alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11.0 - Computation of Per Share Earnings

         Basic earnings per share is calculated by dividing net income by the
weighted average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted earnings per share
is calculated by dividing net income by the weighted average number of common
shares outstanding adjusted for the dilutive effect of outstanding stock
options. ESOP shares are only considered outstanding for earnings per share
calculations when they are released or committed to be released.

Presented below are the calculations for the basic and diluted earnings per
share:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Three Months   Three Months      Nine Months      Nine Months
                                                  Ended          Ended            Ended            Ended
                                              September 30,  September 30,    September 30,    September 30,
                                                   2000           1999             2000            1999
                                                   ----           ----             ----            ----
<S>                                            <C>               <C>            <C>             <C>
BASIC:
Net income                                     $  957,798        969,448        2,920,083       3,081,317

Weighted average shares outstanding             4,387,365      4,874,633        4,432,461       5,829,065
                                                =========      =========        =========       =========

Basic earnings per share                          $0.22           0.20             0.66            0.53
                                                  =====           ====             ====            ====

DILUTED:

Net income                                     $  957,798        969,448        2,920,083       3,081,317

Weighted average shares outstanding             4,387,365      4,874,633        4,432,461       5,829,065
Effect of dilutive stock options outstanding           82         --                  163           --
                                                ---------      ---------        ---------       ---------
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding     4,387,447      4,874,633        4,432,624       5,829,065
                                                =========      =========        =========       =========

Diluted earnings per share                        $0.22           0.20             0.66            0.53
                                                  =====           ====             ====            ====
</TABLE>
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 41 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 41 Filed 06/16/16 Page 2 of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Josephine Tijerino,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Stetson Desert Project LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02563-PHX-SMM

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Tamicka Toliver and Defendants Stetson Desert Project 

LLC, Cory Anderson, and Cary Anderson’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Notice of 

Settlement and Request to Vacate Status Conference with Respect to Plaintiff Tamicka 

Toliver’s Case Only. (Doc. 87.) 

Plaintiff Toliver’s case was consolidated with two other matters under case No. CV15-02563-PHX-SMM for pretrial proceedings. (See No. CV-15-02563-PHX-SMM, Doc. 

18.) In an October 23, 2019 Order, the Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff 

Josephine Tijerino’s case only. (Doc. 82.) Plaintiff Toliver’s matter (No. CV-15-2564-

PHX-SMM) and Plaintiff Jane Roe Dancer’s matter (No. CV-16-00408-PHX-SMM) 

remained open and continued consolidated. (Id. at 2.)

In the instant notice, Plaintiff Toliver and Defendants notify the Court that they have 

reached an agreement to settle Plaintiff Toliver’s case only. (Doc. 87 at 2.) Outside of the 

Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) context, the Court normally does not rule on a private 

settlement agreement negotiated between the parties. However, because there are FLSA 

Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 88 Filed 02/05/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

claims asserted against Defendants, the parties must seek approval of their settlement 

agreement to ensure its enforceability. The Court may approve the settlement if it is a fair 

and reasonable compromise of the issues. Therefore, before the Court may approve the 

notice of settlement, the parties must submit a joint motion to approve settlement 

agreement and attach a copy of the settlement agreement.

Plaintiff Toliver and Defendants also request that the Court vacate the Status 

Conference set for Monday, February 10, 2020 as to Plaintiff Toliver only. (Id.)

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Tamicka Toliver and Defendants shall 

file a joint motion to approve settlement agreement and stipulation of dismissal on or before 

Friday, March 6, 2020. The parties shall attach a copy of the settlement agreement to the 

joint motion. The joint motion must demonstrate that the settlement is a fair and reasonable 

compromise of the issues. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in No. CV-15-2564-PHX-SMM, vacating the 

Status Conference set for Monday, February 10, 2020 as to Plaintiff Tamicka Toliver only.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED in No. CV-16-00408-PHX-SMM, affirming the 

Status Conference set for Monday, February 10, 2020 as to the remaining Plaintiff Jane 

Roe Dancer.

Dated this 5th day of February, 2020.

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02563-SMM Document 88 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 714 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 714

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs nursing care center at 
    the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Aspinwall, 
Pennsylvania, as the ``H. John Heinz III Department of Veterans Affairs 
                         Nursing Care Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 1997

  Mr. Doyle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs nursing care center at 
    the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Aspinwall, 
Pennsylvania, as the ``H. John Heinz III Department of Veterans Affairs 
                         Nursing Care Center''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF H. JOHN HEINZ III DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS NURSING CARE CENTER, ASPINWALL, PENNSYLVANIA.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs nursing care center at the 
Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Aspinwall, 
Pennsylvania, is hereby designated as the ``H. John Heinz III 
Department of Veterans Affairs Nursing Care Center''. Any reference to 
such nursing care center in any law, regulation, map, document, record, 
or other paper of the United States shall be considered to be a 
reference to the ``H. John Heinz III Department of Veterans Affairs 
Nursing Care Center''.
                                 <all>
```
423 A.2d 1311

#### Commonwealth v. Carroll, Appellant.

Argued August 28, 1979.

George G. Mahfood, for appellant; Janet R. Necessary, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before VAN der VOORT, LARSEN and LAVELLE, JJ.*

*

 Justice Rolf Larsen of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and Judge John E. Lavelle of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, are sitting by designation.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Stacy Holtz","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/stacy-a-holtznasa-gov\/","title":"STS-73","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"mJkCeVNF5f\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-73\/\">STS-73<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-73\/embed\/#?secret=mJkCeVNF5f\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-73” — NASA\" data-secret=\"mJkCeVNF5f\" 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"}
WO

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Shari Ferreira,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Joseph M Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-15-01845-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ May 19, 2016, Motion for Court Order to 

Release Controlled Records. (Doc. 61). Defendants seek the release of certain 

“controlled” records that were initially delivered with redactions pursuant to Utah Code 

§§ 63G-2-304, 63G-2-202(7). Plaintiff does not oppose the motion, but does “request that 

the Court order that Defendants maintain the confidentiality of any records that the 

parties receive from such Court order.”1

(Doc. 66 at 1). 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion, (Doc. 61), is hereby GRANTED, to 

 

1

 Plaintiff, however, does not proffer any mechanism for the Court to rely on to 

ensure that the released records remain “confidential.” For example, Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(c) permits the Court to issue protective orders “for good cause” to “protect 

a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 

expense” during the discovery process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The burden is on the 

party seeking such an order to make “for each particular document it seeks to protect” a 

“showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Case 2:15-cv-01845-JAT Document 79 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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

the limited extent that the Utah Department of Human Services/Farmington Bay Youth 

Center shall produce to Defense Counsel unredacted copies of the previously produced 

records, including information previously withheld as being “controlled.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff seeks to have the Court ensure the 

“confidentiality” of the records affected by this Order, Plaintiff has through the end of 

Friday, August 12, 2016 to file the appropriate motion. 

Dated this 5th day of August, 2016.

Case 2:15-cv-01845-JAT Document 79 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 10, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-30783 Summary Calendar KEITH WARREN BLAYNE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus J. FLATTERY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(1:04-CV-327)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Keith Warren Blayne, federal prisoner # 70087-079, appeals, pro se, the summary judgment awarded Dr. Flattery, a physician at the prison where Blayne is incarcerated, in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Blayne maintains Dr. Flattery was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by providing inadequate medical treatment2

and delaying surgery to remove a keloid from his left earlobe. Blayne also asserts the district court granted summary judgment without providing him an opportunity for discovery. The summary judgment is reviewed de novo . E.g. , Guillory v. Domtar Indus., Inc. , 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir. 1996). To succeed on a Bivens claim, a prisoner must show a constitutional violation has occurred. 403 U.S. at 395-97. To show a violation
of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the violation asserted by Blayne, a prisoner must demonstrate deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). This requires a prisoner to provide evidence that prison officials “re fused to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs”. Domino
v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Blayne was examined on numerous occasions by prison medical staff who monitored his condition and provided treatment for his keloid, but he did not receive surgery because the Bureau of Prisons’ policy classified the procedure as cosmetic. Because Blayne has not shown Dr. Flattery refused to treat him, ignored his complaints, or intentionally treated him incorrectly, Blayne’s complaints do not rise to the level of deliberate indi fference.3

See id. , Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-07 (1976); Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 123 8 (5th Cir. 1985). At most, his
allegations amount to negligence or medical malpractice claims, which is insufficient for relief. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Blayne’s complaint about the lack of discovery is without merit. See Williamson v. United States Dep’t of Agric. , 815 F.2d 368, 382 (5th Cir. 1987). AFFIRMED
#### The State *v.*Mead.

In criminal cases, except petit misdemeanors, &c., the state as well as the defendant may insist on a trial by jury.

If the state claim a jury in such criminal case, but the Court notwithstanding try the cause without a jury and acquit the defendant,—the trial is a *nullity,*and the cause must be tried again.

*Wednesday, May*31.

ERROR to the *Hendricks*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

Indictment for larceny; Plea, not guilty. When the cause was called for trial, the defendant claimed the right to have the cause tried by the Court and not by a jury. The prosecuting attorney, on behalf of the state, objected to this claim-, and insisted upon having a jury impanelled to try the issue. The Court overruled the objection of the prosecuting attorney, tried the cause upon its merits without a jury, and acquitted the defendant.

We have no doubt but that this proceeding is unconstitutional and void. The language of the constitution of the state is, “ That in all criminal cases, except in petit misdemeanors, &c., the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.” Art. 1, sec. 5. The state is as much entitled to the benefit of this constitutional provision as any individual can be. Whenever the right is claimed by either party, in a case like the one before us, the Court is bound to grant it. The statute authorising suits, whether civil or criminal, to be submitted to the Court without a jury, can have no application to this case; Rev. Code, 1831; p. 408; because the state instead of agreeing to a trial by the Court, objected to it in express terms.

The defendant supposes that because he has been acquitted, the state cannot subject him to another trial for the same cause. That would be true, if the objection of the state were to a verdict, and the insufficiency of the evidence were the ground of the objection. *Rex*v. *Praed,*4 Burr. 2257 (1). But this is a very different case. Here is no verdict, and the objection to the judgment is, that there has been no legal trial. The Court had no authority, under the circumstances, to determine the issue, and the trial is *coram non judice*and absolutely void. The plea of *auterfois acquit*is no bar to a prosecution, if the former indictment was insufficient. *Vaux's*Case, 4 Co. *310Rep. 44. The reason is, because the defendant, in such a case, was not *legitimo modo acquielatus.*For the same reason, the defendant, in the present case, may be tried again. Our constitution, it is true, provides that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence. Ind. Const. art. 1, sec. 13. But that provision does not apply to a case where the first trial was a nullity, and where the defendant, of course, was not put in jeopardy by it.

*W. Herod,*for the state.

*C. C. Nave,*for the defendant.

There has here been a *mis-trial,*and though the defendant has been acquitted, there must be another trial of the cause.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

*Vide*note to *Warren*v. *The State, ante,*p. *150.—The State*v. *Davis, Nov.*term, 1837, *post.*
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-76-2014]

# For Further Information Contact:

                        Diane Finver at                         *Diane.Finver@trade.gov*                         or (202) 482-1367.                    

Dated: October 21, 2014.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-25639 Filed 10-27-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Brian D. Urban, Chief Financial Officer of Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(i) the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: March 2, 2004



/s/ Brian D. UrbanBrian D. UrbanChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.6.k

                               THIRD AMENDMENT OF
              FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PROGRAM
                 PART II UNION HOURLY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN

         WHEREAS, FMC Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") maintains the FMC
Technologies, Inc. Employees' Retirement Program Part II Union Hourly Employees'
Retirement Plan (the "Plan");

         WHEREAS, amendment of the Plan is now considered desirable to reflect
the most recent union negotiations; and

         WHEREAS, this amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to
the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of the
amendment;

         NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the powers reserved to the
Company under Section 11.1 Plan Amendment or Termination of the Plan, the Plan
is hereby amended, effective May 1, 2001, in the following respects:

              Supplement 4 - Food Processing Machinery Division, Hoopeston,
         Illinois is hereby amended by adding the following to the end of
         Section 4-5 Normal Retirement Benefit:

              "On or after December 1, 2002      $33.00"

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be
executed by a duly authorized representative this 17th day of March 2003.

                                                FMC Technologies, Inc.

                                                By: /s/ Michael W. Murray
                                                    ---------------------
                                                Vice President Human Resources
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-75-2014]

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Pierre Duy at                         *Pierre.Duy@trade.gov*                         (202) 482-1378.                    

Dated: October 20, 2014.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-25633 Filed 10-27-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P