alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11



NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES



Statement of Computation of Earnings per Share

(Amounts in Thousands  Except Per Share Data)



|                                           |  |                                        |        |                                       |   |        |  |      |        |  |   |       
|------------------------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------- | ------ | ------------------------------------- | - | ------ |  | ---- | ------ |  | - | ------
|                                           |  | For the Three MonthsEnded September 30 |        | For the Nine MonthsEnded September 30
|                                           |  | 2005                                   |        | 2004                                  |   | 2005   |  | 2004
|Net income                                 |  | $                                      | 5,035  |                                       | $ | 4,721  |  | $    | 16,183 |  | $ | 13,766
|                                           |  |                                        |        |                                       |   |        |  |      |        |  |   |       
|Weighted average common shares outstanding |  |                                        | 15,005 |                                       |   | 15,005 |  |      | 15,005 |  |   | 15,005
|                                           |  |                                        |        |                                       |   |        |  |      |        |  |   |       
|Basic and diluted earnings per share       |  | $                                      | .34    |                                       | $ | .31    |  | $    | 1.08   |  | $ | .92   
|                                           |  |                                        |        |                                       |   |        |  |      |        |  |   |
** **

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-14530

 

 

DAVIDSON INCOME REAL ESTATE, L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Issuer's telephone number)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TRENTON TARIQ MORGAN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No s . 4D 20

- 969 and 4D20

- 971

[ February 4, 2021 ]

Consolidated a ppeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Jeffrey Dana Gillen , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 502019CF000405AXXXMB and 502019CF001155AXXXMB

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg,

Assistant Public Defend er, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER
, F ORST and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 16 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MARVIN R. WASHINGTON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

RONALD J. CHAMPION;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 98-5134

(D.C. No. 95-CV-1077-C)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY, EBEL , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
1 Petitioner filed his habeas petition in the district court on October 27, 1995,

prior to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (effective April 24, 1996). Petitioner

must therefore obtain a certificate of probable cause rather than a certificate of

appealability. See United States v. Kunzman , 125 F.3d 1363, 1364 n.2 (10th Cir.

1997).

-2-

Marvin R. Washington was charged with first degree murder, convicted by

a jury of first degree manslaughter, and sentenced by the court to fifty years’

imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. He

unsuccessfully sought habeas relief in the state courts, and then filed a petition

for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied petitioner’s

habeas petition and his application for a certificate of probable cause for appeal. 1

Petitioner renews his request for a certificate of probable cause in this court so

that he may appeal from the district court’s denial of habeas relief. 

In order to obtain a certificate of probable cause, a petitioner must make a

“substantial showing of the denial of a federal right.” Barefoot v. Estelle , 463

U.S. 880, 893 (1983) (quotation and citation omitted). We have carefully

reviewed petitioner’s application for a certificate of probable cause, his brief and

appendix, and the district court’s order. We conclude, for substantially the same

reasons as those set forth in the district court’s thorough and well-written order

filed on July 7, 1998, that petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of

the denial of a federal right. 
-3-

Accordingly, petitioner’s application for a certificate of probable cause is

denied, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby 

Circuit Judge
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 185 

To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United 

States. 

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 ‘‘Habeas Corpus Res5 toration Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE DE7 TAINED BY THE UNITED STATES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2241 of title 28, United 

9 States Code, is amended by striking subsection (e). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 185 IS

1 (b) TITLE 10.—Section 950j of title 10, United 

2 States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and 

3 inserting the following: 

4 ‘‘(b) LIMITED REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSION

5 PROCEDURES AND ACTIONS.—Except as otherwise pro6 vided in this chapter or in section 2241 of title 28 or any 

7 other habeas corpus provision, and notwithstanding any 

8 other provision of law, no court, justice, or judge shall 

9 have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause 

10 of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or 

11 filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Com12 missions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, 

13 or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, 

14 including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of 

15 military commissions under this chapter.’’. 

16 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY. 

17 The amendments made by this Act shall— 

18 (1) take effect on the date of the enactment of 

19 this Act; and 

20 (2) apply to any case that is pending on or 

21 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2   Certification of the Principal Accounting Officer 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 P2 Solar, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Raj-Mohinder S. Gurm, the 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, 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/ Raj-Mohinder S. GurmChief Financial Officer Date: July 14, 2009
Opinion filed Octo ber 11 , 2018



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____


### No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 25 2

- C V

_____ _

_____


### SALETA HERNANDEZ , Appellant

V.
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA AND NATIONAL CATASTROPHE ADJUSTERS, INC., Appellee s

On Appeal from the 104 t h District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 26732

- B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Saleta Hernandez ha s filed in this court a motion to withdraw her notice of
appeal. In the motion, H ernandez requests that her notice of appeal “be deemed
withdrawn . . . and the appeal herein dismissed.” I n accordance with that request,

we dismiss th is appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1 (a) (1)

. The motion is granted, and th e appeal is dismissed

.

Octo ber 11

, 2018 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Willson , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1

Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
Deny and Opinion Filed November 8, 2021 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00826-CV 

IN RE WEATHERALL FAMILY FUNERAL SERVICES, LLC D/B/A 

ETERNAL REST FUNERAL HOME, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 298th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15878 

ORDER 

Before Justices Schenck, Nowell, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Schenck 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus and DENY relator’s motion to stay as moot. 

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK 

JUSTICE
ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 07-14-00118-CR OFFENSE: 1

Travon La Shae Ginn v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Potter

H-S8-/5-

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 108th District Court

DATE: 03/31/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 66,042-E

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Travon La Shae Ginn v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

pftO S£ Petition

CCA#: " IO#/5

CCA Disposition:

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE:

pT/^5^ JUDGE:

DATE: /o/*~7/20irJUDGE: LM U^U^^tSIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<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>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                         975
<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-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Arthur WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS, AFL-CIO, Defendant-Appellant; Arthur WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCAL 43 OF the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS, AFL-CIO, Defendant-Appellant; Arthur WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCAL 43 OF the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS, AFL-CIO, and International Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters, AFL-CIO, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 15234-15236.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 21, 1963.

*579Sizer Chambliss and Jac Chambliss, Chattanooga, Tenn. (Chambliss, Cham-bliss & Hodge, Chattanooga, Tenn., on the brief), for Arthur Walters.

Martin F. O’Donoghue, Jr., Washington, D. C. (O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue, Washington, D. C., Friar & Reynolds, Knoxville, Tenn., on the brief), for International Ass’n of Plumbers, etc.

S. Del Fuston, Chattanooga, Tenn. (H. G. B. King, Chattanooga, Tenn., King & Fuston, on the brief), for Local 43, etc.

Before CECIL, Chief Judge, WEICK, Circuit Judge, and PECK, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Arthur Walters, recovered judgment in the District Court against Local 43 and the International Union incorrectly designated in the complaint as United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters, AFL-CIO* for damages in the amount of $2,937.50 for violation of the secondary boycott provisions contained in Title 29 U.S.C. § 187.

Walters was a small contractor engaged in the installation and repair of refrigeration and air-conditioning systems in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He had an oral agreement to instal an air-conditioning system in a building being constructed by Red Food Stores in Rossville, Georgia which is located just across the state line from Chattanooga. Walters was not a union member.

The Local placed a picket at the construction site carrying a sign which read “Pipe work on this job not being done by members of Local 43.” Red Food Stores then removed Walters from the job and has not given him any work since.

 We think the findings of fact of the District Court relative to Local 43 were supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous. His conclusions of law with respect to the Local are correct. In our judgment, the District Court was not obliged to award punitive damages to plaintiff or treble the amount of the damages under the statutory law of Tennessee. We find no fault with the damages awarded by the District Court.

There is no evidence in the record, however, that United participated in any way in the placing of the picket or ratified the picketing. The judgment against it has no support.

An order may, therefore, be entered affirming the judgment against Local 43. The judgment against United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters, AFL-CIO is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint as to it.

*

 The correct name of the International is: “United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO.”
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-41374

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIKE TORRES,

Defendant-Appellant,

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-98-CR-830-1

_________________________________________________________________

October 26, 2000

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mike Torres appeals his conviction after a jury trial of

possession with intent to distribute marihuana. He argues that the

evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. In

particular, he contends that the evidence did not establish that he

knew of the marihuana hidden in the tires of the pickup truck he

was driving.
2

We review the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction

to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found

that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318 (1979). It is the sole

province of the jury to determine the weight and credibility of the

evidence. United States v. Casilla, 20 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir.

1994). “It is not necessary that the evidence exclude every

reasonable hypothesis of innocence. But, there must be substantial

evidence to uphold the verdict of the jury.” United States v.

Espinoza-Seanez, 862 F.2d 526, 536 (5th Cir. 1988) (citations

omitted). The evidence must be construed in the light most

favorable to the prosecution. United States v. Lombardi, 138 F.3d

559, 560 (5th Cir. 1998).

Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find that

the evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable juror’s finding

of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. ResioTrejo, 45 F.3d 907 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. OlivierBecerril, 861 F.2d 424 (5th Cir. 1988).

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Andrews, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), imposed May 1, 1989.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

The defendant waived his right to appeal as part of the plea agreement. As we find that this waiver was made freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, the defendant’s appeal must be dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Emley M. Holcombe, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

January 17, 1957.

*242
      *Vaughan é Lyons*for Alexander H. Holcombe, Jr. and another, executors, petitioners.

*Perkins, Daniels & Perkins*for Natalie T. Holcombe, respondent.

*Charles H. Birdsall,*special guardian for William A. Furman, and others, infants, respondents.

S. Samuel Di Falco, S.

Decedent died on October 21, 1954, survived by his widow, three nieces, one nephew and grandnieces and grandnephews. His will after providing certain general legacies approximating $16,200 gave $2,500 to his surviving spouse and established a trust of his residuary estate with one half of the income thereof to be paid to her. He directed that all estate taxes be paid from his residuary estate. Testator’s widow filed her notice of election on February 24, 1955. The question of the effect of that notice of election is now presented in this accounting of the executors.

The widow contends that her intestate share should be computed in accordance with paragraph (a) of subdivision 1 of section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law as amended by chapter 487 of the Laws of 1955, effective April 19, 1955. The special guardian for infant contingent income beneficiaries and remaindermen argues that the 1955 amendment is not applicable herein as the testator died and the widow exercised her right of election prior to its effective date.

The court determines that the amendment is not applicable to the estate of this decedent *(Matter of Spencer,*145 N. Y. S. 2d 397, 400; *Matter of Spingarn,*5 Misc 2d 36).

The rule stated in *Matter of Wolf*(307 N. Y. 280) is controlling. At page 287 thereof it was stated: “In a situation where taxes *are not to he apportioned,*the formula for determining a widow’s intestate share under section 18 (subd. 1, par. [a]) is to deduct the total of estate taxes from the net estate and then give the widow one half the balance. (See *Matter of Ryan,*280 App. Div. 410.) ”

The amount of the widow’s limited right of election is to be charged pro rata against all the legatees and the trust *(Matter of Wittner,*200 Misc. 957).

Submit decree on notice accordingly.
*This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

 

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60409

Conference Calendar

 

JOHNNY EARL HALL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STEVE PUCKETT; ROGER COOK;

THOMAS WILKERSON,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:95-CV-374-PG

- - - - - - - - - -

February 10, 1999

Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

Johnny Earl Hall, Mississippi inmate #30722, appeals from

the judgment on a jury verdict and from the denial of his FED. R.

CIV. P. 59(a) motion in this civil rights suit. Hall lists five

issues for review. Although we liberally construe Hall’s pro se

brief, he fails to present this court with argument on any issue. 

See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9); Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524-
No. 97-60409

-2-

25 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Accordingly, we DISMISS his appeal for failure to prosecute. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.3.3, 42.3.2.