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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                           ReliaStar Financial Corp.
                       Computation of Per Share Earnings
                    (in millions, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              Three Months                        Six Months
                                                                              Ended June 30                      Ended June 30
                                                                       --------------------------         -----------------------
                                                                         2000            1999                2000            1999
                                                                       ---------      ---------           ---------      --------
<S>                                                                   <C>             <C>                 <C>            <C>
NUMERATOR - BASIC AND DILUTED

Net Income                                                             $   59.3         $    71.7         $  133.4       $  136.1
                                                                       ========         =========         ========       ========
DENOMINATOR

Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding
       During the Period (Basic)                                           89.9              87.9             89.6           88.4
Dilutive Effect of Stock Options                                            1.4               1.0              1.1            1.1
Other                                                                        .1                .1               .1             .1
                                                                       --------         ---------         --------       --------
   Weighted Average Common Shares During the Period (Diluted)              91.4              89.0             90.8           89.6
                                                                       ========         =========         ========       ========

NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
Basic                                                                  $    .66         $     .82         $   1.49        $  1.54
                                                                       ========         =========         ========        =======
Diluted                                                                $    .65         $     .81         $   1.47        $  1.52
                                                                       ========         =========         ========        =======
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WM MOBILE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL )

CENTER, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

V. ) CASE NO. 13-0434-KD-N

)

THE CITY OF MOBILE SOLID WASTE )

AUTHORITY, )

)

Defendant. )

AMENDED JUDGMENT

The amended judgment entered November 10, 2015 (doc. 203) is amended as follows: 

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows: JUDGMENT is 

entered in favor of Plaintiff WM Mobile Bay Environmental Center, Inc., as to Count I, in the 

amount of $1,369,771.00 and as to Count III, in the amount of $1,082,753.00.

Except as amended herein, all provisions of the judgment entered February 6, 2015 

(doc. 173) shall remain in effect. 

DONE this the 17th day of November 2015. 

/s / Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00434-KD-N Document 204 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION N o. 04 - 14 - 00439 - CV D&J ALEXANDER MANAGE MENT, LP , Appellant v. Raymond S. De Leon, II, Trustee of Josefina Alexander Family Raymond S. DE LEON , II, Trustee of The Delfina & Josefina Alexander Family Trust, Appellee From the County Court at Law No . 2 , Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013 - PBA - 000133 L2 Honorable Jesus Garza , Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 15, 2014 DIS MISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Appellant, D&J Alexander Management, LP, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s “Order Granting Kazen, Meurer & Perez, L.L.P. Amended Authenticated Claim and Amended Motion for Payment of Temporary Attorney Ad Litem Fees” (payable to J. Francisco Tamez), entered in trial cause number 2013 - PBA - 000133L2. In a separate mandamus proceeding in this court, appellant/relator filed a petition f or writ of mandamus seeking similar relief from the same order, but entered in trial cause number 2008 - PB7 - 000016 - L2.04 - 14 - 00439 - CV On July 29, 2014, we abated this appeal for the purpose of resolving appellant/relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in appellate cause number 04 - 14 - 00448 - CV. On September 24, 2014, in the mandamus proceeding, this court issued an opinion in which a panel of this court concluded the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter orders obligating appellant/relator to pay ad litem fees in trial cause number 2008 - PB7 - 000016 - L2. This opinion did not address the merits of any challenge raised by appellant to any orders in trial cause number 2013 - PBA - 000133L2. Because it appear ed this court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the

“ Order Granting Kazen, Meurer & Perez, L.L.P. Amended Authenticated Claim and Amended Motion for Payment of Temporary Attorney Ad Litem Fees” (payable to J. Francisco Tamez), entered in trial cause number 2013 - PBA - 000133L2 ; we ordered appellant to show caus e in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if a ppellant d id not agree with this court’s initial review of its jurisdiction . On October 3, 2014, appellant filed a letter with this court stating: “Appellant has no further argument in support of jurisdiction other than those set forth in [other companion cases], which Appellant recognizes that this Court has already rejected.” Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 1 PER CURIAM

1 Our dismissal of this appeal should not be interpreted as a comment on the issue of whether the trial court erred in rendering the “Order Granting Kazen, Meurer & Perez, L.L.P. Amended Authenticated Claim and Amended Motion for Payment of Temporary Attorney Ad Litem Fees” (payable to J. Francisco Tamez), entered in trial cause number 2013 - PBA - 000133L2 , as that issue remains for future review upon entry of a final, appealable order or judgment.

- 2 -
EXHIBIT
      10.3.3





Terms
      of
      December 2007 Amendment to Employment Agreement


between
      Bay National Bank and Richard C. Springer








On
      December 18, 2006, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
      Bay
      National Bank increased, effective January 1, 2007, Richard Springer’s annual
      base compensation from $200,000 to $206,000.





Also,
      the
      Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Bank approved a
      discretionary bonus to Mr. Springer of $40,000 in December. This bonus was
      paid
      in February 2007.
• ORIGINAL ( 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

IN RE THE PETITION OF 

CHLOE RODDY 

PR 23-0004 FILED 

JUN 1 3 2023 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Chloe Roddy has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the State 

Bar of Montana after having been on inactive status since April 2022. 

IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of 

Montana, Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice of law in the state of 

Montana. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within six months of the date of this Order, 

Petitioner shall submit to the Board of Continuing Legal Education, P.O. Box 577, 

Helena, MT 59624, proof of attendance at fifteen hours of approved Continuing Legal 

Education to be credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive status. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this 13th day of June, 2023. 

For the Court, 

By 

06/13/2023

Case Number: PR 23-0004
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                 Netegrity, Inc.

                            Certification 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 Quarterly Report of Netegrity, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Regina O. Sommer, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, that this Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: May 7, 2004                 /s/ Regina O. Sommer
                                  --------------------------
                                  Regina O. Sommer
                                  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                  (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
                                    Accounting Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Denise Corttessia ABDULLAH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6295.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 2001.

Decided May 22, 2001.

*153Denise Corttessia Abdullah, pro se. Andrea L. Smith, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Denise C. Abdullah appeals the district court’s order denying her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Abdullah,*Nos. CR-94-422 JFM; CA-00-2376-HNM (D.Md. Dec. 19, 2000). Additionally, we recently held in *United States v. Sanders,*247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001), that the new rule announced in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Further, Abdullah’s § 2255 motion was untimely with respect to all three claims raised in her § 2255 motion. 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. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. The motion to supplement the informal brief is granted.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 32.01

Certification of Chief Executive 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 Quarterly Report of Kana Software, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chuck Bay, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, 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) 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.

Date: March 19, 2004	By:  /s/ Chuck Bay	Chuck BayChief Executive Officer
 

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Kana Software, Inc. and will be retained by Kana Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION 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 HealthExtras, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |                                                                        
|--------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|March 16 , 2005 |  | /s/ David T. Blair                                                     
|                |  | David T. Blair Chief Executive Officer and
Director                    
|                | 
|                |  | /s/ Michael P. Donovan                                                 
|                |  | Michael P. Donovan Chief Financial Officer
and Chief Accounting Officer
##### 



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 In connection with the Annual Report of WQN, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10KSB for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Victor E. Grijalva, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: (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 result of operations of the Company. By:
    
    /s/ Victor E. GrijalvaName: Victor E. GrijalvaTitle: Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
 March 31, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,409
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,157
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,296)
<INVENTORY>                                        161
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,964
<PP&E>                                           5,559
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,785)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,440
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,424
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,162
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,471
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (78)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (660)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (423)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (423)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,322)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.45)
        




</TABLE>
#### Robert McAllister, et al., *v.*James Bryan, et al.

Conveyance of Real Estate — Deed.

Where a deed to real estate is duly delivered to the grantee, it carries title and its destruction does not empower the grantor to make a second deed, for he then has nothing to convey.

*441APPEAL PROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT.

March 17, 1875.

*George E. Roe, A. Duvall, for appellants.*

*E. C. Phister, W. C. Ireland, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Juuge Peters:

The evidence preponderates very decidedly to the conclusion that Robert McAllister furnished the money with which the land claimed by Mrs. McAllister was paid for. At the time five hundred dollars of the purchase money was paid, and which was paid by him, the land was conveyed to him by Bryan, the vendor, and the deed acknowledged by Bryan and wife before Corum, the clerk of the county court of Greenup county, whose deposition is in the record. He not only proves the acknowledgment of the deed, but also proves the payment of $500 of the purchase money at the time by Robert McAllister. *Ey*that conveyance McAllister was invested with the legal title. The burning of that deed, and the execution of a second deed by Bryan to Mrs .McAllister did not divest him, and invest her with the title. Bryan, when he attempted to make the second deed, had nothing to convey, having parted with his title by the former deed.

As to the ruling of the court below on the report of Corum, the commissioner appointed to supply the part of the record lost, or destroyed, it is sufficient to say that exceptions were taken to the report of said commissioner, which were overruled by the court, and there the matter appeal's to have ended, No exception was taken to the judgment of the court overruling the objections to the commissioner’s report, and they must be treated by this court as waived.

On the subject of the cross-appeal of Mrs. Sarah McAllister, we remark that Bryan, Morton, Winn and Catherine McAllister are appellees in the appeal of Robert McAllister and Malcom M'cAllister against them. It does not appear from the endorsement o.f the names of the appellees on the record that Sarah McAllister is even an appellee; but if she were, she could not prosecute a cross-appeal against other appellees.

Wherefore the cross-appeal of Sarah McAllister against Bryan and others is dismissed and the judgment is *affirmed,*on the appeal of R. McAllister and wife against Bryan, Morton, Winn and Catharine McAllister.
#### Caplinger *v.*Hickerson.

Opinion delivered January 16, 1928.

1. Landlord and tenant — injunction against trespass. — An injunction to restrain a lessor from turning horses and cattle on land which the tenant was cultivating was not granted, where there was no showing that the tenant would suffer irreparable injury.

2. Landlord and tenant — injunction against trespass. — An injunction will not be granted to a tenant to restrain a solvent landlord from turning cattle and horses on the land which he had under cultivation, since the tenant had an adequate remedy at law.

.Appeal from Independence Chancery Court; *Alvin 8. Irby,*Chancellor;

affirmed.

*W. M. Thompson,*for appellant.

J. *Paul Ward*and *Coleman é Reeder,*for appellee.

Mehaffy, J.

The appellant filed a petition in the chancery court seeking to restrain appellees from turning *1106loose certain stock upon the growing crops of the appellant, who was a tenant of appellee. He alleged that he resided on appellees’ lands as a tenant, and that, upon agreement with appellees, he was cultivating some ground surrounding* the house in which he lives, cultivating the same in tomatoes, cucumbers, peas 'and other truck, and that this was in a common inclosure owned and operated by appellees, and he alleged further that they were about to turn several head of cattle, horses, and other live stock into said inclosure, to his damage, and. that, unless restrained, he would suffer irreparable harm, and that there was no means of determining the extent of damage to which he would be subjected by the actions of the defendants, and that he had no adequate remedy at law.

The appellees filed answer, denying the material allegations in appellant’s complaint, and also filed a cross-complaint alleging that appellant was cultivating the small piece of land without their consent, and that he turned his' own stock into the same, and that appellant knew when he put said land in cultivation that it was a common pasture, knew that defendants would use the same, and that they offered him some fencing to fence the land if he wished to do so, but he did not do so. They state they never agreed to fence the land for appellant, and were under no obligations to do so. Appellees state, however, that, when appellant complained to them, that they did fence the spot of land, although they were under no obligations to do so. That he had damaged their orchard, fence and pasture in the sum of $200.

The testimony was conflicting, and the finding of the chancellor is supported by the evidence. It may also be stated that there is no allegation of insolvency and no showing of irreparable injury, and that appellant had a complete and adequate remedy at law.

The decree is therefore affirmed.
#### Edwards *v.*Miller et al.

*Practice.—Assignment of Error.—Reasons for New*Trial.—Where on appeal to the • Supreme Court the assignment of errors includes only causes for a new trial, and fails to assign as error the overruling of a motion for a new trial, no question is presented.

APPEAL from the Fayette Common Pleas.

*B. F. Clay pool, A. M. Sinks,*and *y. M. Wilson,*for appellant.

*J. C. McIntosh, W. Morrow,*and *N Trusler,*for appellees.

Pettit, J.

The errors assigned in this case are these: “ ist. The finding and judgment of the court is contrary to law. 2d. The finding and judgment of the court is contrary to evidence. 3d. The finding and judgment of the court is contrary to law and evidence. 4th. That the evidence in the case shows that the judgments, on which the property of plaintiff in error is proposed to be sold, have been fully paid, and that the appellees James and William Huston, who claim to be the owners of said judgments, are estopped by their acts and declarations to enforce the same or any part thereof, as against the appellant; but the court refused to enjoin the sale of appellant’s said property, for the payment of the same.” These are only causes for a new trial; and as there is no assignment of error on any pleading, or for overruling a motion for a new trial, we cannot consider any question attempted to be raised by the assignment of errors. Leave was asked to amend the assignment of errors, by adding one for overruling the motion for a new trial, but this leave was refused, because, on examination of the bill of exceptions, we found it so defective that we could not consider the evidence as in the record, hence the proposed amendment could not be of any avail to the appellant.

The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.