alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of The New York County Lawyers’ Association et al., Appellants, and The New York Criminal Bar Association, Inc., et al., Intervenors-Petitioners-Appellants, v Michael R. Bloomberg, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Respondents, and The Legal Aid Society of New York, Intervenor-Respondent-Respondent.

Submitted December 10, 2012;

decided December 18, 2012

Motion by The New York Criminal Bar Association, Inc. et al. for reargument denied *[see*19 NY3d 712 (2012)].
Exhibit 11
**SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE**               **2003** **2002** **2001**BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE            Net income $15,307,893  $15,102,300  $13,808,555              Divide by: Weighted average shares outstanding*  13,438,007   13,547,299   13,897,764              Basic earnings per share* $1.14  $1.11  $0.99              DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE            Net income $15,307,893  $15,102,300  $13,808,555              Divide by: Weighted average shares outstanding*  13,438,007   13,547,299   13,897,764 Potentially dilutive effectof stock options*  78,693   5,270   2,363              Weighted average sharesoutstanding, includingpotentially dilutive effectof stock options*  13,516,700   13,552,569   13,900,127              Diluted earnings per share* $1.13  $1.11  $0.99              
* Amounts for periods prior to May 31, 2002 have been restated to reflect the5-for-4 stock split paid May 31, 2002.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1413]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Notice of Public Hearing

    Board Action: Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory 
committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of 
Procedure, as amended in April, 2004, notice is hereby given that the 
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) will hold a public 
hearing on February 25th 2009, to hear testimony from respondents to 
two recently published exposure drafts, Reporting Comprehensive Long-
Term Fiscal Projections for the U.S. Government and Accounting for 
Social Insurance, Revised. Those interested in testifying should 
contact Eileen Parlow, Assistant Director, no later than February. 
Please indicate whether you wish to provide testimony on one or both 
exposure drafts. Also, please provide a short biography and a separate 
statement summarizing your written response to each exposure draft on 
which you wish to testify. Ms. Parlow can be reached at 202-512-7356 or 
via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abdbcad9c7c4dcceebcdcad8cac985ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f08091829c9f8795b09691839192de979f86">[email protected]</span></a>. The exposure drafts are available on 
the FASAB Web site http://www.fasab.gov/exposure.html.
    Any interested person may attend the meetings as an observer. GAO 
Building Security requires advance notice of your attendance. Please 
notify FASAB of your planned attendance by calling 202-512-7350 at 
least one day prior to the respective meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 
441 G St., NW., Mail Stop 6K17V, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 
512-7350.

    Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub. L. No. 92-463.

    Dated: January 16, 2009.
Charles Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
 [FR Doc. E9-1413 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
M A N D A T E

TO THE 138TH DISTRICT COURT of CAMERON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 19th day of

March, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Michael A. Alex, Appellant,

v.

Brownsville Independent School

District

Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00643-CV (Tr.Ct.No. 2010-DCL-8142-B)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 25th day of June, 2015.

Cecile Foy Gsanger, CLERK

FILE COPY
#### In the Matter of Isabelita Gonzalez, Petitioner, and Emadelin Omar, Appellant, v Division of Housing and Community Renewal of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 24, 2012;

decided January 15, 2013

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fearless International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Jeffrey Binder, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

|Date: |  | November 13, 2007
|----- |  | -----------------
|     
|      |  | By:              
|      |  | Name:            
|      |  | Title:           

---
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 Sentry Petroleum Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Raj Rajeswaran, Chief Executive 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated this 3rd day of March, 2009.

| |     |                                                           
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------
| | BY: | RAJ RAJESWARANRaj Rajeswaran, 
Principal Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 22 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 22

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 4, 2019.
Whereas, Walter B. Jones, a Representative-elect from the Third District of the 
        State of North Carolina, has been unable from illness to appear in 
        person to be sworn as a Member of the House, and there being no contest 
        or question as to his election: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Speaker, or deputy named by her, is hereby authorized to 
administer the oath of office to the Honorable Walter B. Jones at Farmville, 
North Carolina, and that such oath be accepted and received by the House as the 
oath of office of the Honorable Walter B. Jones.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Ashburn, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Ashburn*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 1221.]

(No. 96-1585

Submitted April 1, 1997

Decided May 14, 1997.)

*David A. Hackenberg,*Director of Law, and *Robert A. Beutler, Jr.,*Assistant Director of Law, for appellee.

*Steven D. Christopher,*for appellant.

The appeal is dismissed, *sum sponte,*as having been improvidently allowed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SHAQUAN MCNEIL , Defendant Below

Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below

Appellee. § § No. 113 , 2016 § § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID Nos. 1409006640 and § 1409006067 § §
Su bmitted: April 13 , 2016 Decided: May 23 , 2016
Before HOLLAND , VALIHURA , and VAUGHN , Justices.
O R D E R
This 23 rd day of May 2016 , it appears to the Court that: (1) On March 9 , 2016 , the Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal from his Superior Court sentenc e imposed on February 5 , 2016.
Under Supreme Court Rule 6 (a)(i ii ) , a timely notice of appeal should have
been filed on or before March 7 , 2016

. (2) The Clerk issued a notice directing the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. 1 The appellant did not file a response to the notice to show cause

. Although the Court could have deemed dismissal of this appeal to be unopposed under Rule 3(b)(2), we

1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b) (2016)

.2

inste ad directed the lawyer who represented the appellant in the Superior Court proceedings to file a response to the notice to show cause. Counsel filed his response on April 7, 2016, assert ing that the sentencing order from which the appellant filed his pro se notice of appeal was imposed after the

ent ry of a negotiated guilty plea. Counsel states that the appellant acknowledged as part of that plea that he was waiv ing his right to file an appeal . T hus, counsel did not file a notice of appeal on the appella nt’s
behalf. ( 3 ) The State filed a reply on April 13, 2016, stating that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s untimely appeal. We agree.
T ime is a jurisdictional requirement

. 2 A notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period in
order to be effective. 3 U nless the appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court personnel, his appeal
cannot be conside red. 4
(4 ) There is no suggestion that the appellant’s untimely filing in
this case is attributable to court personnel. Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of

2 Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del.), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 829 (1989).
3 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a) (2016)

. 4 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).3

a notice of appeal. Thus, the Court concludes that the within appeal must be
dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura Justice
Gaming Revenues by Region

Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Revenue

Submissions Revenues Submissions Revenues Submissions Revenues Percentage

Portland 53 $3,177,311 52 $3,022,108 1 $155,203 5.1%

Sacramento 70 $8,380,918 71 $7,881,104 (1) $499,814 6.3%

Phoenix 57 $2,932,157 53 $2,807,744 4 $124,413 4.4%

St. Paul 132 $4,884,335 134 $4,829,181 (2) $55,153 1.1%

Tulsa 69 $2,295,202 68 $2,206,538 1 $88,663 4.0%

OK City 66 $2,264,665 65 $2,141,567 1 $123,098 5.7%

Washington DC 37 $7,260,962 31 $6,993,501 6 $267,460 3.8%

Totals 484 $31,195,549 474 $29,881,744 10 $1,313,805 4.4%

Portland Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Sacramento California, and Northern Nevada

Phoenix Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Southern Nevada.

St. Paul Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming

Tulsa Kansas, and Eastern Oklahoma.

OK City Western Oklahoma and Texas.

Washington DC Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and New York.

Source: Compiled from gaming operation audited financial statements received by the NIGC through June 26, 2017.

National Indian Gaming Commission

Tribal Gaming Revenues (in thousands) by Region

Fiscal Year 2016 and 2015

Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2015 Increase (decrease)
#### In the Matter of Robert Palumbo, Petitioner, v Nassau County Supreme Court et al., Respondents.

[821 NYS2d 910]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondents “to immediately set a sum certain according to the terms of prior judgments and orders” entered in an action entitled *Palumbo v Palumbo*pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under index No. 97-024096.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Spolzino, J.E, Skelos, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14762]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,653]


Munson Machinery Company, Utica, NY; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Reconsideration of Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance

    By letter dated June 2, 2009, a petitioner requested administrative 
reconsideration regarding Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(ATAA) applicable to workers of the subject firm. The negative 
determination was signed on May 14, 2009. The notice of negative 
determination for ATAA will soon be published in the Federal Register.
    The workers of Munson Machinery Company, Utica, New York were 
certified eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on 
May 14, 2009.
    The initial ATAA investigation determined that workers of the 
workers' firm possess skills that are easily transferrable.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided 
additional information regarding the skills of the workers and that the 
skills of the workers employed at the subject firm are not easily 
transferrable to other businesses within the local commuting area. The 
company official provided sufficient information confirming this 
statement.
    Additional investigation has determined that the workers possess 
skills that are not easily transferable and that the conditions within 
the industry are adverse. A significant number or proportion of the 
worker group is age fifty years or over.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the additional facts obtained on 
reconsideration, I conclude that the requirements of Section 246 of the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have been met for workers at the subject 
firm.
    In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following 
revised determination:

All workers of Munson Machinery Company, Utica, New York, who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 11, 
2008 through May 14, 2011, are eligible to apply for alternative 
trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 
1974.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 16th day of June, 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-14762 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
NUMBER 13-15-00317-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. STEPHEN B. TYLER

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes

Per Curiam Order

Relator, the State of Texas ex rel. Stephen B. Tyler, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus and motion for emergency stay in the above cause on July 14, 2015. Through 

this original proceeding, relator seeks to compel the trial court to empanel a jury to 

conduct the sentencing hearing in this matter and to prohibit the trial court from entering 

a judgment in the case until such has occurred. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion for emergency stay, 

is of the opinion that said motion should be granted. The motion for emergency stay is 

hereby GRANTED, and the trial court proceedings, including any sentencing hearing, are 
2

ordered STAYED pending further order of this Court, or until the case is finally decided. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary 

relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). 

The Court requests that the real party in interest, Javier Lopez, Jr., or any others 

whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the 

petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this 

order. See id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

14th day of July, 2015.
#### In the Matter of Anna Ciano, Appellant, v Maxwell J. Wiley et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 8, 2013;

decided September 3, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the issues presented have become moot.

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
**EXHIBIT 10 (f)**

THE BLACK & DECKER1996 STOCK OPTION PLAN 

        Theproper execution of the duties and responsibilities of the executives and other keyemployees of The Black & Decker Corporation and its subsidiaries is a vitalfactor in the continued growth and success of the Corporation. Toward this end, it isnecessary to attract and retain effective and capable employees to assume positions thatcontribute materially to the successful operation of the business of the Corporation. Itwill benefit the Corporation, therefore, to bind the interests of these persons moreclosely to its own interests by offering them an attractive opportunity to acquire aproprietary interest in the Corporation and thereby provide them with added incentive toremain in its employ and to increase the prosperity, growth, and earnings of theCorporation. This stock option plan will serve these purposes. 

ARTICLE 1:00 

Definitions 

        Thefollowing terms wherever used herein shall have the meanings set forth below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              10
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,147
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (75)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,131
<PP&E>                                             216
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (106)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,772
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           425
<OTHER-SE>                                       (585)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,887
<SALES>                                         34,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,035
<CGS>                                           33,614
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   492
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,518)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        63
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,581)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (15)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    898
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,698)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (3,698)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.38)
        

</TABLE>
#### Donald Felix, Respondent, v Law Office of Thomas F. Liotti, Appellant.

Submitted May 14, 2012;

decided June 7, 2012

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*18 NY3d 974 (2012)]. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1963

ROBERT E. FENER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES HUNT, District Ranger, Pedlar District;

MIKE DOMBECK, Chief U. S. Forest Service U. S.

Department of Agriculture,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-24-L)

Submitted: May 29, 1998 Decided: June 23, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert E. Fener, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Hoe Donahue, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Julie C. Dudley, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert E. Fener appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment for the Defendants in Fener’s action challenging

a decision of the United States Forest Service to implement a timber sale in the George Washington National Forest. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Fener v. Hunt, No. CA-97-24-L (W.D. Va. June 24, 1997). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Jennifer Cangro, Appellant, v John Z. Marangos, Respondent.

Submitted August 13, 2012;

decided October 25, 2012

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.