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



                                                                     Exhibit 11

                      DI INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

            COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON STOCK SHARE
                    (in thousands except per share amounts)
                                  (Unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Three Months Ended            Six Months Ended
                                                               June 30,                     June 30,
                                                     ---------------------------    --------------------------
                                                         1997           1996           1997            1996
                                                     -------------   -----------    -----------    -----------
<S>                                                  <C>             <C>            <C>            <C>         
Income (loss) per share:

Net income (loss)                                    $     1,040     $       524    $     3,354    $      (967)

Less:    Series A preferred stock
             redemption premium                             (218)              -           (240)             -
         Series B preferred stock subscription
             dividend requirement                              -            (150)             -           (300)
                                                     -----------     -----------    -----------    -----------

Net income (loss) applicable to common stock         $       822     $       374    $     3,114    $    (1,267)
                                                     ===========     ===========    ===========    ===========

Income (loss) per common share                       $       .01     $       .01    $       .02    $      (.03)
                                                     ===========     ===========    ===========    ===========

Weighted average shares of common stock
     outstanding for per share computation               138,152          38,694        135,756         38,682
                                                     ===========     ===========    ===========    ===========
</TABLE>



Note:    Reference is made to Note 2 to Consolidated Financial Statements 
         regarding computation of per common stock share amounts.

(a)  Stock options are not included since inclusion would be either
     antidilutive or not significant for all the periods presented.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herbert Edney, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 293]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (St. George, J), dated May 23, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new risk assessment hearing and a new risk level determination, to be preceded by receipt of a recommendation from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders pursuant to Correction Law § *168-1 upon*notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3).

As the People correctly concede, the hearing court improperly concluded that the application of a presumptive override was mandatory *(see People v Taylor,*103 AD3d 867, 868 [2013]; *People v Reynolds,*68 AD3d 955, 956 [2009]; *People v Sanchez,*20 AD3d 693, 695 [2005]). Further, the defendant was not timely notified of his opportunity to submit to the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter the Board), before the Board issued its report and recommendation, any information which he believed was relevant for its review *(see People v Black,*33 AD3d 981, 982 [2006]). Moreover, the defendant was not properly advised of his statutory right to counsel at the hearing *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Therefore, his waiver of counsel at the hearing was invalid *(see People v Wilson,*103 AD3d 1178, 1179 [2013]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination.

*613Accordingly, we reverse the order and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new risk assessment hearing and a new risk level determination, to be preceded by receipt of a recommendation from the Board pursuant to Correction Law § 168-Z upon notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Emerson Electric Co. Exhibit 10.5 to Form 8K







Exhibit 10.5









C  E   R   T   I  
F   I   C   A   T   E 




EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. 



         [YEAR] PERFORMANCE SHARES PROGRAM 








        THIS
CERTIFIES that [NAME] is entitled to be a participant in Emerson Electric Co.‘s
[YEAR] Performance Shares Program under the 1997 Incentive Shares Plan
approved and adopted by the Board of Directors on October 1, 1996, and has been awarded
[NUMBER OF] Units, all in accordance with the terms and provisions of said Plan. 



        Dated this __ day of   _______________.







		
 	
	  	For the Compensation and Human

                                                     Resources Committee 	  







      INTRA-COMPANY
CORRESPONDENCE





	TO: 	
 	  


	FROM: 	
	  


	DATE: 	
 	  


	FILE: 	20-- PERFORMANCE SHARES PROGRAM AWARD	  


	SUBJECT: 	Acceptance of Award and Change of Control Election	  




This is to advise that in
consideration of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee’s award of
Performance Units in the 20 — Performance Shares Program under the 1997 Incentive
Shares Plan, (1) I accept such participation upon the terms contained in the Award
Certificate and the attached Plan document, and (2) I agree that during my employment by
Emerson or any of its divisions, subsidiaries or affiliates (collectively,
“Emerson”), and for a period of two (2) years after termination of such
employment for any reason, I will not directly or indirectly engage in competition with,
or enter the employ of or assist any person, firm, corporation or other entity engaged in
a business competitive with, any business of Emerson in which I was employed, or solicit
or hire any Emerson employees, even though no payment has been made to me under the terms
of the Plan. I also agree Missouri law governs this agreement and consent to resolve any
disputes in the courts in the state of Missouri. 



I, ________________________ 



	   [   ] 	
do
not elect a deferred payment option as provided under the Plan.







	   [   ] 	
hereby, irrevocably elect the deferred payment option as permitted in the Plan. Payments are to be
paid annually on March 15th beginning ___________ (year) (not earlier than 20 — ) and to be
paid over _______ years. 








In the event of a Change of
Control as defined in the 1997 Incentive Shares Plan, I hereby elect to receive any
benefit due under Section 12 of the Plan (choose one): 




	   [   ] 	
upon the Change of Control in a lump sum distribution;




		              or 




	   [   ] 	upon termination
of employment occurring after a Change of Control, in the form of:






	 	[a]  _______ a lump sum distribution; or






	 	[b]  _______ in installments as indicated above. 






I acknowledge I have read and
understand the above, the Plan and Program Highlights and agree to the terms of the award
as set forth therein. 


	
 	  	
 


	Date 	  	Please print or type full name 




		  	
 


		  	Signature
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 Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending August 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chiu M. Chan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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) 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.



|                         |  |  |  |                                                                           
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: November 16, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Chiu M. Chan                                                          
|                         |  |  |  | Chiu M. Chan President and Chief Executive
Officer Dynacq Healthcare, Inc.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lester Ray MORGAN, also known as Rat, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-11092

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

Suzanna O. Etessam, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ira Raymond Kirkendoll, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendan1>-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed for Lester Ray Morgan has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of counsel’s brief, the record, and Morgan’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.1

Officers Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C 1350)

In connection with the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation, (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Wm. Stacy Locke, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Report is in full compliance 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.



|                      |  |  |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: August 6, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Wm. Stacy Locke                  
|                      |  |  |  | Wm. Stacy Locke                      
|                      |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of WMS Industries, Inc. (“the Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, Brian R. Gamache, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ Brian R. Gamache 

Brian R. Gamache 

Chief Executive Officer 

February 4, 2009 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of WMS Industries, Inc. (“the Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (“the Report”), I, Scott D. Schweinfurth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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. 

/s/ Scott D. Schweinfurth 

Scott D. Schweinfurth 

Chief Financial Officer 

February 4, 2009
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk July 24, 2012

s0716 

# Order

July 24, 2012

144190

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144190

COA: 305176

Monroe CC: 98

- 029618

- FH;

99

- 030238

- FH

DERRICK MITCHELL

- EL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 7, 2011

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SONYA WOLF, an individual; ROGER CRAIG, in his capacity as Guardian ad Litem for the Minor N. H., Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. CITY OF STOCKTON; SANDOVAL, individually and in his in his official capacity as police officer for the City of Stockton; AZVERAND, individually and in his official capacity as police officer for the City of Stockton; DOES 1-20, Defendants - Appellees. No. 10-15776D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00964-FCDGGH
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Frank C. Damrell, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 13, 2011 **

San Francisco, California 

# FILED
JUL 01 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS*** The Honorable William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge for the District of Southern California, sitting by designation. 2 Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and HAYES, District Judge. *** Sonya Wolf and Roger Craig appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Stoc kton and to Officers Darren Sandoval and Eric Azervand. As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision. The officers’ limited search of Wolf’s van was justified under the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment. See Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U.S. 398, 403–04 (2006); United States v. Cervantes , 219 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2000). Given the concerns of Nicholas’s father , the unusual living conditions inside the van, and Wolf’s uncooperative and disruptiv e behavior, the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that Nicholas was residing in a situation unsafe for a young child, and thus that a potential emergency situation required further investigation. See United States v. Bradley , 321 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2003); White v. Pierce Cnty. , 797 F.2d 812 (9th Cir. 1986). The officers’ search of the van and interview with Nicholas did not go beyond that which was necessary to determine that he was safe. See Martin v. City of Oceanside , 360 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2004).3 Furthermore, the officers’ brief detention of Wolf during the interview with Nicholas did not violate the Fourth Amendment. By her own admission, Wolf was disrupting the officers’ attempts to speak with Nicholas. Because their investigation of Nicholas’s welfare was valid under the Fourth Amendment, so too was their reasonable decision temporarily to detain Wolf to facilitate such investigation. Wolf remained within clear sight of Nicholas throughout the interview, and her detention lasted no l onger than necessary to facilitate the officers’ investigation. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Olubanji Milton MACAULAY, also known as Benji Macaulay, also known as Reginald Eugene Harris, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51005

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 1, 2006.

*414Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John Wolfgang Gehart, Vellanoweth *&*Gehart, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Olubanji Milton Macaulay was convicted by a jury on three counts of perjury and five counts of falsely asserting that he was a United States citizen. Macaulay filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied Macaulay’s motion but granted a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue whether his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by interfering with his right to testify.

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Macaulay must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687-94, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Failure to establish either deficient performance or prejudice is fatal to the claim. *Id.*at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

The district court determined that counsel’s advice against testifying did not render his performance deficient, considering Macaulay’s prior convictions involving mendacity and the lack of evidentiary support for his claim of citizenship. Macaulay states that he would have testified that he had lied in the past but that he sincerely believed in his citizenship. He acknowledges that he had no evidence to support this claim, either documents or testimony. Given his prior criminal history, his lack of evidentiary support, and the anticipated nature of his potential testimony, counsel’s advice against testifying was sound trial strategy. *See United States v. Mullins,*315 F.3d 449, 453-54 (5th Cir.2002).

The district court’s ruling, including the sentence imposed, are

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                    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

As of the date  hereof,  I, Steven G.  Mihaylo,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report of Inter-Tel,  Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the  requirements of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  exchange  Act of  1934  and  that
information  contained in such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material  respects the  financial  condition  and results of  operations  of
Inter-Tel, Incorporated.


                                        By: /s/ Steven G. Mihaylo
                                            ------------------------------------

                                        Name: Steven G. Mihaylo
                                              ----------------------------------

                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                               ---------------------------------

                                        Dated: November 8, 2002
                                               ---------------------------------
Order entered June 19, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 01299 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF J .C., ET AL On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 76 - 08723 - V 

### O RDER B e cause appellant’s brief does not meet the general requirements of Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure 9 and 38, we STRIKE the brief filed June 2, 2015

. We ORDER appellant to file , no later than July 9, 2015 , a brief that conforms with rule s 9 and 38 inc luding the requirement that it not exceed 15,000 words if computer

- generated and 50 pages if not and the requirements that it contain ( 1 ) a table of contents indicating the subject matter of each issue or point, or group of issues or points; (2) an index o f authorities arranged alphabetically and indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities are cited; (3) a concise statement of the case, the course of proceedings, the trial court’s disposition of the case, and the facts supported by record refere nces; ( 4 ) appropriate citations to authorities and the record in the argument portion; and, (5) a certificate of compliance regarding word count if computer

- generated. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.4( i)(2)(B),(3); 38.1. Additionally, any documents which contain sensitive data such as a child’s name and which are in cluded in the appendix must be redacted by using theletter “X” in place of each omitted item or by removing the sensitive data in a manner indicating the data has been redacted

. See id. 9.9(a),(c). We caution appellant that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this appeal without further notice.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE