alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 11.1

                               FRESH AMERICA CORP.
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS*
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)

                                                              QUARTER ENDED
                                                           MARCH 29,   MARCH 28,
                                                             1996        1997
                                                          ----------  ----------
Net income applicable to common and common
  equivalent shares ....................................  $      348  $      945
                                                          ==========  ==========
Weighted average common shares outstanding .............       3,611       3,731

Effect of stock options and warrants ...................         218         199
                                                          ----------  ----------
Weighted average common and common
  equivalent shares ....................................       3,829       3,930
                                                          ==========  ==========
Net income per common and common equivalent
  share - fully diluted ................................  $     0.09  $     0.24
                                                          ==========  ==========

*    Earnings per share are presented on a fully diluted basis.
Order entered November 25, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 01206 - CV IN THE ESTATE OF ROB ERTO RE FUGIO DE JESUS GONZA LEZ BARRERA

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR - 15 - 02268 - 1



### O RDER The reporter’s record is overdue. By letter dated November 7, 2019, the court reporter informed the Court that no hearings were conducted in the underlying proceeding. According ly,

we ORDER appellant to file her brief on the merits within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
#### F. T. Weeden, Collector, etc., v. Robert Martin.

(No. 3053.)

Error from Bobertson County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 197. *Writ of error bond; city not exempt from giving, unless, etc.*The provisions of Title XVII of the Be vised Statutes, page 58,-with regard to “Cities and *159Towns,” do not apply to any city, until such provisions have been accepted by the city council in accordance with the terms made and manner prescribed by the statute. [R. S. arts. 340, 341.] By article 499, it is provided that a city accepting the provisions of said title shall not be required to give bond in any suit or proceeding in which the city is a party, its liability being prescribed and fixed without a bond. In this case, a writ of garnishment was served upon appellant, assessor and collector of taxes of the city of Hearne, upon a judgment against said city in favor of appellee, and judgment was rendered therein against him. The case is brought to this court by writ of error, without a writ of error bond, and defendant in error moves to dismiss the writ of error for want of such bond. *Held,*plaintiff in error claims that this is a suit against the city of Hearne, and that said city is incorporated under the general law, and that if it could prosecute a writ of error without bond, he, as agent and representative of the city, and in a suit in which said city is a party, can do so likewise, and by virtue of said authority. We are not prepared to say but that this position would be correct, if it had been made to appear in the record that the city had accepted the provisions of the' general law, and become incorporated under it, according to its terms and provisions. This is not made apparent of record. Without such showing affirmatively, the city could not prosecute the writ without bond, and if the city could not, it is obvious that plaintiff in error, as her agent, cannot. The fact that a party appealing or prosecuting a writ of error is entitled to do so by virtue of certain privileges which exempt him from duties and burdens interposed generally with regard to such proceedings, must be affirmatively shown by him, or this court cannot recognize such right.

May 7, 1884.

Dismissed.
542 A.2d 639

#### Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Appellant *v.*Inntermission Lounge and Restaurant, Inc., Appellee.

Submitted on briefs April 19, 1988,

to President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.

*Eileen S. Maunus,*Assistant Counsel, with her, *Ken Shelly,*Chief Counsel, for appellant.

*Edward A. McQuoid, King, Ruprecht*& *McQuoid,*for appellee.

June 9, 1988:

Opinion by

President Judge Crumlish, Jr.,

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) fined Inntermission Lounge and Restaurant, Inc. (Lounge) $350.00 for possessing or operating gambling *27devices or permitting gambling on licensed premises.1 The Allegheny County Common Pleas Court vacated the penalty. The Board appeals; we reverse and remand.

A Pittsburgh City police officer played four video poker machines in the Lounge and was able to “knock down”2 the credits accumulated on each machine (N.T. 2/10/87, p. 5). In a *criminal*proceeding pursuant to 18 Pa. C. S. §5513 (gambling devices; gambling), the Lounge was found not guilty.

The common pleas court in this *administrative*proceeding concluded that the criminal decision acted as collateral estoppel against the Board. We disagree.

In *V.J.R. Bar Corp. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board,*480 Pa. 322, 390 A.2d 163 (1978), our Supreme Court held that the Board may fine licensees for gambling on premises even though criminal charges based on the same conduct had been dismissed. This Court has consistently followed that precedent. *Americus Hose Co., Inc. Liquor License Case,*71 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 218, 454 A.2d 1165 (1983); *Mar-Kodis Diner v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board,*110 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 507, 532 A.2d 940 (1987).

Thus, we hold that the common pleas court erred in vacating the suspension on the grounds of collateral estoppel. However, since the opinion of the common pleas court fails to contain findings of fact and conclusions of law on the evidence presented, further appellate review is precluded.

The order of the common pleas court is reversed, and this matter is remanded for a decision on the evidence presented at the de novo hearing.

*28Order

The order of the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, Docket No. S.A. 1095 of 1986 dated March 9, 1987, is reversed. This matter is remanded for findings of fact and conclusions of law.'

Jurisdiction relinquished.

1

 Section 471 of the Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1952, P.L. 90, *as amended,*47 P.S. §4-471.

2

 A “knock-down” button enables an owner to record the number of free games erased by a switch.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. D. & B. TRUCKING, INC., d/b/a Alco Express, Respondent.

No. 80-1197.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 5, 1980.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Bernard Gottfried, Director Region 7, N. L. R. B., Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.

William J. Weinstein, Weinstein, Kroll & Gordon, Southfield, Mich., for respondent.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petitioner’s application for summary entry of a judgment enforcing the order of the National Labor *138Relations Board filed June 4, 1979 in their case # 7-CA-15283, and it appearing that counsel for the respondents has not objected to the granting of this application,

And it further appearing that the application of petitioner is well-taken,

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the application be and it hereby is granted and the order of the Board is hereby enforced.
Order entered February 13, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01020-CV

JERRY GRISAFFI, Appellant

V.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN HIGH BRANDS, INC. 

F/K/A REPUBLIC OF TEXAS BRANDS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-15441

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s February 12, 2019 unopposed second motion for an 

extension of time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to February 28, 

2019. We caution appellant that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.3


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the “Operating Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward J. Fritsch, President
and Chief Executive Officer of Highwoods Properties, Inc., general partner of the Operating Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Operating Partnership.







/s/ Edward J. FritschEdward J. Fritsch
President and Chief Executive Officer of the General PartnerOctober 29, 2009
#### STATE ex rel. Michel DIXON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2443.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 2010.

In re Dixon, Michel; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of East Feliciana, 20th Judi*290cial District Court Div. A, No. 39,136; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 1694.

Denied.
#### 1000 FRIENDS OF FLORIDA, INC., and Sierra Club, Appellants, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY and Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Cemex, Appellees.

No. 4D10-2290.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 7, 2011.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 2012.

Robert N. Hartsell and Richard Grosso of Everglades Law Center, Fort Lauder-dale, for appellants.

Robert P. Banks and Leonard Berger, Senior Assistant County Attorneys, West Palm Beach, for appellee, Palm Beach County.

Larry A. Klein and Martin J. Alexander of Holland & Knight LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee, Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Cemex.

PER CURIAM.

Based on *1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. v. Palm Beach County,*69 So.3d 1123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), we reverse the final judgment in favor of appellees. Although there was some evidence that the proposed mine might support agricultural activities, this was a tangential, collateral benefit. The permit provided no benchmarks to insure that an agricultural use would be consistent with the requirement of the policy in the comprehensive plan that mining be permitted “only to support public roadway projects or agricultural activities.” *1271
      *Id.*at 1125. We remand to the circuit court with instructions to declare the development order inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and to enjoin enforcement of the order.

STEVENSON, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
   August 14, 2008

Date
    
    
    
    
    
    /s/ David T. Stoner

David T. StonerChief Executive Officer
#### SOUTHERN-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Kevin LOGSDON and Diane Logsdon, Appellees.

No. 4D11-1775.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 30, 2011.

Patrick B. Flanagan of Flanagan & Ma-niotis, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ryan Sherman and Lauren Tow of Sherman Law, P.A., Miami, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without opinion all issues raised on appeal, except the award of attorney’s fees. We dismiss the portion of the appeal regarding the award of attorney’s fees as the order granting entitlement to fees is not appealable. *Winkelman v. Toll,*682 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).

POLEN, GROSS, and CONNER, JJ„ concur.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    EXHIBIT 11

                               Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

                                Three and Nine Months Ended March 31, 1999 and 1998

                                 (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)



                                                         Three months ended                Nine months ended
                                                               March 31,                         March 31,
                                                      ---------------------------     --------------------------- 
                                                          1999            1998          1999           1998
                                                      -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
<S>                                                   <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>        
Net income ......................................     $     2,908     $     3,048     $     8,577     $     8,476
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========

Number of shares outstanding:
  Weighted average shares issued ................      11,900,000      11,900,000      11,900,000      11,900,000
  Less:  Weighted average shares held in treasury       3,106,278       2,253,828       2,831,653       2,254,613
  Less:  Average shares held by the ESOP ........         952,000         952,000         952,000         952,000
  Plus:  ESOP shares released or committed to be
              released during the fiscal year ...         368,814         280,470         346,174         259,403
                                                      -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
         Average basic shares ...................       8,210,536       8,974,642       8,462,521       8,952,790
  Plus:  Average common stock equivalents .......         640,822         793,179         637,714         736,912
                                                      -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
         Average diluted shares .................       8,851,358       9,767,821       9,100,235       9,689,702
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========

Earnings per common share:
         Basic ..................................     $      0.35     $      0.34     $      1.01     $      0.95
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
         Diluted ................................     $      0.33     $      0.31     $      0.94     $      0.87
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========

</TABLE>
H. R. 7230 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 226 West 

Main Street in Lake City, South Carolina, as the ‘‘Postmaster Frazier B. Baker 

Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. POSTMASTER FRAZIER B. BAKER POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 226 West Main Street in Lake City, South Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Postmaster Frazier 

B. Baker Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Postmaster Frazier B. Baker Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Shoshone Resource Advisory Committee (Committee) will meet in Thermopolis, Wyoming. The Committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the meeting is to finalize the Committee's operating guidelines and develop criteria for prioritizing Title II projects.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held October 27, 2010, 9 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Big Horn Federal Savings, 643 Broadway, Thermopolis, Wyoming.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Olga Troxel, Resource Advisory Committee Coordinator, Shoshone National Forest Supervisor's Office, (307) 578-5164.

Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: (1) Finalize the Committee's Operating Guidelines, (2) Develop criteria for selecting Title II projects, (3) Discuss procedures for requesting project submittals. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided.

Dated: October 4, 2010.

David M. Pieper,

Acting Forest Supervisor. 

[FR Doc. 2010-25418 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### Marshall Lawrence DAYAN and David Taylor Shelledy, Plaintiffs-Appellants Cross-Appellees, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA et al., Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants.

No. 79-3872

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 27, 1980.

*108J. Hue Henry, Athens, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants cross-appellees.

Alfred L. Evans, Jr., Michael J. Bowers, Linda R. Birrel, Asst. Attys. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees cross-appellants.

Before RONEY, KRAVITCH and TATE, Circuit Judges.

*

 Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18.

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s ruling that the defendant Board of Regent’s policy governing the procedure for seeking personal appearances before the Board is constitutional. The defendants have cross-appealed to contest the award of attorney’s fees made to the plaintiffs and to seek an award of attorney’s fees for themselves. Finding both appeals to be without merit, we affirm.

As the district court held, the plaintiffs’ reliance on *City of Madison, Joint School Dist. No. 8 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission,*429 U.S. 167, 97 S.Ct. 421, 50 L.Ed.2d 376 (1976), is misplaced because the defendant Board of Regents has not opened its meetings, either partially or completely, to the general public. Consequently, the Board’s rational procedural policy violates neither the First Amendment nor the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

As to the award of attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs, the district court found that the plaintiffs obtained substantial voluntary relief as *a direct result of their lawsuit.*Consequently, the award of attorney’s fees was proper. *Criterion Club of Albany v. Board of Commissioners of Dougherty County,*594 F.2d 118 (5th Cir. 1979). As to the defendants’ request for attorney’s fees, they made no such request in the trial court. Further, such an award would be inappropriate since the plaintiffs’ suit was not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. *See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E. E. O. C.,*434 U.S. 412, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978).

AFFIRMED on the basis of the district court’s opinion, 491 F.Supp. 138 (M.D.Ga. 1979), and the district court’s order of October 26, 1979 (CA 78-69-ATH).
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 97-4427

________________________ D. C. Docket No. 94-8681-CIV-JAG JANE ROE, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ROBERT BUTTERWORTH, Attorney General of the State of Florida, Defendant-Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________ (November 24, 1997) Before COX and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and FAY, Senior Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM:2 This suit and appeal involve a ch allenge to the laws of the state of Florida prohibiting prostitution. The contentions ar e that such laws violate several provisions of and rights recognized under the United States Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in its thorough opinion published at 958 F. Supp. 1569 (S.D. Fla. 1997). AFFIRMED.