alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NAL FINANCIAL GROUP INC.
                Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)


                                                      For the years ended
                                                      -------------------
                                                        1996       1995
                                                      -------    -------

Primary:

Weighted average shares outstanding                     6,985      5,882
Net effect of dilutive stock options
     based on the modified treasury stock method        1,208        318
                                                      -------    -------
Total weighted average shares outstanding               8,193      6,200
                                                      =======    =======
Net Income                                            $ 7,268    $ 2,797

Income adjustment relating to reduction
     of debt based on the modified treasury method        417       --
                                                      -------    -------
Net income available to common
     and common equivalent shares                     $ 7,685    $ 2,797
                                                      =======    =======
Per share amount                                      $  0.94    $  0.45
                                                      =======    =======


Fully Diluted:

Weighted average shares outstanding                     6,985      5,882
Net effect of dilutive stock options
     based on the modified treasury stock method        1,208        322
Net effect of dilutive subordinated
     debentures based on the if converted method        2,394       --
                                                      -------    -------
Total weighted average shares outstanding              10,587      6,204
                                                      =======    =======

Net Income                                            $ 7,268    $ 2,797

Income adjustment relating to reduction
     of debt based on the modified treasury method        417       --
Income adjustment relating to reduction
     of debt based on the if converted method           1,364       --
                                                      -------    -------
Net income available to common
     and common equivalent shares                     $ 9,049    $ 2,797
                                                      =======    =======
Per share amount                                      $  0.86    $  0.45
                                                      =======    =======
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenji P. WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-2128.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 1, 2013.

Filed: March 8, 2013.

Thomas J. Notestine, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Justin G. Davids, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kenji Walker pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court1 calculated a Sentencing Guidelines imprisonment range of 78-97 months. To calculate the base offense level, the court applied USSG § 2A1.3 (Guideline for voluntary manslaughter) through the USSG § 2K2.1 cross reference after it determined that Walker’s fatal shooting of Keith Williams was most analogous to voluntary manslaughter. *See*USSG § 2K2.1(c)(l)(B) (if defendant used or possessed “any firearm” in connection with commission of another offense and death resulted, apply, if greater, offense level for most analogous homicide offense under USSG § 2A1). The district court varied upward to impose a sentence of 108 months in prison. On appeal, Walker’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the court erred in applying the cross reference because Walker shot Williams in self-defense.

We conclude that the application of the cross reference was appropriate, in view of the evidence undermining Walker’s self-defense claim. *See United States v. Tyerman,*701 F.3d 552, 566 (8th Cir.2012) (standard of review). We further conclude that the district court properly considered the sentencing factors and that the sentence is not unreasonable. *See United States v. Farmer,*647 F.3d 1175, 1178 (8th Cir.2011) (standard of review); *United States v. Mangum,*625 F.3d 466, 470 (8th Cir.2010) (upward-variance sentence is reasonable where court makes individualized assessment *of*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors based on facts presented, and considers defendant’s proffered information).

Having reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district *639court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
**Exhibit3.5**

| * * | *State of Delaware*              |
|----------|----------------------------------|
| * * | *Secretary  of State*            |
| * * | *Division  of Corporations*      |
| * * | *Delivered  12:00 PM 10/11/2006* |
| * * | *FILED  12:00 PM 10/11/2006*     |
| * * | *SRV  060934804 - 3379687 FILE*  |

 

**STATE OF DELAWARECERTIFICATE of AMENDMENT ofCERTIFICATE of INCORPORATION ofWORLDWATER & POWER CORP.**

----

**First:  **That a meeting ofthe Board of Directors of WorldWater & Power Corp., resolutions were dulyadopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the Certificate of Incorporationof said corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and calling a meetingof the shareholders of said corporation for consideration thereof.

The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment isas follows:

**Resolved,** that the Certificateof Incorporation of this corporation be amended by changing the followingarticle:

Article numbered *Four* so that,as amended, said Article shall be and read as follows:

*“AuthorizedCapital.   The total number of shares that may be issued by theCorporation is two hundred eighty five million (285,000,000), of which:*

*a)**              twohundred seventy-five million (275,000,000) shares with a par value of one-tenthof one cent ($.001) per share shall be designated as Common Stock; AND*

*b)**              tenmillion (10,000,000) shares with a par value of one cent ($.01) per share shallbe designated as Preferred Stock.*

*The designations, preferences and relativeparticipations, options or other rights or qualifications, limitations orrestrictions thereof shall be fixed by resolution of the Board of Directors.”*

**Second:****  **Thatthereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, the annualmeeting of the stockholders of said corporation was dully called and held, uponnotice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of theState of Delaware, and at which meeting the necessary number of shares asrequired by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

**Third:****  **Thatsaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

**Fourth:****  **That the capital of said corporation shall notbe reduced under or by reason of said amendment.

|                              | **WORLDWATER & POWER CORP.** |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| Dated: October 5,  2006 | By:                              | /s/ QUENTIN T.  KELLY |
|                         | Name:                            | QUENTIN T. KELLY |
|                         | Title:                           | Chairman |

 

----
#### Albert Ruggiere, Appellant, v Cablevision of New York City-Phase I L.P. et al., Respondents.

[976 NYS2d 879]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered January 8, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendant Cablevision Systems New York City Corporation, sued herein as Cablevision of New York City-Phase I L.P (Cablevision), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell on snow in the parking lot of premises owned by defendant Topeka Realty Company, Inc. and leased by his employer defendant Cablevision. The court properly dismissed the complaint as against Cablevision since it was demonstrated that a snowstorm was in progress at the time of plaintiffs fall *(see Pippo v City of New York,*43 AD3d 303, 304 [1st Dept 2007]). The exception to the “storm-in-progress” doctrine, on which plaintiff seeks to rely, is not applicable here, since plaintiff was not involved in a construction-related accident, nor was any Industrial Code regulation violated to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim *(compare Booth v Seven World Trade Co., L.P.,*82 AD3d 499, 501-502 [1st Dept 2011]; *Rothschild v Faber Homes,*247 AD2d 889, 891 [4th Dept 1998]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman and Gische, JJ.
@article{1215301,
  author = {Tara Fortin and Mark O. McLinden},
  title = {Vapor and Liquid (p-ρ-T-x) Measurements of Binary Refrigerant Blends Containing R-32, R-152a, R-227ea, R-1234yf, and R 1234ze(E)},
  year = {2023},
  number = {68},
  month = {2023-06-14 04:06:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935652},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jced.3c00104},
  language = {en},
}
#### Henry K. Rutan *vs.*Theodore E. Ludlam.

R. sold to L, a horse, for which L. conveyed to him a house and lot, and gave a note for §25. L. brought a suit against R. to recover damages for a false warranty of the horse; *held,*that evidence of the value of the house and lot was inadmissible, the only question in the case being the difference in value between a sound horse and an unsound one.

*Certiorari*to Passaic Pleas.

Vredenburgh, J.

This was an action on the case, brought before a justice by Ludlam against Rutan, for a false warranty of a horse sold by Rutan to Ludlam. Among other evidence before the pleas, witnesses testified that Rutan received from Ludlam, for the horse, a deed for a house and lot and a note for $25.

Rutan proved that the horse was not worth more than $600 by some witnesses, one witness testifying that it was worth $650.

Ludlam then proved that one person had offered the defendant $750 for the horse.

Rutan offered then to rebut this last evidence, which being objected to was overruled.

This was considered to be erroneous.

It appears to me that the whole inquiry was entirely immaterial. The suit was brought for a false warranty, and the inquiry was not as to the worth of the house and lot, but what was the difference in value between a sound horse and an unsound one.

It is said that the value of the lot may be inquired into to show what both parties thought the horse would have been worth if sound. But I do not see that the worth of the lot is any evidence that the defendant considered the $25 and the lot was worth as much as the horse; on the contrary, it appears to me that it is evidence that he did not, for otherwise why did he trade? His object was to get something of more value, and to get the advantage by *399the superiority of his judgment. To measure the value of the horse by the value of the lot, is to take from the plaintiff the value of his trade, and give it to the defendant. If the plaintiff, at the trade, had averred the lot to have been of any particular value, it would have gone to show what he considered the value of the horse, otherwise giving evidence of the value of the lot only offered to the jury a false measure of damages.

I see no error. Let the judgment be affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1898
TAMMANTHA P. SHAW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-97-150) Submitted: October 14, 1997 Decided: October 28, 1997 Before HALL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tamma ntha P. Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. James Phillip Naughton, Thomas Jackson Mitchell, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Tammantha P. Shaw appeals the district court's order denyingthe motion for a continuance and dismissing the case without prejudice for failing to prosecute. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Shaw v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. , No. CA-97-150 (E.D. Va. June 10, 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
November 12, 2015 www.bls.gov

Data Users Advisory Committee (DUAC) Agenda

Kathy Frederickson‐Mele • Mele.Kathy@bls.gov • http://www.bls.gov/bls/duac.htm • 202.691.6102

8:30 a.m. Registration 

9:00 a.m. Commissioner’s welcome and review of agency developments (Erica Groshen) 

9:45 a.m. BLS Communications Plan (Megan Kindelan, Gary Gates) 

10:30 a.m. Break 

10:45 a.m. BLS Initiatives – 2015 and beyond (Bill Wiatrowski) 

11:45 p.m. Lunch (WIOA - Mike Horrigan, Kim Vitelli) 

1:00 p.m. Reporting/displaying survey error estimates (Ken Robertson, Alison Morantz) 

2:00 p.m. What is the value of the information BLS provides? (John Eltinge, Andrew Reamer) 

3:00 p.m. Break 

3:15 p.m. OPT Glossary of Terms (Clayton Waring, Kathryn Kobe) 

4:00 p.m. BLS Just-in-Time News Release (Amrit Kohli, Maurine Haver) 

4:45 p.m. Meeting wrap-up
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15E0038. VANCE v. WALKER.

William Vere Vance, IV has filed a motion seeking an extension of time in

which to file an application for discretionary appeal of a June 22, 2015 order denying

his motion for new trial. Vance seeks an extension from a due date of July 22, 2015,

to a due date of August 11, 2015, citing a delay in his receipt of the relevant

transcript. Appellant’s motion is hereby GRANTED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/15/2015

July 15, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15661]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6689]


In the Matter of the Designation of Kata'ib Hizballah (and Other 
Aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary 
of the Treasury, I conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to 
find that the relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter ``INA'') (8 
U.S.C. 1189), exist with respect to Kata'ib Hizballah (and other 
aliases).
    Therefore, I hereby designate that organization and its aliases as 
a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the INA.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: June 24 2009.
James Steinberg,
Deputy Secretary of State, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-15661 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
# Result 6.2
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Kevin W., Respondent.

Submitted October 1, 2012;

decided October 18, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.
**Exhibit 31.2****Certification**I, Teresa L. Martin, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FGBC Bancshares, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designated such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) [Omitted];     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 10, 2007              /s/ Teresa L. Martin   Teresa L. Martin   Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31441-31442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15510]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 27, 2009.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offerbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:


[[Page 31442]]

    Cache Holdings, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma, to become a bank holding 
company through the acquisition of 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Healthcare Bancorp, Inc., parent of First BankCentre, both in Broken 
Arrow, Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 26, 2009.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-15510 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S