alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11.0

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                            BTU INTERNATIONAL , INC.
        CALCULATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
             (Dollars in thousands, except share and per share data)


                                                      For the Three Months Ended 
                                                      -------------------------- 
                                                      March 29,        March 30,
                                                        1998             1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                 <C>              <C>       
Net income                                          $     126        $    (276)
                                                                      
Net income applicable to                                              
  common stockholders                               $     126        $    (276)
                                                    =========        =========
                                                                      
Weighted average number of shares outstanding                         
   Basic Shares                                     7,277,299        7,279,924
                                                                      
   Effect of Dilutive Options                          82,816           24,563
                                                    ---------        ---------
                                                                      
   Diluted Shares                                   7,360,115        7,304,487
                                                    =========        =========
                                                                      
Earnings Per Share                                                    
                                                                      
   Basic                                            $    0.02        $   (0.04)
                                                    ---------        ---------
                                                                      
   Diluted                                          $    0.02        $   (0.04)
                                                    ---------        ---------
</TABLE>



                                       12
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellant,

v.

TOTAL ORTHOPAEDICS CARE P.A. , a/a/o ADRIANA CRUZ, JAMIE GUM & YASMEEN ABDULRAZZAK , Appellee.

No. 4D 21

- 161

[ June 30, 2021 ]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Kathleen McCarthy , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. COCE16

- 19463, CACE18

- 27847, COCE 16

- 19475, CACE 18

- 29629, COCE 16

- 19469, and CACE 19

- 2711

.
Michael A. Rosenberg, Thomas L. Hunker, Peter D. Weinstein and Adrianna de la Cruz

- Munoz of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for appellant.

David Brian Pakula of David B. Pakula, P.A., Pembroke Pines, and Amir Fleischer of Marks & Fleischer, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed. See Geico Indem. Co. v. Muransky Chiropractic, P.A.

, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1513a, 2021 WL 2584107 (Fla. 4th DCA June 24, 2021).

C IKLIN
, G ERBER and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### In the Matter of Maura B., Appellant, v Giovanni P., Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 10]

Order, Family Court, New York County (George L. Jurow, J.H.O.), entered on or about February 8, 2012, which dismissed the petitions to modify custody for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and hearing officer, entered on or about July 19, 2012, which denied petitioner’s motion for emergency temporary custody of the child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this custody matter *(see*Domestic Relations Law §§ 76-b, 76-e; *Stocker v Sheehan,*13 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2004]). The initial custody determination was made by the Court of Florence, Italy, in 2005. Since then, numerous proceedings have been held in Italy, where respondent has resided since 2000. At the time the petition was filed, in 2011, a proceeding was ongoing in Italy, pursuant to which the parties had recently undergone a forensic evaluation, and a decision as to custody was expected imminently. And, in response to Family Court’s inquiry, the Appellate Court of Florence advised that Italy would not decline jurisdiction.

*444The court also properly declined to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 76-c). The child was no longer present in this jurisdiction, and petitioner’s unsubstantiated allegations were insufficient to establish that it was necessary in an emergency to protect the child.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Thomas P. Kealy, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BTU International, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 7, 2006       /s/ Thomas P. Kealy Thomas P. Kealy    Vice President, Corporate Controller and    Chief Accounting Officer (principal financial and accountingofficer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALVIN JOHNSON, :

: 

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-0526-WS-M 

: 

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., :

: 

 Defendants. : 

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby 

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey 

the Court’s Order.

DONE this 18th day of February, 2015.

 

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00526-WS-M Document 6 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Ammon R. Perry, Plaintiff, v Eastman Kodak Company, Defendant, and Nortel Networks, Inc., Respondent. Eastman Kodak Company, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Ambassador Communications, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 402]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), entered November 9, 2005. The order, among other things, denied the cross motion of third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.

Now, upon the stipulation discontinuing action signed by the attorneys for the parties and filed in the Monroe County Clerk’s Office on December 7, 2006,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present—Scudder, PJ., Hurlbutt, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.
#### Arthur N. Wood, Appellant, v Madison Realty Capital, L.P., Respondent.

[966 NYS2d 681]

In an action, inter alia, in effect, to set aside two mortgages, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bayne, J.), dated May 4, 2012, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that, pursuant to certain modification and extension agreements, the loan transaction at issue was ratified and all defenses to the enforcement of the subject notes and the mortgages were waived *(see Gro-Wit Capital, Ltd. v Obigor, LLC,*33 AD3d 859 [2006]; *Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co. v Mattera,*208 AD2d 490 [1994]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheets and  statements  of operations  found on pages 2-4 of the Company's  Form
10-Q/A for the year to date,  and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       292,415
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (292,415)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000840827
<NAME> IMTEK OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-3-1999
<CASH>                                         332,571
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,442,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,464,710
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,199,070
<PP&E>                                       3,364,242
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,251,838
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,295,680
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          837,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,957,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,251,838
<SALES>                                     53,590,675
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            53,590,675
<CGS>                                       38,464,373
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,845,616
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               656,946
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             742,255
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,623,740
<INCOME-TAX>                                   593,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            866,916
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   866,916
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1846 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1846

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, Office 
              of the Vice President for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, Office 
              of the Vice President for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR SENATE, OFFICE OF 
              THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Senate, Office of the 
Vice President for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $2,484,248.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul Bright, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 660]

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered December 14, 2010, as amended January 5, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his contention that his conviction under a count charging larceny from the person of another (Penal Law § 155.30 [5]) was based on legally insufficient evidence, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. Defendant’s claim is essentially similar to a claim this Court rejected, in an alternative holding, on the codefendant’s appeal *(People v Mack,*102 AD3d 438 [1st Dept 2013], *lv denied 21*NY3d 945 [2013]). To the extent defendant is raising any arguments not raised by the codefendant, we find them unavailing. The evidence clearly established that the victim was in physical contact with the property, in that, as we have already observed, defendant “took a backpack that was leaning against the victim” *(id.).*

Defendant’s challenge to police testimony regarding “lush workers” is likewise unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court properly exercised its discretion in admitting limited, nonprejudicial background testimony about the pickpocketing methods of “lush workers” who target sleeping victims on trains *576and in train stations *(see e.g. People v Perez,*16 AD3d 191 [1st Dept 2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 855 [2005]; *People v Right,*180 AD2d 430 [1st Dept 1992], *lv denied*79 NY2d 952 [1992]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Friedman, J.E, Renwick, Freedman and Feinman, JJ.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 22, 2015.

________________

No. 3D15-144

Lower Tribunal No. 98-31951

________________



### Daquilard Ilarion,

Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Eric William Hendon, Judge.

Daquilard Ilarion, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Douglas J. Glaid, Senior Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On Concession of ErrorDiquilard Ilarion appeals the trial court’s denial of his amended motion to

correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure

3.800(a). The trial court’s order on Ilarion’s amended motion determined correctly

that “the sentence as to count two exceeds the statutory maximum, and should be

reduced to 5 years in state prison.” In the written corrected sentence on count two

entered July 25, 2014, however, the trial court adjudicated Ilarion a violent career

criminal (VCC) in accordance with section 775.084(4), Florida Statutes (1999).

As correctly conceded by the State, the VCC adjudication was improper as

to count two, a grand theft conviction. Ubilla v. State

, 8 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA

2009). We reverse that adjudication and remand the case to the trial court to

remove the VCC designation from the sentence on count two. As a ministerial act,

the remand and corrected sentence will not require the personal presence of the

defendant.

Reversed and remanded for the issuance of a corrected sentence on count

two in accordance with this opinion.

2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1936 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1936

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 
              OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Labor, 
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs for fiscal year 2024 may 
not exceed $103,476,000.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00279-CR

NO. 03-07-00281-CR

Kristie Lee King, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

NO. 03-07-00280-CR

Kristie Lee Weiss aka Kristie Lee King, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 59216, 60589 & 59972, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

In cause number 59216, appellant Kristie Lee King was placed on deferred

adjudication supervision after she pleaded guilty to possessing less than four grams of

methamphetamine. See Tex. Health & SafetyCode Ann. § 481.115 (West 2003). She later pleaded

true to the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate, was adjudged guilty by the court, and

sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.
2

In cause number 59972, appellant pleaded guilty to possessing less than two hundred

grams of methamphetamine. See id. She was adjudged guilty by the court and sentenced to eighteen

years’ imprisonment.

In cause number 60589, appellant pleaded guilty to credit card abuse. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 32.31 (West Supp. 2006). She was adjudged guilty by the court and sentenced to two

years in state jail. All three sentences run concurrently.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief in each cause concluding that the

appeal is frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there

are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s briefs and was advised of her right

to examine the appellate records and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the records and counsel’s briefs and agree that the appeals are

frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the recordsthat might arguably support the appeals.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.
3

____________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Waldrop and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: November 15, 2007

Do Not Publish