alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| NORTHEAST BANCORP                                                 |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Exhibit 11. Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                              |   | Year Ended |   |   | Year Ended |   |
|                                                              |   | June 30, 2009 |   |   | June 30, 2008 |   |
| EQUIVALENT SHARES:                                                |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted Average Shares Outstanding                               |   |   | 2,319,830 |   |   |   | 2,352,484 |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total Diluted Shares                                              |   |   | 2,321,929 |   |   |   | 2,366,340 |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net Income                                                        |   | $ | 958,989 |   |   | $ | 1,931,289 |   |
| Less:                                                             |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|    Preferred Stock Dividend                        |   |   | 117,038 |   |   |   | - |   |
|    Accretion of Preferred Stock                    |   |   | 14,483 |   |   |   | - |   |
|    Amortization of issuance costs                  |   |   | 2,866 |   |   |   | - |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net income available to common stockholders                       |   | $ | 824,602 |   |   | $ | 1,931,289 |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Basic Earnings Per Share                                          |   | $ | 0.36 |   |   | $ | 0.82 |   |
|                                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted Earnings Per Share                                        |   | $ | 0.36 |   |   | $ | 0.82 |   |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Troy Smith, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 460]

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered November 8, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and menacing under indictment No. 02-00025, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court also rendered November 8, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts) under indictment No. 02-00348, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment under indictment No. 02-00025 is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed for the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree; as so modified, the judgment under Orange County indictment No. 02-00025 is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County for resentencing in accordance herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment rendered under indictment No. 02-00348 is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt under indictment No. 02-00025. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination *944should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo, 44*AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

As the People correctly concede, the court erred in sentencing the defendant as a persistent violent felony offender on the charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [1]) under indictment No. 02-00025, as that charge does not qualify as a violent felony under the statute *(see*Penal Law § 70.08 [1] [a]). Therefore, the judgment must be modified to vacate the sentence on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under indictment No. 02-00025, and the matter remitted for resentencing on that count.

The remainder of the sentences imposed were not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### Union Ins. Co. of Philadelphia *v.*The Bridgeport and The William Burrows. Potts *et al. v.*Same.

*(Circuit Court, E. D. New York.*

July 5, 1888.)

In Admiralty. On appeal from district court, *ante,*222.

*Sydney Chubb,*for Potts.

*Carpenter & Mosher,*for the insurance company.

*Benedict, Taft & Benedict,*for the Bridgeport.

*Edwin G. Davis,*for the Burrows.

Blatchford, Justice.

'I concur with the district judge in his views and conclusions in his decision in these cases. In the first-entitled case let there be a decree for the libelant for $700, with interest from December 24,1883, and its costs in the district court, taxed at $71.24, and its costs in this court, to be taxed, against the steam-tug; and a decree dismissing the libel as against the steam-boat, with costs to her claimant in the district court, against the libelant, taxed at$48.03, and its costs in this court, against the libelant, to be taxed. In the second-entitled case, let there be a decree for the libelants for $469.05, with interest from October 1, 1883, and their costs in the district court, taxed at $76.13, and their costs in this court, to be taxed, against the steam-tug; and a decree dismissing the libel as against the steam-boat, with costs to her claimant, in the district court, against the libelants, taxed at $57.11, and its costs in this court, against the libelants, to be taxed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrence Lewis, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 459]

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J.), rendered on or about June 4, 2003, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Clair Cimino, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 664]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Fahey, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
#### VANDENBARK v. BUSIEK et al.

Civ. No. 146.

District Court, E. D. Illinois.

July 10, 1940.

J. Ivan Cole, of St. Elmo, Ill., for plaintiff.

Kern, Pearce & Pearce, of Carmi, Ill., and E. J. Lundy, of Tulsa, Okl., for defendant.

WHAM, District Judge.

The above case was set for trial at Benton, Illinois, on June 13, 1940. The parties appeared before the court and there was presented to the court, without prior notice, a motion on the part of the plaintiff to substitute as party plaintiff for Arthur Eugene Vandenbark the transferee pendente lite of the interests of said Arthur Eugene Vandenbark in the subject matter of said suit, namely, Natural Resources, Incorporated, a corporation. Upon objection to the allowance of said motion by defense, it was ordered by the court that instead of the substitution of parties, as prayed in said motion, said Natural Resources, Incorporated, be joined as a party plaintiff. The ruling of the court appears from the record as follows: “It is ordered by the court that said motion be and the same is hereby allowed and that the said Natural Resources, Incorporated, a corporation, of Martinsville, Indiana, be and it is hereby joined as a party plaintiff herein, to which ruling of the court, the defendants by counsel then and there excepted.” In subsequent minutes of the proceedings an error crept in whereby the said joinder was referred to as a substitution of parties.

After careful consideration of the procedural situation presented by the record, in the light of Rule 25(c), Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, I am of the opinion that my first impression, as expressed in the ruling mentioned above, that there should be a joinder of parties rather than a substitution of parties, was correct and I see no reason at this time for changing the order.

In view of the above facts, the motion of the defendants to strike the amended complaint in which Natural Resources, Incorporated, is substituted for Arthur Eugene Vandenbark as plaintiff instead of being joined with him as plaintiff, as directed in said order, is sustained and the amended complaint is stricken.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**JAMES D. SCHNELLER,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**DELAWARE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DELAWARE COUNTY**  **OPEN RECORDS OFFICER,**

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 129 MM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 3rd day of November, 2015, the Petition for R eview and the** 

**Application for Leave to Amend are** DENIED

**.**
@article{1213781,
  author = {Janet Carter and Sri Nadadur and Rhema Bjorkland and William Boyes and Chuck Geraci and Vincent A. Hackley and John Howard and Alan Kennedy and Igor Linkov and Joanna Matheson and Holly Mortensen and Custudio Muinga and Elijah Petersen and Nora Savage and Stacey Standridge and Trey Thomas and Benjamin Trump},
  title = {Federal perspective on critical research issues in nanoEHS},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-31 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Environmental Science: Nano},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935366},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1039/d3en00062a},
  language = {en},
}
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 Nos. 333-63855, 333-34197 and 333-34050) pertaining to the Atlantis
Plastics, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan, the Atlantis Plastics, Inc. 1997 Stock
Option Plan and the Atlantis Plastics, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan of our
report dated February 1, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Atlantis Plastics, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 28, 2002
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  informtion extracted from the balance
sheet and the  statement  of  operations  and is  qualified  in its  entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000811210
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                              52,484
<SECURITIES>                                        38,833
<RECEIVABLES>                                       31,435
<ALLOWANCES>                                            60
<INVENTORY>                                         58,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   184,201
<PP&E>                                             38,774
<DEPRECIATION>                                     16,161
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    266,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              68,415
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          317,133
<OTHER-SE>                                       (125,851)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      266,914
<SALES>                                            56,969
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  132,063
<CGS>                                              24,599
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     115,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (85,383)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       42,577
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (42,806)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (3.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (3.18)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7776

ROBERT WILLIAM MARTIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LYNN PHILLIPS, Director of Prisons; HAZEL

KEITH, Manager, Combined Records,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge.

(CA-95-909-5-BR)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert William Martin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. 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. Martin v. Phillips, No. CA-95-909-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Oct. 27,

1995). 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
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 57TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on May 6, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or

reverse your judgment between

Deepti Marimadaiah, Appellant

V.

Naresh Kumar Dahat, Appellee

No. 04-15-00210-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2013-CI-13649

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against the party who incurred

them.

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

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on July 13, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-15-00210-CV

Deepti Marimadaiah

v.

Naresh Kumar Dahat

(NO. 2013-CI-13649 IN 57TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

FILING

INDIGENT

$10.00

$50.00

$20.00

$100.00

$25.00

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

ROSIEE MAGOO

ROSIEE MAGOO

ROSIEE MAGOO

ROSIEE MAGOO

ROSIEE MAGOO

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this July 13, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

PETITION OF PETER KOSTYSHYN 

FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

§

§ No. 231, 2015

§

Submitted: June 11, 2015

 Decided: July 21, 2015

O R D E R

This 21st day of July 2015, it appears to the Court that, on May 27, 2015, the 

Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice to appellant to show cause why this appeal 

should not be dismissed for his failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by not 

complying with the Court’s May 7th directive to pay the filing fee or file an 

appropriate motion. The appellant failed to respond to the notice to show cause 

within the required ten-day period;1 therefore, dismissal of this action is deemed to 

be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Supreme 

Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice

 1 We acknowledge the appellant’s untimely response filed on June 15, 2015. Even if the 

Court were to consider his response, it would not change the dismissal of this appeal.
Exhibit 32.2

# 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 Annual Report
of The Black & Decker Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Mangan, Chief Financial Officer of
the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 Corporation.

|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ MICHAEL D. MANGAN
Michael D. Mangan
Chief Financial Officer
February 15, 2008

---
@article{1212481,
  author = {Matthew Hoehler and Artur A. Chernovsky and Matthew Bundy and Esther Baumann},
  title = {Coherent Laser Ranging of Deforming Objects in Fires at Sub-Millimeter Precision},
  year = {2023},
  number = {140},
  month = {2023-07-07 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Fire Safety Journal},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936329},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2023.103864},
  language = {en},
}
@article{1211941,
  author = {Megan Holtz and Elliot Padgett and Aaron Johnston-Peck and Igor Levin and David Muller and Andrew Herzing},
  title = {Mapping Polar Distortions using Nanobeam Electron Diffraction and a Cepstral Approach},
  year = {2023},
  number = {29},
  month = {2023-07-12 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Microscopy and Microanalysis},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935324},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/micmic/ozad070},
  language = {en},
}
#### SOUTHEASTERN COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE CO. v. PAGE et al.

No. 2181.

District Court, N. D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

March 20, 1940.

Tye, Thomson & Tye, of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.

Lawrence S. Camp, U. S. Dist. Atty., and Harvey H. Tisinger, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., both of Atlanta, Ga., for defendants.

BARRETT, District Judge.

It appearing to the court that the defendants by their counsel in the above-entitled cause filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition under Rule 12(b) (6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, on the 30th day of October, 1939:

*364It further appearing that the case having been regularly and duly assigned for hearing on the calendar for this date, and on motion of the defendant’s counsel, the plaintiff’s petition is dismissed for want of prosecution, and the motion to dismiss under said rule of the Rules of Civil Procedure be, and the same is hereby, sustained.

It is further considered, ordered, adjudged and decreed that judgment be entered against the plaintiff for the amount of costs of said proceeding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

     
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         283976
<SECURITIES>                                   0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11303156
<ALLOWANCES>                                   283284
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0      
<PP&E>                                         0      
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13447493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0      
<BONDS>                                        0      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          2041011
<PREFERRED>                                    0       
<COMMON>                                       0      
<OTHER-SE>                                     11406482
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13447493
<SALES>                                        0      
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1235726
<CGS>                                          0      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  59656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               344807
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             212915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                618348
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            618348 
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0      
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   618348 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .00    
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00    
        


</TABLE>