of Texas 1197877

State's Exhibit 1, a CD

Received by: ________________________________________

Received on: ________________________________________
|   | 1. | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June      30, 2010 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m or      78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| BY:    | /s/      John Lackland             |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   | John      Lackland                 |
|   | Chief      Financial Officer       |
|   | (principal      financial officer) |

----
#### In the Matter of Luis Colon, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing/Inmate Disciplinary Program, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 233]

Mugglin, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from conspiring to or being an accessory to an escape, unauthorized exchanging of personal property and making false statements. Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was established by the introduction in evidence of the misbehavior report, the testimony of the reporting officer, the testimony of the civilian employee in charge of the masonry building and the testimony of an investigator from the Inspector General’s office *(see, Matter of Rosario v Goord,*265 AD2d 714, *appeal dismissed*95 NY2d 822; *Matter of Pristell v Goord,*238 AD2d 657, 658).

From this document and the testimony, it was established that after a general count of the prison population on March 30, 2001, inmate James Visser was reported missing. Subsequent investigation revealed that petitioner and Visser were ñiends and that a book belonging to Visser was in petitioner’s cell. Petitioner denied the Mendship, but ultimately volunteered that Visser was hiding in the attic of the masonry building at the facility. The masonry instructor testified that on the morning in question, petitioner had arrived unusually early and for a short time was unsupervised, giving him the opportunity to admit Visser to the building. Visser was found precisely where petitioner said that he would be. When interviewed, Visser disclosed that petitioner had instigated his escape attempt and had admitted him to the masonry building.

Petitioner’s testimony, in which he asserted his innocence, presented an issue of credibility that was resolved in the discretion of the Hearing Officer *(see, Matter of Kennedy v Coombe,*236 AD2d 726; *Matter of Di Rose v New York State Dept. of Correction,*228 AD2d 868, 869). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23382]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 30, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. CapGen Capital Group II LLC, and CapGen Capital Group II LP, 
both of New York, New York, to become bank holding companies by 
acquiring 12.4 percent of the voting shares of PacWest Bancorp, and 
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Pacific Western Bank, both 
of San Diego, California.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Burl Thornton, Assistant Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. First Community Financial Partners, Inc., Joliet, Illinois, to 
acquire at least 50 percent of the voting shares of First Community 
Bank of Homer Glen & Lockport (in organization), Homer Glen, Illinois.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 30, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-23382 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S