alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:15-cr-01175-SMM Document 4 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01175-SMM Document 4 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01175-SMM Document 4 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                          FRANKLIN FINANCE CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

Net income for basic income per share is computed by subtracting from the
applicable income the dividend requirements on preferred stock to arrive at
income applicable to common stock and dividing this amount by the weighted
average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           NINE MONTHS ENDED           THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                      ------------------------------------------------------
                                                              SEPTEMBER 30,                SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                           2000           1999         2000            1999
                                                      ------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                    <C>             <C>          <C>          <C>
INCOME
Net income                                             $2,099,341      $1,790,676   $  701,210   $  610,314
Less: preferred stock dividend requirements             1,350,675       1,350,675      450,225      450,225
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net income applicable to common stock                  $  748,666      $  440,001   $  250,985   $  160,089

SHARES
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding       22,077          22,077       22,077       22,077

NET INCOME PER SHARE                                   $    33.91      $    19.93   $    11.37   $     7.25

</TABLE>



                                       13
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 652 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 652

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for the construction 
of a hydroelectric project located in the State of Washington, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 1997

  Mr. White introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for the construction 
of a hydroelectric project located in the State of Washington, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
numbered 9025, the Commission shall, upon the request of the project 
licensee, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public 
interest requirements of that section and the Commission's procedures 
under that section, extend the time period during which the licensee is 
required to commence construction of the project for not more than 3 
consecutive 2-year periods.
    (b) Applicability.--An extension under subsection (a) shall take 
effect for a project upon the expiration of the extension, issued by 
the Commission under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
806), of the period required for commencement of construction of the 
project.
    (c) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the license for the 
project referred to in subsection (a) has expired prior to the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall reinstate the license 
effective as of the date of its expiration and extend the time required 
for commencement of construction of the project as provided in 
subsection (a) for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year periods, the 
first of which shall commence on the date of such expiration.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 1892** 

STEVEN N. FULTON ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

ISAAC HANNAH COLEMAN; NEW ENGLAND MOTOR FREIGHT; ABC CORPORATION; JOHN DOES 1

- 3 ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville

. James C. Dever, III , Chief District Judge. ( 4:14

- cv
- 00007

- D )

Submitted : December 11, 2015 Decided: January 5, 2016

Before WILKINSON , MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Steven N. Fulton , Appellant Pro Se. Paul Douglas Coates , Adam Lee White , PINTO, COATES, KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC , Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opi nions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Steven N. Fulton appeals the district court ’ s May 28, 2015,

order denying his fourth postjudgment motion filed in his civil

case
. * On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in

the a ppellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Fulton ’ s
informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s disposition, Fulton has forfeited appellate review of

the court’s order. Accordingly , we affirm the district court ’ s
judgment . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

* “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Fulton’s notice of appeal does not identify the order from which he is appealing; however, th e May 28 order is the only order to which Fulton ’s notice of appeal is timely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)( 1), (4)(A). We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal despite Fulton’s failure to follow the technical requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 175 (4th Cir. 2014) ; Hartsell v. Duplex Prods., Inc. , 123 F.3d 766, 771 (4th Cir. 199 7)

.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeffrey Green, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Phoenix, et al., 

Defendant. 

No. CV-15-02570-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 Before the Court is Nonparty EEOC’s Motion to Quash Subpoena to Berta 

Echeveste (Doc. 114). Although neither Plaintiff nor Defendant have filed a Response, 

trial is set to begin on April 2, 2019, and the Court finds responses to be unnecessary. 

In its Motion, the EEOC represents that Plaintiff served a subpoena for Ms. 

Echeveste, the former Acting Deputy Director/Enforcement Manager of the EEOC 

Phoenix District Office, to testify at trial on April 3, 2019. The Court has already ruled 

that “[i]t is sufficient for Plaintiff to introduce evidence or testimony that: (1) he ‘filed’ [an 

EEOC] discrimination charge in 2009, (2) he and the City reached an agreement to resolve 

that charge, and (3) the agreement included his 2011 transfer to the Robbery Unit.” 

(Doc. 92 at 2). Thus, the Court finds testimony by Ms. Echeveste to be out outside the 

scope of its prior ruling regarding the EEOC charge. Accordingly, 

... 

... 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS ORDERED that the EEOC’s Motion to Quash Subpoena to Berta Echeveste 

(Doc. 114) is GRANTED. 

 Dated this 1st day of April, 2019. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge
Case 2:16-mj-01032-JFM Document 4 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01032-JFM Document 4 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01032-JFM Document 4 Filed 01/20/16 Page 3 of 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Roxana Bardan","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/dbardan\/","title":"NASA Invites Media to Northrop Grumman\u2019s Antares Cargo Resupply Launch","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"VcJJ1Yl8NI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-invites-media-to-northrop-grummans-antares-cargo-resupply-launch\/\">NASA Invites Media to Northrop Grumman\u2019s Antares Cargo Resupply Launch<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-invites-media-to-northrop-grummans-antares-cargo-resupply-launch\/embed\/#?secret=VcJJ1Yl8NI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Invites Media to Northrop Grumman\u2019s Antares Cargo Resupply Launch” — NASA\" data-secret=\"VcJJ1Yl8NI\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/ng18_cygnus_mate-03_copy_002.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":809}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2046

THERESA B. BRADLEY, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

CVS CORPORATION; CVS OF BETHESDA, LLC; CVS PHARMACY, d/b/a 

CVS Pharmacy Store #1831; MIDAS, INCORPORATED; MIDAS AUTO 

REPAIR AND SERVICE HARFORD CAR CARE; STEPHEN TENNANT; SHANE 

ROSS; SAM DOPPLER; YURIY BRONFMAN; ELENA DONSKAIA; STATE 

AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY; LARISSA MILLER; SCOTT PATRICK BURNS, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:07-cv-02732-PJM) 

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Theresa B. Bradley, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Patrick Burns, 

Toyja E. Kelley, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; 

Frank Furst Daily, III, LAW OFFICES OF FRANK F. DAILY, PA, Hunt 

Valley, Maryland; Herbert Romulus O’Conor, III, O’CONOR GRANT & 

SAMUELS, Towson, Maryland; Betty Sue Diener, MARKS, O’NEILL, 

O’BRIEN & COURTNEY, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Theresa Bradley appeals the district court’s order 

granting the Appellees’ motion to dismiss Bradley’s civil 

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we deny as moot Bradley’s motion to vacate 

this court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute and affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Bradley v. CVS Corp., 

No. 8:07-cv-02732-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 28, 2008). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                  In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. I, Brian A. Markison, Chief Executive Officer of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., certify, 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 this report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Date: May 10, 2005                             /s/ Brian A. Markison
                                               ------------------------------
                                                 Brian A. Markison
                                                 President and Chief
                                                 Executive Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 27","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ovr0mIZWf1\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-27\/\">Expedition 27<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-27\/embed\/#?secret=ovr0mIZWf1\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 27” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ovr0mIZWf1\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/exp27-portrait.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDWARD LE SEUR.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rhonda V. White,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-16-00194-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss, PLLC - Jackson, MS

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 2/8/2016, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to 

do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: February 10, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of party waiving service

of summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 845 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 1
#### Williams *v.*Anthony.

Opinion delivered December 1, 1930.

*McElhavmon & Callaway,*for appellant.

*B. W. Huie*and *J. II. Lookadoo,*for appellee.

Humphreys, J.

On the 30th day of November, 1927, Anna Jackson conveyed an undivided one-fifth interest in the south half of the northwest quarter of section 35, township 17 south, range 18 west, in Clark County, Arkansas, to appellants and delivered possession of the entire tract to them.

*811Prior to that time she had executed a mortgage on her undivided interest in said real estate to them. At the time she conveyed her interest in said land to them she was a co-tenant of appellees who owned the other fonr-fifths interest.

Thereafter appellants acquired outstanding tax titles to said tract of land under tax forfeiture, and sales antedating their deed from Anna Jackson to her one-fifth interest therein.

On December 6, 19;29, appellees herein, the owners by inheritance of the other four-fifths interest in said real estate brought suit in the chancery court of Clark County against appellants to redeem their several interests in said real estate from the tax forfeitures and sales and for an accounting of rents and profits.

Appellants filed an answer denying that appellees had a right to redeem the lands from the tax forfeitures and sales or to an accounting for rents and profits. They alleged that they became the owners in fee of the real estate under and by virtue of their purchases of the outstanding tax titles.

The cause was submitted to the court upon the pleadings and testimony resulting in a finding and decree against appellants, from which is this appeal.

Appellants contend for a reversal of the decree upon the theory that a -co-tenant who acquires title to his share after a tax forfeiture and sale may acquire title to the entire estate by buying such outstanding tax titles. In the instant case appellants knew that the lands had been forfeited for taxes at the time they purchased their undivided one-fifth interest from Anna Jackson. The rule in our -State is that a tenant in common of land can acquire no title to the interest of his co-tenant or co-tenants by purchase at the sale of the whole for delinquent taxes. Hi's purchase means no more than the payment of the taxes and gives him no right except to demand contribution from his co-tenants. *Cocks*v. *Simmons,*55 Ark. 104, 17 S. W. 594 ; *Inman*v. *Quirey,*128 Ark. 605, 194 S. W. 858. Appellants argue that this rule only *812applies to co-tenants at the time of the forfeiture and sale of the lands. Our court has never made any such distinction, and we think it applies as well as to the successor of a co-tenant with knowledge of all facts. The general rule laid down in 38 Cyc. p. 48 is as follows:

> “The purchase of the outstanding tax title for the entire property by a tenant in common operates as a payment of the tax and an extinguishment of the tax title, and a deed given to one of the tenants in common simply operates as a discharge of the taxes assessed on the land.”

No error appearing, the decree is affirmed.